Law People : Law Practice Management, Law Firm Coaching : Ronda Muir of Robin Rolfe Resources : Law People Blog

Monday, March 8, is International Women's Day. So how are we doing?

Bain and Company recently released results of a survey, reported in the Harvard Business Review, of 1,800 business people worldwide. 80% believed that companies benefit from a gender diverse workforce; 75% reported having initiatives in their workplace to improve gender parity; but less than 25% felt those initiatives were effective.

When it comes to the law, women have been in the law practice “pipeline” for over three decades now; there are currently more women than men graduating from law school, where women have for some time made better grades than their male counterparts, which has resulted in women joining the ranks of prestigious firms in large numbers over the years. Whether for culture or client reasons, women's initiatives abound.

Yet women leave the practice of law  (not just change jobs) much faster than men—although not because of low performance—and constitute a mere 16% of partners in major law firms. 

How have women done in the current recession?  Better than might have been predicted.  According to a National Law Journal article entitled "Bad Times Could Have Been Worse for Women," "women lawyers have not suffered more in the current recession than their male counterparts. At least not when it comes to headcount at NLJ 250 firms."  According to The National Law Journal's 2009 survey of the nation's 250 largest law firms, the number of women lawyers at those firms decreased overall by 2% during 2009, compared to an overall headcount loss of 4%. And while the average number of female associates fell to 112, compared with 124.7 in 2008, the average number of women partners went up slightly, to 41 from 39.4.

Nonetheless, the National Association of Women Lawyers’ November 2008 report "The Third Annual National Survey On Retention And Promotion Of Women In Law Firms" reveals an alarming difference between the amount of power and money men and women have in large law firms: “At every stage of practice, men out-earn women lawyers… Male equity partners earn on average over $87,000 a year more than female equity partners. In 99% of large firms, the most highly compensated partner is a man.” The report also notes that women have no presence at all on 15 per cent of the nation’s largest firms’ governing committees.

And to further complicate things, one managing partner of a large firm claims that in spite of beefing up its diversity credentials and trotting them out in response to every RFP a socially conscious potential client has submitted, he believes that those credentials have not gotten the firm one piece of business.

What's going on here? Are women not up to the heavy lifting that firms require?  Are we as firms doing a poor job of delivering and following through on those diversity initiatives?  Or are the initiatives out of touch with want women are looking for? Are law firms, clients and others paying lip service to a bigger umbrella that in fact they don't put their money (and matters) behind?  If clients and firms resolve to be gender blind, shouldn't all this work out fairly to both genders in the end?

Or, in other words, what do women want?

A lot of ink has been spilled over that question. In and out of the arena of practicing law.

The authors of the Bain and Co. survey mentioned above urged firms to develop "less rigid promotion processes and career paths" in order to better accommodate women.

“If companies want to help more women climb the corporate ladder, they have to go beyond flex jobs or flex hours. Instead, they need to develop less rigid promotion processes and career paths — and actively promote and ‘de-stigmatize’ flexible career arcs within the organization. For companies, the pay-off can be huge: not only will they double their talent pool of leaders as more women return to the workforce in senior positions; they will also retain more male and female employees in the long-run and slash retraining costs.”

In a study conducted by Rutgers’ Center for Women and Work, more than 70% of the women lawyers who had left their jobs during the previous five years said their previous employer was not supportive of full-time flexible alternatives, while only 30% described their current employer as unsupportive of such arrangements. 

“An important new finding of this study is that women lawyers often choose an exit strategy when faced with the dilemma of choosing between work and family obligations,” the study said. “The business case for more family-friendly approaches to the practice of law could not be more clear.”

A study of thousands of associates using Westlaw throws some interesting light on the question. 80% of the associates worked in AmLaw200 firms and  the remainder worked at firms with more than 80 attorneys. The gender split was 50/50.

Four types of associates emerged.  The group dubbed Career Practitioners, who are driven, aspire to partnership, and will take on as much work as a firm gives them, constitute 23% of the associates and are 60% male.  Flexibility Seekers, about 23% of the associates and 60% female, are looking for a satisfying career that allows work-life balance and become less interested in partnership over time.

