Marcie Borgal Shunk and Sona Spencer | The Death of Apprenticeship: What it Means for Lawyers and Law Firms

Elise Holtzman: Hi, everyone. It's Elise Holtzman here, a former practicing lawyer and the host of The Lawyer’s Edge podcast. Welcome back for another episode. For decades, law firms have relied on the apprenticeship model. Junior lawyers learn by doing, working closely with more senior attorneys over time. But that model is under pressure and in many cases, it's just breaking down. In this episode, we're going to explore what's driving that shift and what it means in practice, both for firms trying to develop their talent and for lawyers trying to build the skills they need to succeed. We're going to talk about why traditional approaches to training aren't keeping peace with today's market, what's replacing them, and how firms can think more strategically about developing the next generation of lawyers.

Before we dive in, today's episode is brought to you by the coaching team at The Lawyer’s Edge, a training and coaching firm, which has been focused exclusively on lawyers and law firms since 2008. Each member of the Lawyer's Edge coaching team is a trained, certified, and experienced professional coach and either a former practicing attorney, or a former law firm marketing and business development professional. Whatever your professional objectives, our coaches can help you achieve your goals more quickly, more easily, and with significantly less stress. To get connected with your coach, just email the team at hello@thelawyersedge.com.

I'm absolutely delighted to be hosting two fantastic guests today. First is Marcie Borgal Shunk, founder and president of the TILT Institute. For nearly three decades, Marcie has worked with more than 3,000 law firm leaders on talent, culture, and leadership, helping firms anticipate and prepare for the future of law. She's the creator of Leadership Foundations, a virtual program focused on building essential leadership skills in lawyers, and she's a frequent contributor to the American Lawyer, Thomson Reuters, and Bloomberg Law.

Also joining me is Sona Spencer, the Chief Legal Talent Officer at Troutman, Pepper, Lock, where she leads legal recruiting, professional development, inclusion and career strategy. With more than 15 years of experience in AMLA 50 firms, Sona works closely with firm leadership to design training, compensation and retention strategies that support both, lawyer development and client service. Marcie and Sona, welcome to The Lawyer's Edge.

Sona Spencer: Thank you.

Marcie Borgal Shunk: Thank you. Pleasure to be here.

Elise Holtzman: I am so happy to have both of you here. I was really excited to reach out to you to ask you to join me today, because the two of you recently co-authored an article published in “The Legal Intelligencer” and Law.com titled “The Death of Apprenticeship, Reimagining Law Firm Talent Strategy for a New Era”. Your article argues that the apprenticeship model in law firms is dying. So what does that actually mean in practice and why is it happening?

Marcie Borgal Shunk: Oh, so many things to say here.

Sona Spencer: Well, first we have to touch on the drama of the title. We really wanted to capture attention, so hopefully that's part of the reason.

Elise Holtzman: It's very dramatic. I love it.

Marcie Bogal Shunk: What was fascinating about this is how organically it came around as well. Sona and I were in the middle of a conversation, just generally chatting and I mentioned this and brought it up, and she said, oh, wait, I've been thinking this too and I have some notes. And so all of a sudden, we were then comparing notes and talking about this concept that we had both been independently thinking of. Which I think is what made it so much more, I don't know, fulsome and fun to be able to have the conversation and dig into exactly what was going on. I think in addition, you asked not just about the origin though, you wanted to really know why. Why are we talking about this to begin with? And I think for me, my initial concept working on leadership development and seeing what was going on, is, I started to feel like there was this gap that was going on in the industry, where not just in terms of retention and turnover and associates, but associates feeling like they just weren't getting the development that they wanted or needed. And they weren't advancing as quickly and the frustration from the more senior attorneys that the associates weren't getting what they needed. And so as you start to peel that back and look at some of the factors that were driving it, there were many. There were so many things happening all at once, right? Everybody knows that we had the pandemic. But in the wake of the pandemic, there was a hybrid work model. And so now we're dealing with a situation, where people are not co-located. So the idea of learning by osmosis was no longer as applicable, or as functionable as it was previously. And then your differences in learning styles, right? The idea that these new associates that are coming in, don't necessarily learn in the same way, as the folks that are teaching them. And so you've got a disconnect between people thinking, well, this is how I want to learn and a new generation saying, well, wait a minute, that's not going to work as well for me.

