Consultants say succession plans are often reactive, and law firms are better at planning for growth than for exits
Being risk-averse, inert, and afraid are among the top reasons law firms fail to develop effective succession plans. While the topic has long been relevant, it’s become more urgent as a wave of baby boomer lawyers prepares for retirement.
That’s the warning from legal consultant Heather Suttie and Michaela Krell, the national director at the legal recruitment firm Life After Law.
Suttie says that although many lawyers know the importance of succession planning, it often takes a backseat to the daily pressures of running a legal practice – meeting deadlines, servicing clients, and managing casework.
“They focus on bringing clients in, but they don’t focus on their lawyers going out… Nobody lasts forever, and that’s why you have to have a good plan in place,” she says.
Krell says larger firms are more successful at succession planning, as they tend to have a built-in mechanism due to their student and associate programs.
She adds that most of them have a good sense of how many students to hire based on future attrition and how many younger lawyers might become partners down the road.
She acknowledges that the upcoming retirement wave will create a gap between senior and rising partners but says national firms are generally more equipped to weather the shift.
“In that sense, they are more succession-proof.”
By contrast, she says that smaller regional, boutique firms and solo practitioners tend to struggle more. Even when leadership understands the importance of succession, planning often gets pushed aside in favour of day-to-day demands.
“Often, it is out of necessity and reactive when succession planning does occur, and it can be too late.”
Suttie offers a different perspective on the role of firm size in succession planning. In her view, solo and small firm lawyers are often more attuned to the need for transition because they carry the full weight of the business.
She says these practitioners manage everything – from business development to legal work to office upkeep – which gives them a deeper understanding of their firm’s long-term sustainability.
She argues that succession can be less effective in large firms due to layers of administration and a diffused sense of accountability. Planning is often assumed to be someone else's job – until it’s too late.
“Stuff can fall through the cracks, and it’s often pushed off.”
Both Suttie and Krell agree that successful succession is possible, but it requires commitment, foresight, and time.
Krell recommends that firms begin planning three to five years before a partner’s departure and adds that a last-minute scramble rarely works.
Ideally, firms should identify junior partners or potential merger candidates well in advance and gradually integrate them into the client relationships managed by the departing partner.
When done correctly, the newer partners are already familiar faces when the transition occurs, and the handover of files and relationships feels seamless.
“At that point, the newer partners have had a few years to get to know the clients, establish the rapport and trust and successfully take over the practice.”
In contrast, when a partner gives just a few months’ notice and hasn’t involved anyone else in client relationships, the transition can be rocky, and the firm risks losing clients.
“This is when clients find new firms and lawyers to work with, take their business elsewhere and can be the end of the firm as they knew it,” she adds.
Suttie advocates for a strategy she calls “cohort laddering” – a long-term approach that matches law firm lawyers with their counterparts in the clients’ legal departments based on seniority and tenure.
Like steps on a ladder or rungs on an escalator, she says these cohorts move upward in tandem, building familiarity and trust as they advance in their respective roles.
As the most senior cohort in both organizations approaches retirement, the next generation – already acquainted – naturally steps into place.
For this process to work, she warns, law firms must put in time and intentional effort.
Despite knowing the risks, many firms still fail to act. Krell says that in many cases, it’s not the firms initiating succession conversations – it’s external advisors who sound the alarm.
“Often, we are the ones approaching the firms saying, ‘Hey, you have a potential problem on your hands. Five of your seven partners are going to retire in the next three to five years – what are you planning to do about it?’”
In the best-case scenario, firm leadership recognizes the issue and is willing to invest time and effort into finding a solution. But more often, Krell says, the problem is acknowledged but deprioritized.
With client demands, hiring pressures, and day-to-day emergencies, planning gets delayed – and the opportunity to effectively transition slips away. That, she warns, is when firms risk long-term damage or collapse.
Sutties says that even in firms that get the early steps right, there’s often a stumbling block at the leadership handoff. She adds that many still default to selecting successors based on tenure alone and warns that "the person with the whitest hair is not always the best choice.”
Suttie cautions that leadership positions shouldn’t be awarded due to seniority or popularity. Successful leaders are those who understand external markets, have the right people and structure in place, and align firm strategy with client needs.
“What goes on outside the law firm is more important than what goes on inside,” she says. “Because it’s the outside that pays for the inside.”