The 3rd group, Called Lawyers, 24% of the total, have the highest percentage of females (63%) and the highest percentage of non-Caucasians (35%). This group is the most satisfied with compensation and the most passionate about the practice of law. Called Lawyers are as willing as the Career Practitioners to volunteer for committees or other firm work, but for different reasons. They also significantly value their personal and family time, and in this are more closely aligned with the Flexibility Seekers than with Career Practitioners. The 4th group, the Willing Workers, representing about 30% of the associates, have no particular passion for the law, but are willing to work hard and follow directions – unusual for attorneys who are typically highly autonomous. Willing Workers will become partners as a means to higher income, but they are loath to sacrifice quality of life. Their motto is: "Work hard, play hard, retire early." 

Note that three of these four groups place a high value on lifestyle or family obligations.  And that women are most populous in those groups.  Doesn't that support the sneaking suspicion more than a few have had that women aren't really in it for the long and hard haul, like the grizzly senior partners they are meant to succeed?  Doesn't that kind of information make a myth out of the vaunted value of diversity?

A critical finding here is that according to survey respondents, the same proportion of lawyers in all of these groups are rated satisfactory or above on performance reviews.  That is, no one group is more likely to be better lawyers than the others.

If performance is – and it should be – the primary criteria, there is essentially no difference among the four groups. Therefore, if firms promote the first and familiar group (with a larger male population) over the second and third groups (with larger female populations) or even the fourth group in the hope that they will be the best associates and partners, firms would be unnecessarily reducing their pool of candidates by up to 75% for no good reason.

Yet in fact Career Practitioners tend to hire other Career Practitioners, whether they are men or women, black or white, just as MBTI "Thinkers" tend to hire other Thinkers, resulting in law firm environments that are extraordinarily well suited for only one stripe of lawyer, forestalling every advantage that real diversity might bring.  

The real diversity challenge becomes accepting that excellence can be achieved in (and should be expected of) a truly diverse workforce--not only diverse in terms of gender and race, but diverse in attitudes and expectations about their practice and lifestyle.  In other words, excellence doesn't just come in the "driven" package--that package looks dedicated and workaholic and even macho--but that's not what is necessary to get the job done...well, very well. 

One challenge may be to offer our firms as a home to all lawyers, regardless of any attribute other than excellence.

And this might be the ideal time to start experimenting with different approaches to law practice.  Larissa Glubb made these observations in my "Women In Law--For Us and By Us" blog on LegalOnRamp:

"Most women are prevented from reaching partnership or management positions because the organisations they work for value time, not results. Female lawyers, especially those with family responsibilities, desire and require control over their work and their work choices, which is very difficult to achieve if 'time' is the main measure of success... Lawyer’s bonuses and opportunities for promotion are more often than not linked to meeting or exceeding a set number of billable hours per year, rather than the quality of the work performed or the results achieved for the clients."

In his book Drive: The Surprising Truth about What Motivates Us, Daniel H. Pink challenges traditional assumptions about what motivates us to achieve at work. In a chapter on the benefits of self-direction in the work place, Mr. Pink has this to say about lawyers and the traditional legal workplace:

“…at the heart of private legal practice is perhaps the most autonomy-crushing mechanism imaginable: the billable hour. Most lawyers – and nearly all lawyers in large, prestigious firms – must keep scrupulous track, often in six-minute increments, of their time…As a result, their focus inevitably veers from the output of their work (solving a client’s problem) to its input (piling up as many hours as possible). If the rewards come from time, then time is what firms will get. These sorts of high-stakes, measurable goals can drain intrinsic motivation, sap individual initiative, and even encourage unethical behavior”.

According to Ms. Glubb, "If legal organisations were to trust that the professionals they have hired can get the work done to the satisfaction of the client, it should not matter whether this work is done at home or in the office, in the morning, before the school run or in the evening once kids are in bed. These legal professionals have years of experience and are being trusted to complete transactions worth millions, yet are not trusted to balance their commitments."

A Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE), advocated by Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson in their book Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, is how Best Buy successfuly changed from an hours to outcomes work environment. The message Best Buy promoted is: “It doesn’t matter where you work, or when you work, as long as the work gets done.”

“There’s a misperception out there that just because a manager lets an employee go to a dentist appointment, that’s flexible working. That’s not flexible working at all. ROWE is really putting the freedom and the power back in the employee’s hands to determine what and how and when they work best. A Results-Only Work Environment is about recognizing and acting on people’s need to have more control over their lives to meet all the demands in their lives.”

