Full article

Lateral Hires and the Invisible Ceiling for Homegrown Lawyers

In today’s law firms, growing from the bottom up no longer guarantees promotion. Firms increasingly invest in lawyers who arrive from outside with experience and clients, while young attorneys trained in-house hit an invisible ceiling that blocks their path to partnership.

For decades, law firms cultivated the idea that a legal career was a predictable ladder: join as a junior straight out of law school, prove technical excellence, bill countless hours, and eventually reach the coveted status of partner. Yet today’s reality is different. Lawyers trained within their own firms increasingly struggle to rise, while lateral hires—those brought in from other firms, often with their own client portfolios—move much faster toward partnership.

The data confirms this trend. Since 2012, statistics have shown that lateral hires are more likely to be promoted to partner than homegrown lawyers. That gap has not only persisted but widened over the last decade. The implicit message is clear: loyalty and internal training are valued less than the ability to bring in a lawyer who is already “made” and promises immediate business.

The difference lies partly in expectations. Homegrown lawyers are hired fresh out of law school for their academic records, their willingness to work long hours, and their potential as diligent “worker bees.” At that stage, they are valued for what they might become, but their future as business generators is unknown. Their career depends on proving, over time, qualities that no one could guarantee at the start.

Laterals, by contrast, are seen as a safer bet. They are not hired for their potential but for their proven value: specialization in strategic practice areas, cultural fit with the firm, and above all, the ability to bring clients. No firm pays headhunter fees or offers lucrative contracts just to see what happens in ten years. They hire those who already possess the most coveted asset: immediate revenue.

The imbalance is also cultural. Homegrown lawyers often remain in the shadow of their early days as interns or trainees. No matter how skilled they become, senior partners may still view them as the “kids of the house,” unfit for leadership. Laterals, on the other hand, arrive as the “shiny new thing,” presumed excellent simply for having passed a demanding recruitment process. The pandemic only deepened the divide: many homegrowns worked remotely, invisible to decision-makers, while laterals, onboarding during that period, often spent more time in the office gaining visibility.

Investment reinforces this logic. Firms spend fortunes on laterals: recruiter fees, onboarding programs, integration efforts. Naturally, they want to see a quick return in the form of accelerated promotions. By contrast, homegrown lawyers—who have cost less in recent investments—are expected to wait patiently and prove loyalty over the long haul.

Underlying it all is the same reality: client acquisition. Whether homegrown or lateral, the path to partnership is less about technical excellence and more about the ability to generate business. But while laterals are assumed to have that ability as a condition of their hire, homegrown lawyers must prove it against the odds, all while battling the prejudices of those who trained them.

The result is an invisible ceiling that limits the promotion of those who grew up within the firm from day one. It is a false meritocracy that preaches loyalty and sacrifice but rewards immediacy and external talent. The culture that emerges is one in which being a good lawyer is not enough: to advance, you must be a business generator—and, in many cases, arrive from outside with your client portfolio already secured.

For young lawyers beginning their careers in a firm, loyalty alone no longer guarantees promotion. The smartest strategy is to combine technical training with business development skills, visibility, and networking. Only then can they compete with those who arrive from outside carrying a built-in advantage.

This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: should firms reward loyalty and talent cultivated in-house, or continue relying on lateral hires as a shortcut to guaranteed revenue? Until that question is addressed, many lawyers will keep bumping into an invisible ceiling that has less to do with legal merit than with the clients they can bring to the table.