Sona Spencer: Yeah, the idea sparked for me, because we merged in the middle of that pandemic that we all know. And I think doing something that large in that time, really made me think about some things. You know, how are we ensuring that people are learning when we can't go and see people in person? And how are we making sure that people are connecting and being able to serve clients? And all of these different things came up. And then I also saw, it was really easy when someone didn't feel satisfied during that two to three year period, that they could just kind of like, drop one laptop in the mail and get the next one to come right back, right? There was not as much of a barrier to having to, like, go get a suit and go to the office and interview with someone, right? So in those moments, where people might have that kind of resistance barrier of, like, oh, well, let me think about this, people were making more snap decisions, if they were not satisfied. So I think being able to see some of the conversations that were happening, when people were considering leaving, some of the conversations that were happening, when we were recruiting people from other places and hearing why they were leaving. It was a lot of just churn, in terms of people coming in, people going and we learned a lot from those conversations about what was dissatisfying. And a lot of it was the lack of connection, the lack of feeling invested in, the lack of opportunities for advancement and leadership, not feeling that the firm is really invested in understanding what the talent brings to the table. And ultimately, this idea that there was a disconnect between the strategic points around talent, it's not just about training, it's about how are we showing up for the client? And if we have people that are performing at the highest level, the clients are more satisfied. So really trying to make sure there was an understanding of that through line and not seeing it as just sort of an inconvenience that we happen to have to train people to do a job, but there's really an outcome that happens when you aren't doing this well. And how do we make sure that we're being more strategic and thoughtful about that? And again, merging in a pandemic really made us think about those things, I think, in an accelerated way that we might have come to on our own.

Marcie Borgal Shunk: You just brought something up, Sona, that I wanted to build on, which was the barriers to entry concept and the idea that we saw a lot more movement. And I think, yes, that's true. And you also brought up the idea of a lack of connection and not feeling like the firm was invested in them. And I think that underscores a broader trend in the industry, or a broader dynamic, where talents are coming to law firms today and saying, hey, you're not giving us what we need and want, in order to grow and develop. And I think part of that may be also coming, not just from the apprenticeship model dying, but the idea that the most senior folks in the firm know what the skills are that are going to make this next generation successful, right? This idea that what made you successful and how I got to where I am, may not be the same thing that's going to create opportunities for the next generation.

Sona Spencer: And I would also add the trend of it not being as taboo to lateral to another firm. So the ease of being able to say, I'm going to just move. And also not to mention the compensation wars that were going on for associates, et cetera. So I think all of these factors kind of happening at the same time was really, I think, a wake up call for some firms that have sort of taken the cue to move in a different direction, to really try and strategize around some of the factors we mentioned in the article. But then also, we're seeing firms that are being left behind, when they are not doing that. And I find it fascinating to ask people, when we're onboarding them, why did you leave your last firm? And it's the same sort of issues, they weren't invested, they didn't see talent as being the important driver.

Elise Holtzman: I think all of these different pieces of it coming together are absolutely fascinating. You've mentioned so many different reasons why this has become an issue. Some of what I see and you mentioned it, Marcie, is generational differences. First of all, the older generation not necessarily knowing, we can't necessarily predict what's coming, but we have a pretty good idea of what's going to make people successful. And so maybe the older generation not being fully educated on what that is going to look like and doing a lot of complaining about the younger generation. And look, I mean, you know, I always say this, since the time of cave mom and cave dad and cave kid, everybody's been complaining about the other generations. But I do hear often, when people lose talent and the the associates start leaving and going other places that the senior leaders in the firm say, well, they want to… they don't understand why they're not being invested in. I mean, nobody invested in us. And what do they mean they want to be invested in? And so because the generations are so different and because, you know, I always say we raise them, right, the people a little older than they, around my age, raised them. And we raised them to be part of the conversation. And we raised them by saying, hey, you know, do you need a biology tutor, or do you need a baseball pitching coach, or whatever it is? We invested in them and we trained them. And they had people investing in them all the time and also had people involving them in the conversation. Then they get to the workplace and it's a top-down environment where it's a little bit sink or swim. And so I think that it's understandable that the younger generation would be kind of confused by that and be looking for places, where somebody is taking the time and spending the time, money, and energy to invest in them. This idea of financial stakes came up in your article. You cited that there's more than a billion dollars tied to associate movement annually, I think. And so how do we help law firm leaders, the people who are running these places and making decisions about investments, understand that developing talent isn't just an HR issue, like, hey, let's just keep people happy, or, you know, we should do this, because we're the HR department, but that it's actually a business issue.