Glubb says that Latitude-South, a legal outsourcing company she works for, has built a business model around this concept. "Many detractors will say that client demands preclude such a significant organisational change. We disagree. Our experience has been that our clients value expertise and experience and recognise that it is these inputs that produce the results they require. The work must still be done, yes, but it does not always need to be performed between the industrial age hours of 9am – 5pm, in the traditional setting and in a traditional way."

Whether it is legal outsourcing or more women in high places that you are after, an attitude less fixated on comparing accrued billable hours might be the place to start, and now might be the time.

So what women want may well be what over 75% of the legal workforce wants: control over how they get the results that are expected of them.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Back in 1998 management guru Peter Drucker suggested that the capability to operate productively when change is the norm would be critical in the 21st century. Much has been said of late on this issue of managing change when change is the norm, including articles in the Harvard Business Review and from McKinsey.

There are big differences in approach and execution between, on the one hand, bringing about a change and making it stick and, on the other, embedding into an organization the capability to grow in a business environment where change is constant. The first attempts to bring about a single change in an organization that is sluggish and resistant. The second is about developing within an organization a comfort with ongoing change and the ability to leverage that comfort for its own ends. The suggestion from Drucker and all those that have commented since on this subject is that this ‘agile and preemptive organization’ is the future--a place where a change management program, at least as we use that term today, is not necessary.

There are challenging aspects in attempting to change an operation to an agile and preemptive organization. Many conventional values and beliefs about what is, or is not, best practice must change. These two bear mention: The underlying acceptance of hiding or burying bad news and/or spinning accountability to avoid blame must be seen as entirely unacceptable, even if things ultimately turn out for the best. Defensiveness and avoidance of conflict are both attributes that are central to many lawyers’ work style. The logical consequences of those attributes are self-and-other deceiving and justifying behavior, and in the old paradigm often produced a negative result—blind spots in client service, lack of responsiveness to colleague and client feedback, and ultimately exposure to malpractice claims. These behaviors now must be seen as a greater sin than not achieving expected base-line performance. Although frustrating to senior management in stable times, this behavior can have a disastrous impact in times of turbulence. This change is very difficult to bring about in real terms, and the solution is not just a no-blame culture, because people justify and deceive not just to avoid blame.

Another example relates to the conventional view of planning. Making long term plans in times of change is forecasting in fog. Visions are fine as long as they remain visions. The kind of planning that is now required is the type that adapts, flexes and is capable of responding to new opportunities on a continual basis. The fact that only 12% of strategies are ever executed may help in a perverse way, but this change requires a whole new attitude to feedback and accountability.

Peter Senge, author of The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization, also contends that in a rapid-fire, information-driven, technology-powered world, success is contingent on our individual and corporate abilities to adjust, adapt and learn. The organization, therefore, must incorporate processes of reflection and evaluation into its organizational systems, he says. Leaders must commit to their own personal learning as well as fostering an environment of learning in their organizations. We lawyers are often on a “drive to closure” escalator that makes it hard to step aside and undertake that sort of reflection.

Chris Argyris, emeritus professor at the Harvard Business School, advocates "double-loop learning." He takes the position that most people define learning too narrowly as mere "problem solving," so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment.  If learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inward to reflect critically on their own behavior, he says, identifying the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization's problems, and then change how they act. In particular, they must learn how the very way they go about defining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right.

There is much of this accommodation to a new constant-change climate that falls into what is essentially an emotional category—how to appeal to and acclimate people who are not by their natures or histories comfortable with change. For example, lawyers are notoriously risk-resistant. Change is therefore anathema because it is by definition taking a risk. How do we effect a change in so fundamental a trait? A trait that is useful when advising our clients yet perilous if allowed to shape our practices? And not only must our approach understand and appeal to our deepest inclinations but it also demands that we put into place more objective, operational changes in the shape of a whole new set of specific working practices.

The problem is that so much of the solution to achieving this new business model of accommodating, no, even encouraging and celebrating, change will not be found in our practices of the past. 

