The dark side: Trends in antisocial behaviour in law firm partnerships

Ben Rigby and Alex Aldridge explore the prevalence of antisocial behaviour in partnerships

All sorts of people become partners in law firms. Some are charming; others less so. Many radiate intelligence, although a surprising amount don’t. Many love the law, while others take their motivation from the cut and thrust of business. There are, however, a few traits that law firm partners usually share: drive and ambition, alongside which tends to come, when pressed, a willingness to put their needs above those of others.

In the law, as in any industry, the process of getting to the top has a dark side. Based on conversations with a range of consultants, organisational psychologists, ex-managing partners and ten current leading lawyers, one could argue that it doesn’t always hurt law firms to manage lawyers a few notches along the downside of such disorders in progressing their careers. However, the consequences of managing the dark side of partnership may not be worth the costs.

Partners behaving badly

Consultant Nick Jarrett-Kerr has identified one class of partner as ‘performaholics’. These people, he says, are driven to getting the job done, have no great sense of altruism and abhor any partner who they feel is underperforming in commercial terms.

Performaholics “are often extremely selfish, ‘looking after number one’, and they can therefore easily become prima donna types and lone wolves”, Jarrett-Kerr notes in a white paper.¹

“They have no particular need for affiliation. They exhibit distrust of anybody else’s abilities and do not like rules and disciplines except their own. They can be intensely private people and they can easily become control freaks. When busy (which they almost always are) they tend to get easily frustrated if they feel they are being held up by distractions and impediments.”

They will see the point of focusing on business development and client relationship management, but it will sometimes be difficult to persuade them to devote real effort to human capital development, he adds.

Partners are not unknown for showing a lack of empathy toward the personal difficulties of junior lawyers. An alumnus at a magic circle firm recalls a time when a partner expected an associate whose grandmother had just died to continue working on an urgent deal.

“Weirdly, the partner in question didn’t seem to think that he was acting out of the ordinary; it was as if he had no empathy,” she says. “The partners at my former firm often didn’t know how to manage people and had almost no basic social skills.”

This is a view that has been echoed by several associates and trainees. Junior lawyers also report working for partners with Jekyll and Hyde-type personalities.

One lawyer who used to work with a well-known partner at a US law firm in London says the partner had a habit of “throwing lever arch files, coffee cups and once even a computer keyboard” at his office wall during periodic fits of rage.

The partner in question would then “profusely apologise hours later” and behave “completely normally”.

Other big-name partners in leading law firms similarly have reputations for being so highly driven that they’re subject to momentary losses of control on occasions, but beneath it all they were seen as “basically good people”.

But, are these partners simply demonstrating negative behaviours or are they indicative of antisocial personality disorders?

Conflicting priorities

Perhaps such problems are down to the Catch-22 situation partners are caught in, rather than because they are inherently mad or bad.

Organisational psychologist professor Andrew Kakabadse of Cranfield University says “the issues that arrive from law firms I have seen arise from irreconcilable tensions in the business which become too much of a problem for partners to manage”.

The balancing capacity of partners to handle the costs of the business and the innovation required to create it becomes ultimately so damaging that they are affected to the point of burnout or worse, he says.

Kakabadse points to tensions between “maintaining a positive internal culture and delivering great client service on the one hand, and the constant efforts to meet client demands and the firm’s own costs, in managing these downwards for the client and maintaining profitability for the firm”.

Some partners, he says, “will sheepishly admit that the pressure becomes too much; they don’t know how to deal with these contradictory forces”, which affects them emotionally and psychologically.

“Partners are caught in a situational dilemma where opposing forces bear against them; they are ultimately impossible for some,” he adds. If they fail to process these, they burn out, or express their frustrations negatively, in such a way that they appear to manifest personality disorders.

Employment lawyer Anna de Buisseret of New Media Law notes that, because high-performing individuals sometimes demonstrate negative behaviours, however triggered, “the profession owes it to them to deal with these issues”.

Law firms also need to communicate more with mental health organisations about how to manage such issues, she says. “People won’t admit to such problems unless asked and very few ever volunteer that they have them due to the prejudice attached to mental health issues.”

The UK Equality Act 2010 places a duty on firms to make “reasonable adjustments” for people with disabilities in the workplace. Many of these conditions fall within the definition of “disability” and provide protection from discrimination, with certain rights, de Buisseret adds.

How far is too far?

While there are robust personalities that firms tolerate for the sake of keeping the partnership together because of their value to it, that doesn’t mean unacceptable behaviour is always tolerated.

“Managing partners use a lot of wisdom in handling those characters so that the different personalities are manageable but, equally, they will be tough when they have to be and manage a person out if that is what is needed,” says Jarrett-Kerr.

Tarlo Lyons’ former managing partner, Nigel McEwen, notes that while there is generally a tolerance for foibles in good lawyers, who will be encouraged as long as they achieve, a lack of success means that tolerance is exceeded.

But, firms have become better at managing difficult situations, he says. “The number of law firms that have broken up due to conflicting personalities alone – as opposed to business reasons – is very small. It does happen, but that tolerance factor will retain relationships for the business’ sake.”

Traits for success

University of British Columbia psychologist Dr Dan Jones feels that a trait that seems to immediately lend itself to success in law firms is Machiavellianism, namely individuals being willing to do “whatever it takes”.

