There
is
a
story
every
lawyer
of
a
certain
generation
tells.
They
were
sworn
in.
Someone
handed
them
a
file.
There
was
a
hearing
in
an
hour.
Maybe
a
deposition
the
next
morning.
Maybe
a
motion
to
draft
with
no
sample,
no
explanation,
and
no
clue
what
the
partner
actually
wanted.
Good
luck.
And
somehow,
they
figured
it
out.
That
is
not
training.
That
is
hazing
with
letterhead.
For
years,
law
firms
confused
exposure
with
education.
We
believed
that
if
you
threw
young
lawyers
into
enough
difficult
situations,
they
would
eventually
become
lawyers.
Sometimes
they
did.
Sometimes
they
became
good
lawyers
despite
us,
not
because
of
us.
Sometimes
they
developed
bad
habits
that
followed
them
for
decades.
Sometimes
they
left
the
practice
altogether.
The
larger
firms
eventually
built
academies,
boot
camps,
internal
universities,
litigation
colleges,
trial
programs,
mentoring
committees,
evaluation
systems,
and
enough
binders
to
fill
a
conference
room.
Smaller
and
medium-sized
firms
looked
at
all
that
and
thought,
“That
sounds
great.
We
have
court
tomorrow.”
But
smaller
firms
cannot
afford
not
to
train
their
lawyers.
The
future
of
a
firm
is
not
its
current
book
of
business.
It
is
not
its
current
partners.
It
is
not
the
cases
on
the
trial
calendar.
The
future
of
a
firm
is
the
young
lawyer
sitting
in
the
office
right
now,
wondering
whether
anyone
is
going
to
teach
her
how
to
practice
law.
If
you
do
not
train
her,
someone
else
will.
Or
worse,
no
one
will.
The
good
news
is
that
small
and
midsize
firms
do
not
need
a
seven-figure
professional
development
budget
to
create
a
meaningful
training
program.
They
need
intention.
They
need
structure.
They
need
repetition.
They
need
accountability.
They
need
partners
willing
to
stop
saying,
“Nobody
trained
me,”
as
if
that
were
an
argument
rather
than
an
indictment.
Start
with
the
work
the
firm
actually
does.
Too
many
training
programs
fail
because
they
are
built
like
law
school
electives.
Interesting
topics.
Smart
speakers.
Nice
PowerPoints.
No
connection
to
what
associates
do
on
Tuesday
morning.
A
small
firm’s
training
program
should
begin
with
a
simple
question:
What
must
a
lawyer
here
know
how
to
do
to
serve
our
clients
well?
If
you
are
a
litigation
firm,
that
list
probably
includes
case
evaluation,
written
discovery,
document
review,
deposition
preparation,
taking
and
defending
depositions,
motion
practice,
hearings,
mediation,
expert
work,
trial
preparation,
client
reporting,
billing,
and
professional
communication.
If
you
are
a
transactional
firm,
the
list
is
different;
if
you
are
a
family
law
firm,
it’s
different
again.
Immigration.
Bankruptcy.
Employment.
Insurance
defense.
Plaintiff’s
personal
injury.
Real
estate.
The
curriculum
should
follow
the
work.
Do
not
begin
by
asking
what
a
good
training
program
looks
like
in
the
abstract.
Begin
by
asking
what
mistakes
young
lawyers
in
your
firm
keep
making.
Those
mistakes
are
your
syllabus.
If
associates
write
poor
emails
to
clients,
train
them
in
client
communication.
If
they
do
not
understand
how
to
prepare
for
hearings,
they
should
train
for
hearings.
If
they
cannot
take
a
clean
deposition,
train
for
depositions.
If
their
time
entries
read
like
ransom
notes,
train
billing.
If
they
do
not
understand
the
firm’s
business,
train
them
on
that
too.
Training
should
solve
real
problems.
The
first
part
of
the
program
should
be
an
orientation
to
judgment.
New
lawyers
do
not
simply
need
to
know
where
the
printer
is,
how
to
enter
time,
and
which
conference
room
has
the
good
camera.
They
need
to
understand
how
the
firm
thinks.
What
does
the
firm
value?
What
does
quality
work
look
like?
How
do
we
communicate
with
clients?
How
quickly
do
we
respond?
When
do
we
pick
up
the
phone?
How
do
we
handle
mistakes?
How
do
we
treat
staff?
How
do
we
deal
with
opposing
counsel?
How
do
we
prepare
for
court?
What
does
“ready”
mean
here?
Every
firm
has
a
culture.
Some
fail
to
explain
it.