It is a brave new world--one which we would prefer to avoid.  But can we afford to?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Firms are placing their futures at risk if they cannot identify, develop and empower the next generation of leaders.  So it is no surprise that more law firms are investing in leadership development.  For example, according to PaLAW 2009's 14th annual Managing Partners Survey, cited in the November 23, 2009 issue of The Legal Intelligencer, the number of firms surveyed that provide leadership training at any level increased from 40.5% in 2008 to 67.7% in 2009, almost a 60% increase. 

What does it take to be a good leader?  And do we lawyers have what it takes?

There are numerous theories about the best style of leadership--see  Primal Leadership (2002) by Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee for an informative evaluation of 6 major styles. Apart from style, Richard Daft, author of The Leadership Experience, cites numerous studies that have sifted out five recurring personal attributes of successful leaders: openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness, agreeableness and extroversion.

If you look around for potential leaders in your firm, chances are few of your colleagues possess all five of those attributes.  While conscientiousness is something lawyers tend to have in spades, openness to experience (also known as risk tolerance), emotional stability (or emotional intelligence) and agreeableness (aren't we hired NOT to be agreeable?) are all factors that in various studies lawyers tend to fall short on. Certainly, we have clear and robust data that most lawyers (over 70%) are introverts, rather than extroverts. 

So can introverts lead?  Successfully, that is?

There seems to be some hope.  If the concern is that introverts tend not to be charismatic, outgoing personalities, Jim Collins's book Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap . . . And Others Don't provides some comfort. Collins discovered that glitzy, dynamic, high-profile CEOs are actually a hindrance to the long-term success of their corporations. Charismatic leaders are attractive to others, but they may be less effective in drawing people to the mission and values of the organization itself.

Collins contrasts Lee Iacocca, Chrysler's leader and spokesperson in the 1980s, with Colman Mockler, the CEO of Gillette from 1975 to 1991. While Iacocca almost single-handedly steered his car company away from disaster and put it on the road to prosperity, after his retirement Chrysler's profits faltered, and the company was sold to a German rival five years later. Apparently Iacocca had done little to invest in his successors or build a culture that would ensure the longevity of Chrysler.

In sharp contrast, Mockler made personal sacrifices and took substantial risks for the long-term success of the company and the profits of the shareholders, and he was so effective that $1 invested in Gillette in December 1976 was worth $95.68 in December 1996 and eventually earned a significant premium when the company was sold to P&G in 2005. Laconic and reserved, Mockler labored in relative anonymity for a big-time executive; he was a man who prioritized the success of his company over ego gratification.

Mockler and executives like him are examples of what Collins calls "level 5 leaders," those who are modest, self-effacing and understated, and display a workmanlike diligence—more plow horse than show horse, they set up their successors for even greater success in the next generation.

Leadership guru Peter Drucker goes further to say that "charisma becomes the undoing of leaders. It makes them inflexible, convinced of their own infallibility, unable to change."

So maybe we introverted lawyers, likely to be low on the charisma meter, may have some hope of mastering leadership. Certainly being people who think before we act and listen before we talk can be useful in leadership roles.

Successful leadership may also be enhanced by introspection--a natural for introverts. Leaders who scrutinize every aspect of their leadership and personality (and that of others) may be able to find internal motivations and assumptions that contribute to dysfunction and inefficiency.

Another way that introverts may be able to surpass the traditional leadership attributes is in their ability to "make sense." Wilfred Drath and Charles Palus at the Center for Creative Leadership explain that "most existing theories, models and definitions of leadership proceed from the assumption that somehow leadership is about getting people to do something."  Essentially cheerleading.  That is an effort that requires relish for and persistence in being extraverted.

But Drath and Palus reimagine leadership as "the process of making sense of what people are doing together so that people will understand and be committed." Leadership, in this view, is a matter of providing interpretation. Leaders can give people a lens and a language for understanding their work and experiences in light of larger purposes. They can help shape the mental frameworks of others so that those people see themselves as making contributions to the mission and direction of their organization, working in community for a common purpose.  Here is an opportunity for the thoughtful introvert to make his or her mark.

