By Christine E. Hollis
I spend my days thinking about talent. Not in the abstract and not as a talking point but in the very real sense of who gets hired, who advances, who quietly exits and why. Over the years, I have watched law firms wrestle with the same questions again and again: how to identify excellence, how to remain competitive, and how to adapt to a workforce that looks and thinks differently from what it was even a decade ago.
What I have also observed is that many of our talent decisions are still driven by convenience, rather than clarity. That reliance on familiar shortcuts may feel efficient, but it often narrows the pipeline in ways firms do not fully intend or even realize.
When prestige becomes a proxy
Grade-point average and law school rank are easy filters. They are neat, familiar and defensible. But in practice, they function more as proxies for convenience than as predictors of excellence.
Earlier in my career at a large Am Law 100 firm, I reviewed a resumé from a candidate who had attended a Tier 3 law school and graduated first in his class. The firm declined to consider him solely on the basis of the school’s ranking. There was no discussion of his academic dominance, work ethic or trajectory. The decision was efficient but not discerning. That firm lost the opportunity to assess exceptional talent because a shortcut substituted for judgment.
This is not about vilifying prestige or suggesting standards should disappear. It is about acknowledging that overreliance on narrow markers can unintentionally exclude high-potential lawyers who made pragmatic educational choices, often driven by scholarship opportunities or personal circumstances. As law school costs continue to rise, more students are choosing institutions based on affordability, rather than brand. Firms that fail to adjust for that reality risk shrinking their own future bench.
Expanding the pipeline starts earlier than law school
In intellectual property law, the pipeline challenge is even more pronounced. Patent attorneys are not created at the moment of law school enrollment. They are shaped years earlier through exposure to science, engineering and problem-solving.
I have asked many partners at my firm—an intellectual property boutique—how they first became exposed to and interested in patent law. Their answers are strikingly consistent. Someone spoke at their school. A neighbor was a patent attorney who took the time to explain their work. A mentor noticed an aptitude for science or math and suggested a career path that combined technical skill with law. Early exposure sparked curiosity, and curiosity became a career.
Firms often underestimate the influence they can have before students even consider law school. Strategic partnerships with STEM-focused schools, community engagement, mentorship programs and attorneys simply showing up to talk about their work can create awareness that changes trajectories. Exposure creates interest. Interest creates pathways. Waiting until law school recruitment is simply too late for many future IP lawyers.
Modern career paths do not mean lower standards
One of the most common concerns I hear from law firm leaders across the country when discussing flexible or alternative career paths is that flexibility signals lower standards. There is also, candidly, resentment from some partners who came up in an era where those options did not exist.
That concern deserves acknowledgment, but it should not be conflated with reality. Flexibility does not eliminate rigor. It redefines contribution. When alternative paths are paired with transparent expectations and corresponding differences in compensation, the integrity of the partnership model remains intact.
Many firms are already experimenting with this successfully. Part-time partnership tracks, flexible schedules and service partner roles allow lawyers to focus on client service and hours, rather than originations. In IP practices, the use of technical specialists and patent agents offers a particularly modern on-ramp. STEM professionals can explore the legal field without committing to law school, gaining meaningful experience while determining whether the investment is right for them.
These pathways expand access without lowering the bar. They recognize that careers are not one size fits all, and that retention often improves when lawyers can align their professional and personal realities.
Understanding what Gen Z is actually signaling
Another area where firms often default to outdated assumptions is in their view of Gen Z professionals. Side hustles, personal branding and social media engagement are frequently interpreted as distractions, signs of divided loyalty or reputational risks.
In reality, many Gen Z lawyers are operating with a portfolio mindset. They are developing skills in real-time communication, audience engagement and thought leadership. They are not rejecting commitment; they are diversifying it.
This does not mean firms should abandon guardrails. Branding concerns, confidentiality and professionalism still matter, but a blanket prohibition misses an opportunity. Firms that thoughtfully channel this energy can benefit from authentic marketing, stronger community engagement and lawyers who feel trusted, rather than constrained.
The question is not whether these behaviors exist. They already do. The question is whether firms choose to manage them intentionally or reactively.
When DEI actually works
Diversity, equity and inclusion are often discussed as programs or compliance obligations. In practice, when DEI is actually working, it looks much simpler and much more human.
It looks like people being given an equitable platform to perform at their best. It looks like lawyers being judged by the quality of their work, not by assumptions tied to background or circumstance. Everyone carries bias. We stereotype as a way to move quickly through the world. The work does not pretend that those undercurrents do not exist; it openly acknowledges them so unintended outcomes can be mitigated.
In my role overseeing talent, I often serve as an emotional guardrail for employees. I help regulate anxiety, stress and uncertainty about expectations and belonging. What people are ultimately seeking is not preferential treatment. It is an affirmation that they matter, that they are seen and that their presence adds value.
When an organization communicates, sincerely, “We are glad you are here. Our firm is better because you are here,” people respond: They invest. They contribute. They stay. Belonging is not a slogan. It is a performance driver.
A moment of reflection
The legal profession is at an inflection point. Firms are navigating generational change, evolving client expectations and increasing competition for talent. In moments like this, it is worth asking whether long-standing hiring and career assumptions still serve the outcomes firms say they want.
Are we optimizing for convenience or for excellence? Are we widening the lens or narrowing it out of habit? Are we building environments where people feel known and valued or simply managed?
Like the theme song from Cheers, sometimes you want to go where “everybody knows your name” and they are genuinely glad you came. Law firms that take the time to reflect on how their talent systems make people feel may find that excellence follows naturally.
Christine E. Hollis is the chief talent and diversity officer at Marshall, Gerstein & Borun in Chicago. She may be reached at [email protected].
Editor’s Note: The information contained in this article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Views expressed are those of the author and are not to be attributed to Marshall, Gerstein & Borun or any of its former, present or future clients.
ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”