A
young
lawyer
should
not
have
to
reverse
engineer
the
firm’s
expectations
by
disappointing
five
different
partners
in
five
different
ways.
Put
the
expectations
in
writing.
Say
them
out
loud.
Repeat
them
often.
The
second
part
should
be
skills
training.
Not
theory.
Skills.
How
to
draft
an
answer.
How
to
prepare
discovery
responses.
How
to
object
without
being
obnoxious.
How
to
summarize
medical
records.
How
to
prepare
a
witness.
How
to
build
a
deposition
outline.
How
to
argue
a
motion
in
five
minutes.
How
to
write
a
case
evaluation
that
the
client
can
actually
use.
How
to
prepare
for
mediation.
How
to
think
about
settlement
value.
How
to
close
the
loop
on
assignments.
Every
skill
should
be
taught
the
same
way:
explain,
show,
do,
review,
repeat.
Explain
the
task.
Show
a
good
example.
Let
the
associate
do
it.
Review
the
work
carefully.
Give
specific
feedback.
Then
make
the
associate
do
it
again.
The
magic
is
not
in
the
lecture.
The
magic
is
in
the
repetition.
A
partner
cannot
say,
“You
need
to
write
better,”
and
think
that
is
feedback.
That
is
a
fortune
cookie.
Better
feedback
sounds
like
this:
“Your
facts
are
strong,
but
your
argument
starts
too
late.
Move
the
best
fact
into
the
first
paragraph.
Shorten
the
background.
Use
headings
that
make
the
argument
for
you.
Cut
the
adjectives.
The
judge
does
not
need
outrage.
The
judge
needs
a
reason
to
rule
for
us.”
That
is
training.
The
third
part
should
be
shadowing
with
a
purpose.
Young
lawyers
should
attend
depositions,
hearings,
mediations,
client
calls,
expert
meetings,
and
trial
preparation
sessions.
But
shadowing
alone
is
not
enough.
If
an
associate
sits
quietly
in
the
back
of
the
room
and
no
one
explains
what
happened,
that
is
not
training.
That
is
furniture
placement.
Before
the
event,
tell
the
associate
what
to
watch
for.
During
the
event,
give
them
a
role.
After
the
event,
debrief.
Before
a
deposition:
“Watch
how
I
lock
down
the
timeline
before
getting
into
opinions.
Watch
how
I
use
exhibits.
Watch
how
I
avoid
arguing
with
the
witness.”
After
the
deposition:
“What
worked?
What
did
not?
Where
did
the
witness
hurt
us?
What
would
you
ask
next
time?”
Then,
at
the
next
deposition,
let
the
associate
handle
a
small
section.
Background
questions.
Document
authentication.
Employment
history.
Medical
treatment
chronology.
Something
manageable.
That
is
how
confidence
is
built.
Not
by
speeches.
By
reps.
The
fourth
part
should
be
mentoring,
but
real
mentoring.
A
mentor
is
not
someone
whose
name
appears
on
an
internal
chart.
A
mentor
is
someone
the
associate
will
actually
call
before
making
a
bad
decision.
Pair
people
thoughtfully.
Common
interests
help.
Common
practice
areas
help.
Common
backgrounds
sometimes
help.
But
the
most
important
thing
is
trust.
A
young
lawyer
needs
someone
who
will
answer
the
awkward
questions
without
making
them
feel
foolish.
How
do
I
tell
a
partner
I
made
a
mistake?
How
do
I
deal
with
a
difficult
assistant?
How
do
I
ask
for
more
work?
How
do
I
say
I
am
overwhelmed?
How
do
I
prepare
for
my
first
argument?
How
do
I
know
whether
I
am
doing
well?
Mentoring
should
include
scheduled
meetings,
but
it
cannot
be
limited
to
them.
The
best
mentoring
happens
in
hallways,
after
hearings,
before
calls,
over
coffee,
and
in
the
five
minutes
after
something
went
sideways.
Small
firms
have
an
advantage
here.
They
are
smaller.
People
know
each
other.
Partners
are
more
accessible.
Associates
can
see
how
lawyers
actually
practice.
Use
that
advantage.
The
fifth
part
should
teach
business
development
from
the
start.
Some
firms
act
as
if
business
development
is
a
mysterious
art
revealed
only
after
a
lawyer
makes
partner.
That
is
a
mistake.
Young
lawyers
should
learn
from
day
one
that
relationships
matter.
Reputation
matters.
Responsiveness
matters.
Writing
matters
and
speaking
matters.
Bar
involvement
matters.
LinkedIn
matters.
Following
up
on
matters.
Helping
others
matters.