In the corporate world over the past decades, leaders have produced greater organizational efficiencies by employing advanced analytics and defined metrics and systems. But most organizations that have successfully manipulated these resources are finding it difficult to extract even greater efficiencies from them over time. Many are turning to their human capital as the next source of growth.  Yet many businesses are realizing the difficulty of identifying and developing leaders, particularly those who can lead this kind of productivity growth.  For example, the 2008 IBM Leadership Survey found that over 75% of CEOs lamented their ability to identify and develop leaders to succeed them.

Law firms should take note. 

Leadership involves not just leveraging the collective knowledge and expertise of an organization. Leadership is also about cultivating and nurturing human capital, particularly in such a talent-dependent industry as ours.  Leaders who recognize the perennial needs of individuals to be appreciated, to be part of a community and to feel they are contributing to the greater good are more likely to be able to raise the productivity of their troops.

And even introverts can do that.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir is participating as a panelist in CCM's audio conference on "Compensation for Client Development: Tracking, Measuring and Rewarding for New Business Origination" being held at 2pm on Thursday, February 18, 2010. To register, please go to http://www.c4cm.com/lawfirm/compensation_client_development.htm.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The partner smack down has begun.

Here’s the most recent tally for equity partner announcements: Skadden, Arps named 8 new partners, down from 25; Debevoise & Plimpton named 2, down from 6; Weil, Gotshal promoted 3, down from 7; Cleary Gottlieb elected 4 new partners, half as many as in 2008; Ropes & Gray named one-third fewer with 8 new partners; Latham & Watkins cut promotions 25% to 23; Davis Polk & Wardwell named 4 partners compared to 6 a year earlier; Proskauer Rose named 4 to partnership, 1 less than in 2008; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher named 11 new partners, compared to 13 in 2008; and Wachtell, Lipton, the most profitable firm in the country, named 2 new partners, down from 6 last year. The grand finale is that Cravath is making no new partners this year. Zero.

And it’s not just the firms based in New York and LA that are promoting fewer associates: Mayer Brown named almost half the number of partners compared to 2008, or 14 partners, down from 27, as did Paul, Hastings, naming 6 new partners, down from 11 the prior year. Kirkland and Ellis in October promoted 51 lawyers to non-equity partner (which all partners start out as), constituting a 27% drop from last year.

Clearly part of the reason for the recoil at making new partners is that law firm net income through the third quarter of 2009 was down 6.1 percent industry-wide, according to a survey by Wachovia Legal Specialty Group, part of Wells Fargo Corp, with top-tier firms experiencing a 4.3% decrease.

In reaction, firms have cut expenses, summer and associate ranks, delayed starts, reduced salaries and bonuses and have even cut the compensation of non-equity partners, in some cases clawing back additional capital contributions.

According to The American Lawyer, the number of layoffs stands at more than 2,900 associates since the start of 2008. The average summer class size was 20% smaller this year than last, and of those summers who got offers from Am Law 100 firms, all but a handful are looking at delayed start dates. Most firms have cut back sharply on recruiting for next summer; with at least nine firms, including Morgan, Lewis, Pillsbury Winthrop and Milbank Tweed, having canceled their 2010 summer programs in all or some offices.

Many associates still working have seen their compensation frozen or cut, typically by about 10%, or from $160,000 to $145,000 for first-year associates in major cities.

 For example, Pittsburgh-based Reed Smith is reducing by 20% annual salaries and hourly billing rates for first-year associates and slicing all other associate salaries by 10%. The firm also has introduced merit-based promotion and has had two rounds of layoffs of more than 200 people over the past year. Reed Smith also recently told non-equity partners that they would have to contribute 15% of their base pay to the firm as capital or relinquish their partner status — a move estimated to save the firm $18 million.

Drinker Biddle & Reath has lowered salaries and enhanced training for first-year associates, replaced lockstep promotion with a merit-based program for associates and gone through two rounds of layoffs. Chairman Alfred Putnam notes partners will have made less in 2009 than they did in 2008 and that there will be continued downward pressure on compensation.

But Putnam says firms are loathe to cut partner compensation across the board. “You might have two or three practice groups doing well, and they might say they are not going to take a cut and if the firm makes them, they will just walk across the street [to a competitor].”

So what we have now is the perfect storm for producing class (law class, that is) warfare. Having made all the other conceivable cuts and reductions and clawbacks that partnerships can think of, a number of them are staring at nonetheless reduced partner profits. And those reduced profits look so bad, partners are not willing to cut them further by sharing with additional partners.