Marcie Borgal Shunk: We are about to release some research that we did with lawyer leaders, or law firm leaders, actually both lawyers and professionals over the past year, in conjunction with Leopard Solutions. And one of the things that was really fascinating that came up in that, is the good news out of what you just asked, is that lawyer leaders are aware that talent development is part of their mandate, right? So they know that. So I don't know that the gap is necessarily needing to convince them that it is important. I think part of it is understanding the financial implications. I'm not sure that there is a clear connection between retention and development and how that benefits the firm as a business, either in the short term or the long term. And then I also think that there is a skills gap, right? It's not just a question of, is this important? It's a question of, okay, we recognize that it's important. How do we actually accomplish what we want to accomplish at scale? And I think that is a major challenge for firms right now, is figuring that piece out.

Sona Spencer: And I think people actually hear the numbers. I know there are stats out there about, you know, how much it costs to replace an employee. And people hear that number and they'll sort of be like, I mean, come on, it can't be that much. But when you start to break it down for them, OK, let's talk about that. How much time are you spending now doing work that that person would have been doing if they were gone? How much time is your team spending now on work? How many things are the clients thinking, in terms of maybe they don't have the breadth and depth and there are matters that they're not sending over to you, because they're concerned that you don't have the full team in place? and then how much time are you spending on recruiting and having conversations and interviews and then talking to the recruiters about those conversations and interviews and distilling the feedback with your practice group and then how much time does it cost to train them up. And if you look at all those billable hours that you're spending doing the things around recruiting a person, how much does that cost times your hourly rate? And when you say it to them like that, they're like, oh yeah, that is a lot of money, right? So I think really making sure that people are grounded in the opportunity cost, but also the financial cost of losing someone. You also lose client knowledge, client continuity and all of these things add up to money, right? But they also add up to not being able to serve your client at the highest level. So I think people just really kind of breaking those things down into the elements of what it costs to replace someone, instead of what it costs to keep someone in their seat, help them to feel good about the work they're doing, help them to have client opportunities, help them to feel part of the team. And this ties into a lot of the inclusion work we talk about too. Inclusion is really around engagement and retention and the cost differential between engagement and retention initiatives and leadership initiatives and recruiting initiatives. It's very different.

Elise Holtzman: What I find almost frightening is that even if you can get some of those numbers on paper, that some of the things you were describing, you can't know, you simply can't know what isn't showing up from the client, or where the client is getting frustrated if they don't tell you and often they don't. They just vote with their feet and so there's so much more than just the more than a billion dollars you mentioned that might even be unaccounted for. So given the fact that law firms really need to be focused on developing their talent in some sort of structured, concrete way, what are some of the skills that you think law firms should be training on, thinking about, making sure that they are training on, so that future lawyers, or the lawyers they already have and the firm can be successful?

Sona Spencer: On this one, I actually want to turn it to AI. I know we're talking about AI all the time everywhere, but everybody just bear with me for a second. I think there is so much focus on AI and the opportunity to, you know, kind of hand over junior tasks to AI, checklists for a deal, et cetera. And I think that people are not really thinking about the skills that are lost, when we are depending on AI to do that for junior associates coming in. I think it's already a tough leap from law school to law firm and that training that is necessary to really become a lawyer in a law firm, is essential at those junior years. But how much of that training are people not thinking about that's happening on those checklists? If I'm seeing how the checklist goes, now I'm learning more about the structure of the deal as well as managing the checklist, right? And so are we thinking about, sure, we want to have efficiency and productivity and where can AI provide that? But then what are we losing, in terms of what people are actually learning, especially in those earlier years? And more importantly, I think it's important to really kind of think about the thinking, right? Our profession is based on thinking. So most of what we are differentiating ourselves from other law firms, is around how do we approach solutions? Are we coming from it from diverse perspectives? Are we thinking through the, you know, things that might happen in the future? Are we thinking through the things that happened in the past and how we're structuring agreements based on that? And that thinking is done, because you think and think and think and think and think over years and you get to that expertise level, where you've done so much thinking on it, you now have more creative solutions. So if some of that thinking is being outsourced to AI, how are people actually like struggling with that issue, building that muscle, as they get older. So this isn't necessarily me saying that AI isn't an important part, it's part of our lives. We have to think about how we use it, but we also have to supplement it and make sure on a parallel track, we're still gaining skills for our attorneys, or helping them to learn those skills that are critical that could sometimes be outsourced to AI. Because those junior attorneys, 10 years from now, aren't going to be the partners that can really handle those big matters, because they didn't have all the building blocks along the way. So I think it's really important to break down what are the skills that make a good lawyer in this area of practice and how are we making sure those things are being taught and not just outsourcing to AI.

