Great colleagues and remote flexibility, but some turnover issues - Associate Attorney Gordon & Rees Employee Review

Great autonomy, full-remote flexibility. Decent benefits.

Mostly insured work, which pays low rates, limiting what the firm can you pay.

There were some genuinely nice people at the firm, including associates and several partners who were pleasant to work with and easy to talk to. At least during part of my time there, the office made an effort to host occasional social events and non-work gatherings, which helped create some sense of collegiality. The firm also offers exposure to a national platform and a steady volume of litigation work, so associates who want immediate responsibility may get it. Locally and nationally the firm seems to be generally respected by peers.

The associate experience can be deeply unhealthy depending on who controls your workload. In my experience, a major reason for the turnover was not the work itself, but the way certain leadership managed people. There was a pattern of extreme micromanagement, constant second-guessing, and little to no trust. Routine assignments could become unnecessarily stressful because every communication, strategy decision, draft, and judgment call felt subject to excessive control. Rather than giving associates room to learn, improve, and develop confidence, certain leadership seemed to operate from the assumption that associates were incompetent until proven otherwise. The feedback culture was also a major problem. Criticism often felt punitive rather than constructive. Expectations could shift after the fact, guidance could be vague or inconsistent, and associates could be blamed for not meeting standards that were never clearly communicated in the first place. That kind of management does not create better lawyers. It creates anxious, burned-out associates who spend more time trying to avoid criticism than actually learning how to practice. There was also a serious lack of professional respect. Associates were expected to be constantly available, responsive, and deferential, but that same courtesy was not always returned. The tone from certain leadership could be unnecessarily harsh, dismissive, or condescending, even when dealing with attorneys who were working hard and trying to do good work. It often felt like the goal was not mentorship, but control. The firm should be much more concerned that attorneys keep leaving under the same general conditions. High turnover is not just a recruiting problem or a generational problem. It is often a sign that people do not feel supported, respected, or fairly managed. In my view, the firm tolerated management behavior that made the office much worse than it needed to be. There are good people at the firm, and some partners were pleasant and reasonable. But that does not outweigh the damage caused when one difficult management style is allowed to dominate an associate’s day-to-day experience. For anyone considering the firm, I would strongly recommend trying to understand exactly who you would be working for, how much control that person would have over your workload, and why so many associates have left. There's then also the notorious compensation issue. The firm routinely underpays associates, any meaningful bonus requires 2400 hours billed or it's just not worth billing any extra time, "discretionary bonuses" are bait that never really happen, etc. Most associates just use this place to get some experience to move on to a litigation firm that will actually pay them.