The implications of making fewer partners are not pretty, however. Boomers are going to be hanging on longer because of their career-centered lives and their reduced portfolios. Rumbling among the troops will escalate, young turks are likely to go elsewhere because of the uncertainty, new lawyers will have to carefully assess partnership portential before joining a firm and ever-younger clients will find themselves with aging service partners.

Of course, not all firms are cutting the number of partners they are making. Sullivan & Cromwell in October elected 5 new partners, the same as a year earlier. "We're obviously not going to stop making partners because of the financial conditions," said H. Rodgin Cohen, chairman of the firm. Obviously.

And a few brave firms are actually making more partners. Milbank, Tweed recently elected 5 attorneys to partner, up from 4 in 2008. "We certainly pay attention to the economy in making new partner decisions, but we also pay attention to the fact that we're strong enough that we should mostly be focusing on long-term investments," said Mel Immergut, Milbank's chairman.

Fried, Frank named 7 new partners, up from 5 a year earlier. The promotions followed a year where Fried Frank shrank firmwide more than any other law firm, according to data collected by The National Law Journal, with the number of lawyers falling 26.4% to 468 attorneys.

Partners may be tempted to wait out this “downturn” thinking it is a recession and not a reset, but eventually the prospect of lower profitability and therefore lower compensation for partners will have to be confronted and firms are at hazard if they do not deal with the implications. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

While no one in his or her right mind yet concedes it, let's just assume that the tides have turned and the billable hour is a thing of the past.  What becomes of all the firm procedures and evaluation and promotion and compensation systems triggered or run by billable hours?

How do you tell your associates how much you expect them to work?  What do you do about all those compensation systems--some affecting associate salaries and bonuses, but certainly many determining partner takehome--that require the input of some measure of billable hours--pro bono hours, firm management hours, marketing hours, hours of originated work, hours of work serviced, etc.? 

As a Hildebrandt entry points out: "One thing is for certain... Bonuses based on the number of billable hours will have some unpleasant consequences in a fixed fee environment."  In effect, firms will be caught paying their lawyers for the same inefficiencies that clients are complaining about.  The efficient lawyers, with lower hours, will be the losers.

But changing incentives in an environment where there is no history of change can be challenging.  Author Jim Collins suggests asking this question: "'What is the economic denominator that best drives our economic engine?"  Every firm should be asking itself that question. Is it number of hours? Profit per matter? Profit per lawyer? Profit per dollar spent on labor?

So when that fateful time comes, what will the hour be worth?  Frankly, given the jeers from the client galleries, what's an hour worth now?  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

From Mitt Regan, Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for the Study of the Legal Profession at Georgetown University Law Center: "I’m using your piece on 'What the New Law Firm Looks Like' for the Law Firms course that I will be teaching at Harvard Law School this spring. It does the best job I’ve seen of succinctly describing in one place the various trends that are likely to be transforming law firm practice." 

So reassuring to see your offspring make it to Harvard! 

You too can have the benefit of Ivy League-worthy insight. Now is the time to arrange for your managing partner, executive committee, general counsel or partnership to dialogue with Ronda Muir on what the new law firm looks like and where on that continuum your firm is headed. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

If you stay with it long enough, a practice that goes out of fashion will often come back around again.  Those of us of a certain age remember when the first year or more at a big law firm was spent "rotating" around departments to get a good feel for the full range of legal practice.  That quaint practice was drilled out of most firms with the arrival of big ticket associate salaries and the push for faster and higher realization of revenues on their time. 

Now we hear from across the pond that Linklaters is proposing countering  "damaging over-specialisation" by having junior associates spend time in different practice areas in their first few years, a practice that Allen & Overy is also considering and Slaughter and May has already adopted.

“There was an awareness that people are specialising too early and there’s a desire to see people get a more rounded experience in their early years,” a senior partner at Linklaters was quoted as saying. However, it was noted that the move "should not be seen as a reaction to the economic climate."

With due regard to that  Linklaters partner's opinion, whenever this "new" practice is discussed at the law firms we advise stateside, it is raised expressly in the context of the current economic climate--one of the reasons being to position associates to be able to move more quickly out of and into practice areas depending on the firm's needs.

