Structured and transparent staffing boosts associate development, retention and quality of advice
Imagine two new associates joining your firm on the same day. Both are smart, motivated, and capable – and yet one thrives and ends up on the partner track, while the other stalls and quietly moves on.
What would you say if I told you that, according to decades of research in law and other professional services, the associate who thrives is far more likely to be a White man, while the one who struggles is more likely to be a woman of colour?
Anti-DEI advocates like to frame these disparities as a function of merit, insisting that with enough skill, intelligence and hard work, anyone can make it in law. And of course, merit matters. But the reality is, many skilled, intelligent and hardworking people don’t make it in our profession – for reasons that have nothing to do with their capabilities or work habits.
After years of working with law firms, it’s clear to me that the difference between thriving and languishing in these settings is largely one of opportunity, not capability. This reality undermines our profession’s stated commitment to meritocracy, and it’s time to stop talking about the problem and start taking steps to address it.
In most firms, work allocation is driven by proximity and familiarity – whoever “pops to mind” when a partner has a new matter, made a good first impression, or still happens to be at their desk at 7 p.m.
On the surface, this relationship-based model appears neutral and unbiased. A partner has a new file; his mind turns to a junior associate he met briefly – perhaps a young man who reminds him of himself at that stage – and he calls the associate into his office. The file is staffed. The associate has work. It feels like a win-win.
If the associate performs well, the partner gives him more work. Soon, he becomes the partner’s preferred junior. Along the way, he’s building skills, confidence, and credibility. He gets brought into client meetings, taken on pitches, and included in client development activities. In each of these settings, relationships deepen, trust builds, and reputations are formed and solidified.
Now, contrast that with the associate who never “pops to mind.”
She started out with just as much talent and potential, but without that early break, she’s stuck on small, low‑visibility tasks, and misses out on early exposure to influential partners. Unable to develop her skills at the same speed as her colleague, the inevitable happens – she starts to lag.
As the skills gap widens, it becomes even more challenging to staff her on files. Ultimately, her reviews suffer, she starts receiving signals she’s not on track, and eventually, she leaves.
To be clear, this may be a story about two associates with very different experiences, but it’s not a story about bad actors. No one sets out to intentionally disadvantage or underdevelop the associate they’ve just hired.
So what is it about?
Well, studies have shown that people tend to gravitate toward those who feel familiar – what researchers describe as “like likes like.” In professional settings, this very human tendency shapes who we trust, who we see as “one of us,” and who we feel more comfortable working with – without us even realizing it.
In law firms, especially where partnerships continue to remain overwhelmingly White and male, this gravitational pull toward familiarity and sameness predictably advantages some lawyers over others.
Access to high-value work doesn’t operate in isolation. The associate who is repeatedly staffed on good files gains visibility, builds trust, and is more likely to attract a sponsor – all of which increases their access to future work.
Opportunity begets opportunity.
Because access to good work is essential to success in private practice, these distribution patterns shape career trajectories early. The result is greater success for White men, and higher rates of attrition for men of colour, women of colour, and White women.
One scholar captures this dynamic perfectly. Law professor and bias expert Joan Williams describes this as “an invisible escalator for White men, and an obstacle course for everyone else.”
None of this would be an issue if the playing field were level, but it isn’t. When access to plum assignments, actionable feedback, and meaningful sponsorship is uneven, outcomes will be uneven too – regardless of ability or work ethic.
This is where structured work allocation comes in.
Rather than relying on ad hoc, relationship-based decisions, structured systems assign work based on capacity, need, and interest. Some firms appoint a central coordinator to assign matters based on an up‑to‑date workload and skills matrix; others rely on sophisticated platforms and software; and still others start with simple, low-tech interventions like assignment listservs, rotation systems, or skills rubrics.
Regardless of the approach, the goal is the same: to ensure early access to meaningful work, so every associate who walks through the door has a fair shot at success.
Clear expectations and transparent processes not only grow skills – they build trust. Associates feel supported, workloads balance out, and no one feels pressured to specialize too early or work with only one partner. As the associate experience improves, so do morale, engagement, and loyalty – and clients benefit from teams that are better prepared overall, because skills and experience have been developed methodically and broadly, rather than concentrated in a few “go-to” individuals.
Of course, a structured system requires buy-in. A system partners can opt out of isn’t a system at all, which means building protocols and expectations that even the most powerful rainmakers can’t circumvent, barring exceptional circumstances.
In my work, I’ve found that partners have two main objections to structured work systems: control and capacity.
On the control side, these systems are typically focused on students and juniors. Yet no one is indispensable to a file at that stage, and no partner’s personal preference or partner staffing preferences should override what is best for the firm overall.
On the capacity side, training the next generation isn’t ancillary to being a partner – it’s a core part of the role, and one of the profession’s defining obligations.
In the end, equity doesn’t live in intentions. It lives in systems. If we want talent and fairness – not chance or bias – to determine who succeeds, we must start with how we allocate work.