Marcie Borgal Shunk: And I think on that point, what's interesting about AI is that AI can be a development tool, if it is used properly, or in certain ways. So, for example, I will watch, even my kids, like I'll watch my kids. And you can use AI by going to AI and asking it the answer. Or you can use AI by saying, look, I'm struggling with this question. Can you walk me through step by step how to get to the answer? Then it's a learning tool. Or you can say to AI, you know, I have an exam, or I'm being assessed or evaluated on these skills. Can you create an assessment tool for me to go through and identify the spots, where I need to develop more? And you can do that in a law firm by taking what's expected of me as an associate to move from point A to point B and give me an assessment tool, AI. Let me do the assessment tool and let me determine what the areas are, where I need to focus my energy and effort, so that I get a higher ROI from my development. So I think there is a place for AI. It's just it can't be used to displace, or replace what Sona was saying, the thinking parts, the critical thinking, the judgment. And I think the other piece, where technology comes into play is what can AI not do, right? AI can't do the human skills. And I think as firms, we need to be thinking more broadly about how do we develop human skills of the folks that are coming in. To the point of the idea that, you know, people are leaving, because they don't feel valued. We go through this exercise in a lot of our workshops, where we will say, OK, what do people look like when they don't feel valued? How do they behave? And you come up with this list and you say, OK, they're less engaged. They don't show up for social events. Maybe they're not putting in extra effort. Maybe they're making mistakes. Maybe the quality goes down. And when we see that person in a law firm and I throw this back at the audience, what do we generally do? We fire them. We write them off. We say, hey, this person isn't interested. They don't have the right. They don't know what it takes. We don't stop and say, well, wait a minute, maybe it's the person, who's managing them, or developing them, or the leader. Maybe they don't have the skills that they need to effectively provide that development and training. And so that, again, I think comes back to the whole, right, the apprenticeship model. It's not working the same way and we're seeing this generation that may not be getting what they need, in order to be most effective.

Sona Spencer: I think that this also starts to bring in the inclusive lens. There's a lot of shorthand for, you know, they just don't have it, whatever it is, you know and there's a lot of the point that Marcie's making about the dismissiveness of, well, I just don't see it, I don't feel it, you know, then there's some inherent bias in that, right? You kind of talked about this earlier, Elise, where it's like, well, that's not what worked for me and it's not working for this person, so they are the problem, not necessarily what I'm doing and how I'm bringing them up. So, I think what's really important here, we talk about it in our firm as we want to be a culture of redemption, right? We don't want to dismiss people outright for not showing something the first second, right? This is, to the extent that the apprentice model has any signs of life, it's really around this idea that you learn by doing over time. But we have to invest in helping people do that doing and learn that doing and that's really where we see the apprentice model mindset operating well. So, I think, the point here is, we want to make sure we're not kind of outsourcing things to other people. That human element is required, that time it takes to talk to someone about the deal and the structure, to talk about the research, talk about what happens in court. And making sure that we're not losing that with all of these other factors, not just AI, but also just larger firms and people not being in the same place and hybrid work models. And even being intentional about how you show up on a Zoom and how we actually take that moment to say, hey, how's your day going? Instead of just jumping right in, right? We don't think about how technology actually creates less humanness in all of us, because we're coming into things and like, okay, let's get this call started, we got to get out of here in 30 minutes. So how are you actually managing it within those parameters?

Elise Holtzman: I've just done a couple programs for law firms on executive presence. And one of the things that we've talked about is this idea that people don't even really think about, especially younger people, they don't think about executive presence and the impact that that has on them. It's like, well, if I'm doing good work, right, and this is in business development too, right. If I do good work, people will hire me. Or if I'm doing good work, it doesn't really matter how I show up. My appearance and my mean and my demeanor, none of those things should matter. And yet we know that rightly or wrongly they do. And so for example, young people being home and the cat is in the background and so they turn off their camera. And part of executive presence is being present, right? So if you're on and of course there are reasons to have your camera off sometimes, but in general and look, senior leaders are doing that as well, right? So, you know, just understanding some of these, what we used to call softer skills, but we know that they're immensely important to being taken seriously, being able to have influence, doing good work for the client. So I'm hearing sort of the hard skills, as well as some of these more human type skills. And I think to be clear and I think you would agree with me, it's not just the younger people that are lacking in some of these skills. I mean, nobody really taught them to us either. And so the apprenticeship model sounds nice, but a lot of people didn't learn some of the things that we would have liked them to learn. Are you guys suggesting more formal training on these things? Or are you suggesting something else that's different from formal training, or different from apprenticeship? What do you think the format of all of this looks like? Is it in the small moments, or is it in the big programs?