Non-equity partnership tiers have been the fastest growing population segment of law firms during the past decade, but those partners are sometimes specialists in areas where firms can no longer reliably provide sufficient work.  And, like specialized associates, those non-equity partners are often difficult to re-deploy quickly to where the firm's work is.  Many firms are therefore considering limiting or eliminating entirely that tier, moving to an all-equity partnership like back in the old days. Addleshaw Goddard intends to put that reversion in place next year. And a similar noise is being made as DLA Piper reviews its entire firm structure, with unattributed partners saying that the firm could move toward a single tier of partners, eliminating both tiers of income partners in its current model.

The wheel goes round and round.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following up on our November 1 entry "The Importance of Glue" is an article by Patricia Gillette, a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, published December 9 in The American Lawyer, and reproduced below in its entirety.

"The Message That Will Seal Law Firms' Doom: 'It's Nothing Personal'

It's not personal.

This is the current mantra of law firms with regard to their staff members, associates and partners.

"Sorry, first-year associate, you won't be starting work when we said you would. Come back in a year."

"After careful consideration, tenth-year associate, we just can't make you partner yet. Maybe next year."

"We're sorry to do this, twenty-year legal secretary, but we have to cut back on costs and so we're letting you go."

The messages all inevitably are followed by the exculpatory: "It's not personal, it's business."

There is no question that change is coming to the legal profession -- in the way firms are structured for advancement, in the career expectations of associates and in how work gets done. But law firms have yet to come to terms with the fact that these changes might also impact profits, in the same way that changes to the medical profession affected the profit margins of physicians. As such, in many law firms, change is embraced as long as equity partners can continue to earn salaries that will be reflected positively in the almighty profits per partner competition. (And make no mistake that it is a competition, as are most things with lawyers. Thus, we see firms stretching the definitional limits of "profits per partner" as they vie for the top spots on the "list.")

In the resulting wreckage, personal connections are lost. Because what these firms fail to realize is that managing only to the bottom line is a short-term strategy. And while that might be OK with the megafirms that want to see their shadows cast further into the global market and higher up on The Am Law 100, it is not strategic and it ignores the reality of the changing market. Still, large law firms continue to march down this path. And that is the path that has led to the depersonalization of large law firms.

Depersonalization is what allows big-firm associates to come and go freely (no question, when the economy comes back, they'll start moving again). It allows powerful partners to take large books of business to competitors so they can make more money. And, in many of these firms, depersonalization means that quality work plays second fiddle to realization, and good citizenship and mentoring are trumped by profitability.

This phenomenon doesn't stop at the entrance to the law firm. It has spilled over to the clients. The lack of a relationship-driven business model permits clients to be arbitrary and fickle. Historical relationships are traded for "what have you done for me lately" and "how much did it cost." Years of good work and great results are thrown out for the low-cost leader, or a change in the general counsel. Because it's not personal ... not for you, not for anyone, not anymore.

Law firms used to be about relationships. Relationships between partners and partners, associates and partners, clients and lawyers. Law firms used to be about retention and growth of lawyers and client relationships, mentoring and development, loyalty to the institution and to each other and respect for those who came before. Law firms used to be about trust.

That trust, however, has been broken. Witness the demise of giant firms like Heller Ehrman, Thelen and Brobeck -- all big firms that appear to have traded their culture for currency. As a former partner of Heller, I saw our firm, with its rich culture of consensus and collegiality, collapse in part because some partners thought it would be OK to trade core values and firm identity for a moment at the top of a list; because some partners favored the elusive "global reach" over more realistic ambitions; and because some partners chose more immediate returns over the history and tradition of the firm. In big firms that have survived, loyalty is too often defined by the portability of a partner's business, associates are seen (and see themselves) as fungible commodities in whom no one has a stake, and fudging numbers of women and minority associates and partners is justified, if it gets the firm to its rightful place on yet another list.

Is this bottom line/list-driven model sustainable? The answer has to be "No." Because, it ignores what law firms need to fuel their engines: associates who are invested in the firm and the future of the institution. There is no question that the new generation of lawyers is relationship-driven -- social networks define their reality; connecting with others and sharing experiences is their passion. Money is important, but community is more important. Loyalty from young associates cannot be bought with law firm logo-emblazoned swag and big pay checks. It must be earned by good and meaningful work assignments, team approaches and a feeling of being an integral part of the firm.