Jones has researched what he calls the ‘dark triad’ of negative emotions: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy. He describes these traits as being toxic in the following ways:

• Machiavellians tend to manipulate in the long term, strategise and formulate strategies that are most useful to their selfish goals. They are usually driven by instrumental gain.

• Narcissists are egotistical and self-aggrandise to assert dominance over others. Most (if not all) of what they do is driven by a desire to prove their superiority.

• Psychopaths are liars (or short-term manipulators) who are impulsive and have no regard for rules of any kind. Consequently, they are driven by the immediate gratification of desires.

In an adversarial system, there will always be individuals who ‘win at all costs’ that are drawn to it. Machiavellians, Jones says, are a perfect example. They have little concern for the welfare of others, but instead plan, manipulate and deceive.

Such individuals may engage in dishonesty, but do so in a way that would avoid detection and maximally benefit themselves, leading them to enjoy successful legal careers.

Jones does however note than an individual can be strategic and manipulate others in a good, honest way to help those in need. The real difference lies in their motivations and intentions.

Lords of misrule

It has been suggested that the most ambitious, and therefore arguably the most personality disorder-prone, would make it to senior positions in law firms.

Indeed, both writers have interviewed highly-respected partners who have possessed one trait associated with antisocial personality disorders: very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharging aggression.

Lawyers, however, say that this isn’t the case.

“Extreme people – be they those who suffer extremes of aggression, obsessive behaviour or lack of empathy – tend to get only so far in life,” says the senior partner of a top London firm.

A junior associate at a magic circle firm echoes this sentiment. “In my opinion, effective management requires leaders to be very aware of people’s emotional and professional needs. They have to be very effective communicators – a skill that I don’t believe sociopaths are famous for,” he said.

Jones is also sceptical that many successful law firms have psychopaths at the top, noting that, for such individuals, “if you pay no attention to the rules, you aren’t going to go too far in a reputable law firm”.

He adds that psychopathic individuals are likely to ignore basic rules and aspects of the law that will derail their careers. But, “that is not to say that they won’t make significant progress first in being useful to law firms in different ways”, he says.

Such fast-acting dispositions are likely to get them out to an early start. “A willingness to deceive and lack of concern for those who suffer may, at least initially, help a legal career,” notes Jones. “Machiavellians embody all of these characteristics, psychopaths only some.” To them, the ends justify the means.

Kakabadse, having worked extensively with law firms, is adamant that he hasn’t come across “a single individual who could be labelled as a psychopath, as understood in its psychiatric meaning ‘someone with no capacity to appreciate the context they are in’”.

That does not exclude tough – as opposed to dysfunctional – characters, though. Reflecting on law firm culture in the 1990s, McEwen, now CEO at Littleton Chambers, notes that “there was an automatic assumption that the biggest billers or the best rainmakers would make senior partner and, if they had ‘drive’ or pushed people out of their way to achieve, then that was something that went with the following”.

These days, while departmental heads and senior partners tend to be well balanced and good all-rounders, managing partners have more focused personalities, with a good eye for detail and a head for figures.

Because of the frequently difficult decisions they are called upon to make about a firm’s strategy, which in the profit-driven world of City law firms regularly involves booting out weaker performers, they also have a reputation for lacking empathy. However, even those with the reputation of being notorious City ‘hard men’ have displayed a sensitive side in private.

Kakabadse suggests some partners pay a psychological cost themselves in managing significant organisational change because, while partners may agree a strategy between themselves, “there will be those who struggle with it… because they can’t process the pathology of the situation they’re in”.

Mad, bad and dangerous

It is arguable that if psychopaths are prevalent anywhere in law firms, it’s probably among the very small minority of partners who commit criminal acts. However, they may also have completely normal psyches and have other reasons for breaking the law. The bottom line is we may never know how many of those who suffer from antisocial personality disorders work within larger law firms.

Even screening is controversial. Says Jarrett-Kerr: “Psychological profiling occurs more than one might think in law firms, but there will always be reserve about it, and some partners don’t like the idea of profiling members of the firm so, if it is used, it is considered a backup judgement to conventional HR methods.”

Kakabadse adds that such tools only assess competences, drivers and skills at a moment in time and fail to recognise that individual psychological states are fluid. “People change over periods, both backwards and forwards in their own mental state. How they might handle a situation also changes, as does the firm’s motivations. Assessment and screening can only go so far,” he says.

 

---

Assessing the depth of the problem

The UK Home Office describes antisocial behaviour as “any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life”. 

Under new government proposals, local agencies will be compelled to investigate antisocial behaviour if it has been repeatedly complained about.

For medical professionals diagnosing antisocial or dissocial personality disorders, the World Health Organisation has indicated in its diagnostic reference book International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10) that at least three of the following should be present and endure over time: 

1. callous unconcern for the feelings of others;'¨

2. gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules and obligations;'¨

3. incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them;'¨

4. very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence;'¨

5. incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment; and'¨

6. marked proneness to blame others, or to offer plausible rationalisations, for the behaviour that has brought the person into conflict with society.

 

Endnote

1. See Knowing the performaholics in your firm, Nick Jarrett-Kerr, 2009