Sona Spencer: So I have thoughts on this, but the thing that I usually talk to people about, is breaking it down, kind of what I was saying earlier about the elements of the thing. Because I think what people don't think about, so in the camera example, right? What I'll say to associates is, depending on what call you're on, do you want the question mark of what you're doing right now, right? If it's a client call, that black screen with your name brings up, are they there? Are they sitting? Are they present? Are they walking around? Are they talking to their kid? Like, just the questions that have to come up naturally for people, not because they assume you're not capable and talented, but just because that's kind of what happens in the vacuum, right? So how are you addressing that? Hey, I just want to let you know I'm here, but I'm sick today, whatever it may be, right? I think that people just aren't really thinking proactively about communication around things, as opposed to the thing itself. So even when we see some law firms, to your point, senior leaders are the same, we will hear people, okay, yeah, everybody has to come back to the office. That's sometimes just directed at the more junior folks, but then the partner's not in and the junior person's like, well, what am I doing here? I'm just on Zoom all day anyway, right? So I don't know that we have really dissected these principles we believe and what we think we should be doing and then thinking about, why do we think that? And actually, does that really matter? So I have a lot of opinions on what we could do, in terms of format and things, but I think the more important part is, having a why behind why you're telling someone something has to be a certain way, is really important on both sides. And I think that we have kind of lost a lot of that, because we have assumptions about, well, it's just better to be in the office, because we were in the office. It's just better to have conversations not on technology, right? But there's some realities of how that works. And then you have to kind of stop and say, why do I think that? And those parts of any training you might do on these softer skills are really critical too. So I want to make sure people aren't thinking, okay, we'll kind of just talk about executive presence, just saying like, you should have your camera on, you should be, you should, you know, look presentable, don't have an unmade bed, like, yes, but then why? Here's what, when those things happen, here's what happens for the other person, here's what they may be thinking. And we don't want to leave it up to chance when we're on with a client, or you're on with a more senior partner that you're trying to get on their matters. Don't leave those things up to chance. So I think that needs to be part of any training people would do in this area.

Elise Holtzman: Yeah, I mean, what I'm hearing you saying is that, you know, don't run out and create a leadership program or something like that. You've got to be intentional about it, right? Why are we doing this? What's important to us and to our clients? You know, as you say, what is the why? What are the messages that we want to be sharing with people? Is it all set in stone, or is there room for individuality? Those are the kinds of things that were coming up for me, while you were talking.

Sona Spencer: Absolutely.

Marcie Borgal Shunk: Yeah, I agree. And to your point, or question about small moments or big programs, I think the answer is both, right? We can't simply instruct people in a formal way, without practicing what we preach, right? It has to come from both. And if leaders are behaving in ways that contradict what others are being taught, that creates a bigger problem in many respects, than not doing the teaching at all. And so I think that, yes, there are core competencies and models that are important to structure, so that we're not just thinking about development of legal skills, but thinking more broadly about the development of lawyers holistically, or professionals holistically. And in many respects, if we're not getting what we need from the top, which to their credit, leaders in law firms, only half of them are getting any kind of formal leadership training to begin with, then that is going to undermine any formal program.

Sona Spencer: And also to that point, Marcie, I think there's this piece, where leaders aren't being given the training and they're also not held accountable for the results. And I think that can lead to uneven outcomes, where people are sort of seeing the management of people and the management of talent as a kind of a side hustle from the main point. As opposed to a core part of being in these leadership positions, or even informal leadership positions. So how are we thinking about what incentive we're providing to the people we want to do the training, to ensure that they see this as imperative to the overall goals and strategy for the business.

