How can law firms improve staff retention and job satisfaction? Fiona Woolf reveals her plan to find best practice solutions


Staff retention and job satisfaction seem to be the buzzwords of the moment. In recent months some of the biggest law firms have set out staff-friendly policies, from flexible working initiatives aimed at retaining female staff to the creation of new roles outside those of the traditional career paths, aimed at offering alternative career choices.



Staff retention and job satisfaction are among the most important issues employers must address today, especially when considering that the pool of high- quality talent is not expanding within the professions – in law, accountancy and investment banking, employers are fishing in the same pond.



More specifically for solicitors, I have found that at the top 100 firms, staff retention at mid-career level is high on the agenda. This is echoed by a recent large-scale survey of the profession, which found that more than half of respondents from private practice and 30% of in-house counsel identified associate retention as a significant issue.



Given the importance to firms, the Law Society has decided to take a lead in better understanding the issue of staff retention and job satisfaction by exploring factors that help to retain employees and those that add to the problem of retention. Last week I launched the first stage of the ‘Great Quality of Life Debate’, which looks at associate retention across law, accountancy and investment banking. The Corporation of London and the Lord Mayor are supporting the initiative.



Increasingly our brightest and best are questioning existing working practices. The emerging culture is focusing on satisfaction and engagement. They see the traditional, long- hours culture as a pain and they demand a job that they enjoy, with the kind of supervision they like. Money is important to them but it is not everything, and they want to identify with and engage with their employers.



None of the recent survey work digs down into what employers and employees really think about their respective needs. There is clearly a debate to be had between the employers and the employees, associates and partners, in-house and private practice. Many of the firms I have spoken to are keen to engage with us on this and several have shown some innovative thinking. There may be no simple answers, but having the debate should allow us to share new ideas.



Our aim in this project is to identify how employers in the fields of law, accountancy, investment banking, financial services and central and local government are responding to the challenge of retaining and motivating professional staff. The first stage is a survey which is concerned with gaining an overview of the current retention situation and practices. Its aim is to map what practices are in place – for example, which working practices are most popular with staff and cost-effective for firms to provide

and which are most likely to promote staff retention?



Although the survey will not initially stratify by demographic factors such as gender, race or sexuality, the issues emerging will provide the basis for further research as the project progresses and will be teased out during the second stage.



The second stage is the great debate, where we will share the results of the best practice survey with the profession and invite firms, groups, local law societies and in-house legal teams to organise groups of around eight to ten people to discuss the findings and provide us with their thoughts. We need to establish whether the best practice really meets their needs. The Law Society is also helping to organise discussions with heads of human resource departments, employees and employers and mixed groups

of all three.



The idea is to test the findings against the expectations of professionals and identify any mismatch. Perhaps we will explode a few myths in the process – for example, the desire of in-house counsel to debunk the notion that working in-house is an easy option.



The Law Society will publicise the survey’s findings in the summer and decide what should happen next. It is essential that we celebrate successes and share best practice to give people ideas that could work.



At the launch event we heard some interesting messages from Jonathan Austin, of Best Companies, the researchers who compile the basis of the Sunday Times Best Companies to Work For survey. His findings showed that on each of the eight engagement categories – leadership, personal growth, my manager, my company, my team, well-being, giving something back and getting a fair deal – law is well beaten by accountancy, especially in the areas of leadership, giving something back and personal growth. We should address these issues, and I hope the great debate will make a start in doing so.



It is good to see the profession is attracting an ever more diverse membership, with a blossoming in the number of women and ethnic minority law students and trainees in recent years. We are now focusing on job satisfaction, retention and barriers to advancement – moving beyond a tick-box culture of monitoring and surveys to real integration and empowerment. The Best Companies research shows that paying attention to this will improve productivity and profitability in the long run.



To take part in the project, email Tara.Chittenden@lawsociety.org.uk.



Fiona Woolf is the Law Society President