The article profiles people in a bunch of professional firms, but ignores the changing market for those professionals. An ABA study showed that in 1965, a typical billable hour target for a lawyer was 1200-1600. Today, 2000 hours is a typical target. That can’t be explained by culture. Law has always drawn “insecure overachievers.” In reality, it’s due to the changing marketplace. Decades ago, it would be highly unusual for Philadelphia company to retain a DC firm for a matter. Today, it’s routine—your competition is nationwide. Golfing with local business people doesn’t cut it for business development anymore. And like other industries, the work has shifted to larger players in big markets (NYC/Chicago/SF/DC).
External competition also breeds internal competition. I used to work at a firm in New York. There was no competition in the partnership, by design: everyone was paid in a lock step fashion strictly by seniority. Business development meant checking your messages when you got back from lunch. Partnership was for life and partners never left. That was typical 30-40 years ago. Today it’s very much the exception, a model retained by a handful of firms that have major institutional relationships. The typical model today is “eat what you kill.” Partners are compensated based on how much business they bring in, and regularly hop from firm to firm depending on who is offering the best pay package.
Of course all this isn’t necessarily bad. Increased competition means more work, more hours, more availability. But where there is a lack of competition, that’s often a sign of people being kept down. Back in 1965, many firms didn’t hire Jews, Asians, African Americans, women, etc. Business was given out over drinks instead of having competing firms pitch for it in a transparent way. All of those things increase competition and decrease the value of “good old boy” networks.