Elise Holtzman: The analogy that comes to mind for me, because of the kind of work I do is, you know, we can't just put a leadership program in place, tell somebody something once and expect them to execute it on it for the rest of their careers. Right. And so, you know, I just because of what I do, I often talk about the training as being a kind of information transfer. And yes, you want to get engagement in the room and you're doing tabletop exercises and you're getting them involved in the conversation and all of that thing and doing sort of good leadership program hygiene, if you will. But then what happens after that? Going back to those small moments, going back to coaching, going back to repetition. I mean, we know when we're trying to teach children things, we believe in repetition. We believe in having them try new things, we coach them. All of our kids' sporting teams have coaches. We know major league teams have coaches. And so just handing them a list of things to do and expecting them to do it, is not particularly realistic. So in that regard, Sona, I know that Troutman Pepperlock has a program called University, YO University, and that nearly 75% of the eligible attorneys that could participate in the program, did participate, in just its first year. So from your perspective, what was the secret to getting lawyers to say, hey, this is something I want to do and to actually show up for these kinds of programs. Because we can create all the programs in the world, but if the lawyers don't think they're important or aren't excited about participating in them, then we're just going to be spinning our wheels.

Sona Spencer: Yeah, and we always, I always say internally, we have to say U-niversity, so you can emphasize that capital, Y-O-U. So yeah, no, I mean, it's an important question. I, you know, I've wrestled with this a lot, because I don't think the simple answer is, well, we merged in the middle of a pandemic, so they just had nothing else to do, right? That's not really it, because I'm seeing the continued trends that people are participating, over time, even without that. So what I've really talked about, in terms of what the secret sauce is, it's that we are signaling to our populations that the firm is invested in you. The corniness of the brand is exactly the point, right? That the firm is investing. We are sending that direct signal that this is for you. So the way that we have set up the university in addition to our academies that we have both by level and we have some skill-based academies like a deposition clinic, a transactional clinic. We also have benchmarks that we asked each practice group to put together based on the associates level. So we have junior, mid and senior level benchmarks. They're made up of both legal skills and professional skills. And then we categorize all of our training in our LMS beyond just the academies to those benchmark skills. And we've also designed our evaluation forms to tie to those benchmarks as well. So the holistic picture that people are getting is part of this intentional design is, I can go into an evaluation, get feedback on a specific competency, I can go back after the evaluation, see the benchmark, that my practice group has set forth, I can then self-serve in the LMS to get information and training on that. And then in the evaluation the next year or six months, I can say, hey, here's what I've done on this competency. What else can I be doing? So what we've really centered it around is this empowering of the associate, of the talent, to try and figure out, because we're taking away some of the unwritten rules, right? We're putting more explicit expectations in place. We're making it part of the feedback. We're making it part of the training, so they can kind of see that holistic picture. And I do think that has created a sense of empowerment, that things are not just being told to me or bestowed upon me, but I am actually an active participant in my own career development. And we really emphasize that point that this is your career and our firm wants to support that. Yes, it's to the benefit of our clients, but we're also focused on you being the highest performer that you can at this firm. So that message of empowerment, I think, is helpful. Secondly, we do incorporate coaching. So to your point, it's not just the training and then we're sort of like, good luck out there in the streets, right? There's these mentoring components in our new partner academy, where we create small cohorts of new partners and they're matched with two partners throughout the entire experience. So they have some in-person components and they have some virtual components and their mentor is going through that journey with them in their first year. And then they have separate cohort meetings, where they're discussing things. And on top of that, they also have access to our amazing coaches within the firm. So we actually have a piece of our talent department that is focused just on coaching attorneys on their career development and that's attorneys at all levels. And we incorporate workshops into our academies and then also offer individual and group coaching to supplement the learning that they're doing. So the holistic model has really worked for us, as an indicator of A, the intention we have, the investment we have, the empowerment for the person going through it. We also build all of our curriculum throughout on leading self. So you don't have to have a title to lead. You can lead yourself and then leading the team, leading clients and then, yes, leadership, as it stands, in terms of having a title. But making sure that people are kind of seeing that progression, that even as an entry level, I can lead myself. I can think about what the things are that I need to be doing to show up in the right way. And I have benchmarks that guide me and feedback that reinforces that learning. So for us, that holistic model, I think, has really created more stickiness, in terms of people taking these programs seriously, seeing them as an investment. And there's a lot of FOMO when people go to that really great academy and they weren't able to make it. It's like, wow, you really missed some good stuff. So I think that really has helped people to stay invested and keep working on those programs. And we were seeing it in the stats of people showing up.

