Why your best paralegal is about to quit

The lateral market is a hot topic in the legal world. You argue that firms should be paying just as much attention to paralegals who make these moves. Why?

Take the average salary of one of your top two best paralegals, then add recruiting costs, then add in the ramp period, where the new person is producing at maybe 60% while a senior paralegal is answering questions instead of doing their own work. (That last piece is the one everyone forgets about, and it is usually the biggest one, because you are burning your most expensive staff time to rebuild something you already had.)

Then add the part that has no price on it. The paralegal who left unexpectedly knew which records provider takes 60 days and which one takes two weeks. She knew which court coordinator wants the proposed order attached and which one wants it separate. She knew the 2019 policy limits letter is filed under correspondence and not insurance, because that is how that file got built in 2021. None of that is written down anywhere. It walks out the door with her, and you rebuild it by trial and error over the next 18 months.

Firms will spend eight months and real money replacing a person and never spend one hour asking why she left.

Why do good paralegals jump ship?

I have handled dozens of exit interviews over the course of my career; the good paralegals who have decided to move on to another firm typically start with an apology.

They want you to know they are not unhappy; they like the people they work with, and they generally like the cases they work on. This is what they will tell you at first, and I think they mean it when they say it. Then, somewhere in the next 10 minutes or so, you get some version of the same sentence: “I love this job, I just don't know what else there is for me here, growth-wise.”

Money is not what’s causing people to leave?

Almost nobody leads with money, but money is also a big factor that needs to be addressed. You will generally only learn about salary concerns if you really push. The best paralegals remain uncomfortable discussing money, even now in 2026.

The other thing they say is that they only started looking because a recruiter called and they had no reason to say no. Not because anything was wrong. Because there was nothing on their radar to stay for. No discussions of promotion or salary increases–so why not take the recruiter calls? Where is the harm in scheduling interviews to see what else may be out there?

What about being promoted into a management role?

This is the reflex. A firm decides to reward its best paralegal, so it promotes her into supervising eight people. Now the firm has lost its best trial paralegal and gained a mediocre supervisor, and both jobs are being performed worse than they were before. Not everyone is cut out for supervisor roles, but they will take a promotion to supervisor if that is the only lane available.

What’s the alternative?

A clear career ladder like associates have.

You already know who your three-year and 15-year people are. You already assign work accordingly. You have just never said it out loud, so nobody knows they are standing on a ladder and nobody knows what the next rung requires.

My recommendation is to make a list on one page with three tiers. For each tier, list the capabilities, not the years: can independently manage a docket; can build a deposition prep from scratch; can supervise and train.

Actually, if you want to do it right, build two tracks. One for technical mastery, where the top of the ladder is running the hardest cases in the building and being paid accordingly. One for management, for the people who genuinely want to build other people.

Then sit down with every person on staff, tell them which tier they are in, and give them the specific list of what is required to move up to the next rung on the ladder. This simple exercise will also help you identify individuals who may need to be replaced.

What do you say to an attorney who argues paralegal work doesn't scale in complexity the way legal work does?

Then hand the helicopter crash case file to the paralegal who just started working at the firm in March with only two years of prior experience. Nobody does that.

You are already sorting by complexity. You are just not paying for it, and you are not naming it.

Bonus Round: What movie would you have people check out if they wanted to get a taste of what your job is like?

“My Cousin Vinny”. It has been my answer for years, and I am not going to pretend I have a more sophisticated one.

Two reasons. The expert qualification scene is genuinely correct, and I have thought about it in real depositions more than once.

But the better reason, for this conversation, is Mona Lisa Vito. She is the one who actually knows the thing. No title anybody respects, no credential on paper, and she is the reason that case gets won. And then once she blows the case wide open, everyone goes back to calling her “the fiancée.”

If you want a one-sentence summary of everything I have said here, that's the one.

Thursday's newsletter: An expert witness let ChatGPT write his report
The most recent Q&A: Hourly billing isn’t as safe for lawyers as everyone assumes
In the vault: Every firm growth and marketing lesson we've published for small firms this year