In a recent Platforum9 session, two seasoned legal coaches shared candid insights about the evolving role of coaching in the legal profession. Ron Given, who spent 30 years at large American law firm Mayer Brown with over a decade in Europe at Wolf Theiss and with Deloitte, now focuses on executive coaching from his base in Chicago. Pat Zamorski, with 25 years of experience working with lawyers in international firms including most recently at Dentons, is based in Berlin and works with both individual and group coaching. Their perspectives reveal both promising developments and concerning trends in how law firms approach professional development.
The Coaching Evolution: From Stigma to Strategy
Pat Zamorski observed an encouraging shift in how coaching is perceived within legal environments: “It used to be that coaching was seen as almost like a word you shouldn’t use in this environment—almost like when you say you need a coach, it’s a way to say that something’s wrong with you or you need some sort of fixing, which is not true.”
This transformation mirrors developments in professional sports, where top athletes routinely work with multiple coaches to enhance different aspects of their performance. “More and more, coaching is actually seen very much like in the world of sports and top athletes—it’s the way to become better,” Pat Zamorski explained. “You actually need coaches for certain areas to get better, to perform better, and exceed and move forward.”
This shift represents more than just changing terminology; it reflects a fundamental reframe from viewing coaching as remedial intervention to recognising it as performance enhancement for high achievers.
A Tale of Two Continents
However, the conversation revealed significant differences between American and European approaches to legal coaching. While Pat Zamorski reported growing acceptance in Europe, Ron expressed concern about developments in the United States.
“There’s a bit of a pullback,” Ron Given observed about the American legal market. “In the United States, coaching really gathered a lot of steam post-George Floyd when lots of things were being done to try to give the big law firm environment a more grassroots view. Now I’m seeing more of an emphasis falling back on what I think are more traditional employee training concepts.”
This regression, according to Ron Given, stems partly from firms’ desire to avoid standing out on potentially controversial topics: “This is not necessarily a reaction to coaching per se, but a falling back on more traditional, generic training that nobody can complain about.”
The Trust Deficit
A significant barrier to coaching adoption appears to be trust—specifically, skepticism about firm-sponsored coaching programmes. Ron Given noted a troubling pattern: “I can’t tell you the number of times I’ll be talking to partners or even associates at law firms, and when I say, ‘Do you know your internal coach?’ I’m telling them they don’t even know about the programme.”
This disconnect suggests that even when firms invest in coaching resources, they may not be effectively communicating their availability or value to staff. More concerning is the perception that internal coaches may not be truly independent: “There’s this view that if the firm is putting them in front of me, I just don’t trust them… If this is somebody on staff at a law firm in a coaching role, they’re viewed as just an extension of HR and they work for the boss.”
This has led to an interesting trend of lawyers seeking external coaching relationships: “I’m often approached now where people say, ‘I’m going to invest in myself. I don’t want anybody paid by anybody else. I want to invest in myself.'”
Why Coaching Works—When It Works
Both coaches emphasised that successful coaching relationships depend on psychological safety and trust between coach and client. Pat Zamorski noted the importance of proper credentials and professional standards: “Coaching is quite well regulated. People who are coaches are usually members of certain coaching organisations that have specific standards.”
The transformational potential becomes apparent once lawyers experience the coaching process. Pat Zamorski shared: “Even if someone wasn’t sure, wasn’t convinced, usually after one or two sessions, they start seeing how powerful this process can be. They opened their eyes and realised, ‘Wow, I never expected that this form of support can bring so much and can give me so much.'”
The Unique Challenges of Legal Culture
When asked why coaching hasn’t gained more traction in legal practice despite its success in other industries, both coaches pointed to fundamental aspects of legal training and culture.
Ron Given identified a core philosophical mismatch: “When a client comes to me, they want an answer and they want it in the shortest period of time. They want to win and they want an answer. That isn’t essentially what coaching is about. Coaching is about helping you find the answer as opposed to somebody else giving you an answer.”
This training to provide immediate solutions creates resistance to coaching’s more exploratory, client-driven approach. “We are geared to just delivering answers as opposed to helping us find our own way,” Ron Given observed.
Pat Zamorski agreed that lawyers are “slow, not only in this area, but generally with anything new. It’s just the nature of the legal profession.” However, once lawyers understand the process, adoption can be rapid: “The moment people understand how it works, what it can do for them and their team, then they very quickly adopt it—it’s almost immediate.”
Practical Applications: Surviving the Pressure Cooker
The discussion addressed a practical concern raised by a recent law school graduate about surviving the demanding culture of large law firms, where “trainees proudly leave past 9:00 PM.”
Ron Given’s response highlighted coaching’s role in helping lawyers make conscious choices rather than simply enduring circumstances: “What occupies probably the majority of my coaching interactions is really working with coachees as they deal with: How do I deal with this environment, this culture? And do I want it?”
This involves helping lawyers:
- Recognise the price they’re paying for their career choices
- Evaluate whether the trade-offs align with their goals
- Consider alternatives and strategic career planning
- Develop resilience for necessary challenging periods
“A lot of it is just thinking about it, being conscious of the choices that you’re making, realising you’re making choices,” Ron Given explained.
The Individual Responsibility Trend
Both coaches noted an emerging trend toward individual responsibility for professional development. While some firms provide systematic coaching programmes, there’s increasing recognition that lawyers must take ownership of their growth.
“I really do believe this is a time when coaching is more important than it has ever been, particularly for lawyers,” Ron Given emphasised. “If anybody thinks that someone is going to really be there for you if the going gets tough, you’re kidding yourself.”
This perspective, while perhaps cynical, reflects the reality that successful legal careers increasingly require self-direction and personal investment in development, whether through formal coaching relationships or other growth opportunities.
Looking Forward: Generational Change
Despite current challenges, both coaches expressed optimism about younger lawyers leading change in coaching adoption. As Pat Zamorski noted, once lawyers experience coaching, resistance typically dissolves quickly.
The key appears to be education and demystification. As more lawyers in leadership positions experience coaching’s benefits—following the example of successful executives in other industries—acceptance is likely to grow.
Ron Given’s advice to young lawyers extended beyond coaching to overall professional development: “Really making sure you find the path, now more than I’ve seen in a number of years, is very dependent on your own self-direction and self-management and self-investment.”
Conclusion
The conversation revealed coaching’s potential to address many challenges facing today’s legal professionals, from work-life balance to career strategy to performance optimisation. However, realising this potential requires overcoming cultural barriers, trust deficits, and the profession’s general resistance to innovation.
For individual lawyers, the message is clear: successful peers in other industries routinely use coaching to enhance their performance and navigate complex career decisions. For law firms, the challenge is creating coaching programmes that genuinely serve their people rather than institutional interests, building the trust necessary for transformational relationships.
As the legal profession continues to evolve, those who embrace coaching—whether individually or institutionally—may find themselves better equipped to thrive in an increasingly demanding and competitive environment.