No
one
expects
a
first-year
associate
to
bring
in
a
Fortune
500
client.
But
that
associate
can
learn
how
to
build
a
network.
She
can
stay
in
touch
with
classmates.
She
can
write
short
practical
pieces.
She
can
attend
local
bar
events.
She
can
speak
on
small
panels.
She
can
treat
every
person
she
meets
as
someone
worth
knowing,
not
as
a
transaction.
Business
development
is
not
a
switch
someone
flips
in
year
eight.
It
is
a
habit
built
over
time.
The
sixth
part
should
include
technology
and
AI.
No
modern
training
program
can
ignore
AI.
That
does
not
mean
young
lawyers
should
paste
confidential
client
materials
into
public
tools
and
hope
for
the
best.
It
means
firms
need
to
teach
responsible
use.
AI
can
help
organize,
brainstorm,
summarize,
outline,
compare,
and
improve
drafts.
It
can
also
hallucinate,
misstate,
oversimplify,
and
create
confidentiality
problems.
The
lesson
for
young
lawyers
is
simple:
use
tools,
but
own
the
work.
Teach
them
approved
platforms.
Teach
them
what
not
to
upload.
Teach
them
how
to
verify.
Teach
them
that
AI
is
not
an
authority.
Teach
them
that
a
fake
citation
is
still
their
fake
citation.
Teach
them
that
efficiency
without
judgment
is
malpractice
waiting
for
a
caption.
The
seventh
part
should
be
accountability.
Training
cannot
be
something
the
firm
talks
about
at
retreats
and
ignores
during
busy
season.
Someone
must
own
it.
There
should
be
a
training
calendar.
There
should
be
written
materials.
There
should
be
practice
checklists.
There
should
be
sample
motions,
sample
reports,
sample
outlines,
sample
letters,
and
sample
time
entries.
Partners
should
be
expected
to
participate.
Associates
should
be
expected
to
attend.
Feedback
should
be
documented.
Progress
should
be
discussed.
Keep
it
simple.
Monthly
skills
sessions.
Quarterly
workshops.
Shadowing
requirements.
Writing
reviews.
Deposition
labs.
Hearing
practice.
Mentoring
lunches.
Internal
CLEs.
Recorded
programs
for
lawyers
who
miss
them
—
a
shared
folder
of
templates
and
examples.
Small
firms
do
not
need
bureaucracy.
They
need
consistency.
And
they
need
to
stop
making
perfection
the
enemy
of
starting.
You
can
build
the
first
year
of
a
training
program
on
12
sessions:
How
to
receive
and
complete
an
assignment.
How
to
communicate
with
clients.
How
to
draft
professional
emails.
How
to
write
useful
research
memos.
How
to
prepare
written
discovery.
How
to
review
documents.
How
to
prepare
deposition
outlines.
How
to
defend
a
deposition.
How
to
argue
a
motion.
How
to
evaluate
a
case.
How
to
prepare
for
mediation.
How
to
build
your
reputation
inside
and
outside
the
firm.
That
alone
would
put
many
firms
ahead
of
where
they
are
now.
The
final
part
is
leadership.
Training
young
lawyers
is
not
charity.
It
is
leadership.
It
is
succession
planning.
It
is
client
service.
It
is
risk
management.
It
is
culture.
It
is
how
a
firm
says,
“We
are
not
just
using
young
lawyers.
We
are
building
them.”
The
partners
who
complain
that
associates
lack
judgment
should
ask
themselves
who
taught
them
judgment.
The
partners
who
complain
that
young
lawyers
cannot
write
should
ask
who
edits
their
work.
The
partners
who
complain
that
associates
are
not
loyal
should
ask
whether
the
firm
has
invested
in
them
in
a
way
that
earns
loyalty.
Young
lawyers
do
not
need
coddling.
They
need
standards.
They
need
coaching.
They
need
opportunities.
They
need
correction.
They
need
someone
to
tell
them
the
truth
and
then
show
them
how
to
improve.
A
small
firm
can
do
this.
A
midsize
firm
can
do
this.
In
some
ways,
they
can
do
it
better
than
anyone
because
training
can
be
personal,
practical,
and
immediate.
The
old
model
was
simple:
throw
them
in
the
deep
end
and
see
who
swims.
The
better
model
is
also
simple:
teach
them
to
swim,
put
them
in
the
water,
coach
them
from
the
side,
and
gradually
move
them
into
deeper
water.
That
is
how
you
build
lawyers.
That
is
how
you
build
firms.
And
that
is
how
you
make
sure
the
next
generation
does
not
have
to
succeed
despite
us.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.