Elise Holtzman: I love the model that you're talking about. And one of the things I want to highlight, particularly for listeners, who are not at big firms and may feel that they don't have these same kinds of resources, right? They don't have the same number of people to put these programs together and the bandwidth and all of that sort of thing. But I think that the… a couple of the key points that came up for me, are that there are benchmarks. Because what we know about the younger generations is that they say, well, I don't know what's coming, you know, they talk about wanting transparency and we say, well, what does that mean? You want us to open the financial books to you? No, that's not what they're asking for. They want to know what does it take to succeed at this firm? What do you want to see from me? And so what I hear you doing is not only creating those benchmarks for them, but then offering them a menu of options for how to learn those things and how to grow as lawyers. So I think that's absolutely fantastic. I'm curious about a couple of other things, before we start to wind down here. So where do you think firms should start, if they're saying, you know what, Marcie and Sona are right. This apprenticeship nonsense, it may have worked in the past. I'm not even totally sure it fully worked in the past, but it may have worked in the past, but I'm not really sure it's working anymore. And you know what? They're right. I need to do something different for this place. Where do you think they can start?

Marcie Borgal Shunk: So we may have a different answer on this one. I have to say, I'm going to be complex in my response, because I'm going to say start at the top and then dot, dot, dot, and the bottom. But the truth is, I've seen firms that started at the bottom, right? They have the long-term vision. They say we're going to go the path of least resistance. We're going to give our associates what they need to be more effective in human skills and leadership in the future, so that ultimately they will be more successful in their career. For the most part, I've also seen that backfire, where associates come back and say, hey, wait a minute, you taught me how to do this this way and everybody I work for is not doing it that way. And so it can create resentment. So when I say start from the top, I feel like if our leaders are not on board and don't value the human skills, the leadership, or the developmental opportunities that are being given, that creates a scenario. where you're just not going to be successful, right? And so that's why from my perspective, starting with leadership, even if you're only working with the willing, to get folks to truly value and understand how they need to show up differently, in order for this to be more effective and in order for this to work, is the starting point, in order to ultimately get the outcome that you're looking for.

Sona Spencer: I didn't think that was complex at all. I love it, but I'm also one of your biggest cheerleaders anyway. But what I'm actually going to say to this is, if I'm thinking about your listener base, there's probably the big firms that we're talking probably more about. But then there's I'm the person, I'm the one person that has to do things and how do I even start? I have the benefit of getting some attention for the things that we've been doing as a team and talking about them in hindsight, right? But we had to start somewhere, too. And that starting place was not all this amazing intentional design. We started really in the pandemic with cataloging things in the university, in the LMS and branding it and that was where we started. I think what people don't think about and I have my background beyond talent management, has also been practice management and business development. There is something to just organizing things in a way that helps people see the path clearly. And so a starting place could just be, is your training just random acts of training? Like you're just kind of throwing something at someone one day and then three months later they get another thing? Or does your training have a clear through line, where people can see, okay, if I am this level of attorney, I should take these three courses this year, or these two courses, or is my practice group putting together a curriculum? So I really want to make sure people kind of see, yes, I have this holistic model that our team has built over time and I have the benefit of talking about it in hindsight, but the real point is starting somewhere that helps people to understand the path. Do you have clear expectations? If you don't, how could you start to have a conversation about them? They don't have to be 20 pages long. It could just be a one pager that helps people to start to see, this is what it takes to advance. So I think for me, I'm always around a starting small concept to start building towards something. You want to have some vision around it, but you can start small and build things intentionally in a way that helps people have clarity, because to the point you made earlier, that's really what people are going for. I'm also a big fan of a pilot. Start with a group of trusted people, you know, both to Marcie's point, maybe some leaders that are trusted, that are willing to kind of be experiential and some talent that are also willing and then, you know, succeed loudly or fail quickly and move on, right? So just making sure that you're not thinking like you have to tackle the entire thing, but how do I start a small pilot with a small group of people, even if it's just a coaching scenario, or a mentoring scenario, or a training scenario and then build on that success. That's really how I think people should be thinking about getting started. Every little bit counts towards the bigger picture. And getting the right people to the table at the right times, is also so super critical to Marcie's point.

Elise Holtzman: Yeah, I think sometimes we let the whole analysis paralysis thing get in the way and especially people who work in law firms, you know, tend to be perfectionists for a whole host of reasons that could be another podcast episode. But no, if it's like, well, you know, to your point, Sona, if I can't roll out this huge leadership program that takes into account every single year, between now and partnership and then junior partners and mid-level partners and everything else, we can't do anything. So I love that idea. So as we wrap up our time together today, I wanted to ask both of you a question I ask all of my guests at the end of the show. There's a phenomenon called “The curse of knowledge”, where experts sometimes forget that what is so obvious and natural to them is not at all obvious to others. When it comes to how lawyers actually learn and develop in law firms, what's going on right now and what we think is going to be going on in the future? What's a principle or piece of advice that may seem obvious to you, but is important for people to hear?

Marcie Borgal Shunk: I actually had a moment, earlier, when thinking about this phrase and I couldn't remember the end of it. So I just want to, like, say to all of you out there, who experienced those moments. I got, there's more than one way and I couldn't remember the rest of the phrase. So there's more than one way to skin a cat. Which in and of itself is a horrible phrase, but conceptually, the idea that because I learned this way, because I still learn this way, because my approach has been to develop this way, I need to, therefore, apply the way that I've done things to everybody around me. And if they are not doing it the same way, therefore, there's something wrong with them. That philosophy, I think, prevents us so often from exploring, from learning, from helping to develop others in the way that they need to be developed. And it really prevents growth, both for ourselves and for others. And so this idea of, I pick on Gen X, so I am going to come back to the generations. I pick on Gen X a lot. I am Gen X. But Gen X is a give it to me and get out of my way generation, right? We were the latchkey kids. We want to figure it out on our own. We don't want you to help us or show us how to do it. We just want you to get out of our way. We're very independent. We're kind of feral. Yeah, we're a little feral. It's true. But from a learning perspective, the next two generations, they don't learn that way. They need expectations and clarity. They want to know what the outcome is supposed to look like. They have questions. They want to know how it ties back to the purpose. And so that idea of, you know, figure it out on your own and throwing them to the wolves, that's not a good way for them to develop, despite the fact that it worked for Gen X. And so the idea that what worked for me is going to work for you, is something that we need to put behind us, in order to advance these objectives and to truly develop the next generations.

Sona Spencer: I would go with never underestimate the value of clear communication and moments of kindness. And I know those two things may not seem like they go together, but I always talk about this anecdote that I heard at a conference once where, you know, senior partners bringing in a junior associate to go out and talk to the client, senior partners thinking, this person will just come in and they'll kind of listen and kind of, you know, take in the scenes. They won't talk much, but I want to give them this opportunity to just kind of see what's going on. Junior associate's like, yes, this is my chance to shine. I'm going to say every single word in the human language to show the client. And what do you think is the outcome of that assumption, right? A two-minute, one-minute conversation before from the senior partner saying, hey, I'm going to bring you to this meeting, just want to let you know that, you know, I'm not expecting you to say anything, I just really wanted you to have the opportunity to kind of hear how the client thinks and take notes and you're going to start working on these matters, right? That would have cleared up the entire thing. So I think there's so much fast movement in law firms. And I also think that's a kind act, right? Setting those expectations, helping the person to understand, here's your role in this. And I think that talking about generations, I'm a millennial, but I call myself a Zennial, because I know what people think of millennials. I bridge between the two. But I think that, when I think about my boss, at my law firm and we're on a call and we have this really important thing to do and I say, oh, my daughter has a swim meet, I'm going to be able to get right back online and she says, no worries, we can talk tomorrow. That means so much to me right now, in this generation, where I'm taking care of my mom, I'm taking care of my child, I'm trying to take care of myself. Like, it's just so hard to make all those ends meet and law firm environments are very challenging. It's really a stressful job, right? So that communication, that kindness in a human-oriented business, right? The sell is that we're selling ourselves. We're saying that we're service providers. So it is a human business, no matter how you cut it, but I think people kind of lose that feeling of humanity you know, when you're just trying to rush and get the bill of an hour and all of these things. So if we can all think about what that means to the other person on the other side, what it means to offer that to someone else, I just think a lot of these things will be easier. And yes, that might be soft skills, but I think it just creates the culture and the environment that people want to be a part of. So I think that's what I would say is just communication and kindness, a little bit of kindness and grace.

Elise Holtzman: Yeah, I love it. All right. Well, thank you both, Marcie and Sona, for being here today. It's been such a pleasure having you. This is such an important topic and so early in the conversations that I know we're all going to continue to have, over the next few years, as law firms really try to hold on to their talent and develop their cultures. This is such an important thing to be talking about. So thank you both so much.

I'm going to thank our listeners for tuning in as well. If you've enjoyed today's show, please subscribe, rate, and review us at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.

In the meantime, be bold, take action, and make things happen. We'll see you next time.