If Big Law wants to have a sustainable and renewable model, these law firms will have to re-engineer their models. Some law firms are making efforts to do just that by:

Reconnecting with clients for the broader and longer relationship.

Looking at associates as valuable assets that have to be mentored, developed and retained by the firm incentivizing firms to deepen their relationships with associates through active mentoring programs, investing in training and instituting career development programs that recognize and support a nonlinear path to partnership.

Developing a skills-based evaluation and compensation system that rewards teamwork, productivity, quality work, loyalty and competence.

Valuing institutional maturity, diversity and historical contributions along with immediate returns by crediting nonbillable hours spent on broadening client relationships, rewarding partners for retaining associates and increasing diversity, recognizing the need to pass the baton through institutionalized succession planning on client relationships.

Finding ways to truly partner with clients so that law firms and clients have shared risks and rewards by encouraging and supporting alternative billing arrangements, knowing the client's business and recognizing its needs and seconding associates when needed.

Big law firms simply cannot continue to trade relationships with their associates and clients for the prospect of raising profits. In fact, firms that ignore this do so at their own peril. Firm leaders need to recognize that it is relationships and culture that bind people to their firms -- because, for the best and the brightest lawyers in big firms and for the clients who want quality legal work, it is personal."

 

Thanks, Patricia.  Couldn't have said it better.

  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir has been selected by Patrick McKenna (co-author of First Among Equals and Herding Cats) as one of a select group of law firm consultants available to advise law firm leaders under McKenna's ENABLE program--Executive Network of Advisory Boards for Leadership Excellence, which McKenna describes below. 

"Now, more than ever, being a Firm Chair or Managing Partner and leading a professional service firm is a monumental task. Even more critical, how do you handle sensitive or strategic challenges when your previous experience has not adequately prepared you?

Corporate CEO’s who have used Advisory Boards rate them as "very effective" as sounding boards and sources of management mentoring. They also give these boards high ratings for offering ideas, influencing strategy, sharing business contacts, and providing business or industry intelligence.

The primary challenge to making Advisory Boards work for professional service firm leaders lies in recruiting and assembling a group of talented confidants willing to serve on these boards and then having an experienced resource available to help firm leaders get their Advisory Boards up-and-running effectively. The ENABLE program is dedicated to those two objectives."

For additional information, contact Muir at RMuir@RobinRolfeResources or McKenna at patrick@patrickmckenna.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The IOMA Law Firm Leadership Alert on November 19, 2009 calls Ronda Muir this month's Thought Leader, saying she "...presents as cogent an expression of what the future of law firms and law practice will look like as we have yet found." Her article is published in the December issue of the IOMA Partner's Report - a Monthly Brief for Law Firm Owners and will be the featured cover-page article in December's Compensation & Benefits for Law Offices newsletter.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One of the important implications of Muir's article "What the New Law Firm Looks Like: The Reinvention of a Reluctant Industry" is that going forward firms will require the close involvement of sophisticated management professionals who are not necessarily or even preferably lawyers to help design and manage change.  These critical players will not only assist in initially envisioning the goals of the firm and its related programs and in easing the various players toward them through the transition period, but will also remain important in ongoing firm management in order to make those initiatives fully operational and successful over the long term.

In the past many law firms have often taken a pass when it comes to building the depth and quality of their non-lawyer professional staff.  For the most part we aren't that focused on these "unseen" professionals--there are going to be complaints about them within the firm anyway and rarely does a client interact with them.  So the firm librarian could be a dud, and the head of recruitment simply cheerful. 

We seem to realize marketing and technology advisers (and at the bigger firms, the professional development directors) have some importance, but still we often opt for less sophisticated, less expensive personnel who act more as placeholders than change agents, undercutting their potential effectiveness from the start. We tend to hire them young and tell them what to do and even sometimes how to do it.  After all, lawyers are the ones who really head all of these areas: the non-legal staff are simply assistants and overhead to boot.

The problem is that lawyers are no longer the experts in all the areas that law firms need expertise in. 

For example, Muir notes that firms will develop "serious project management skills that focus on evaluating and reviewing client goals (both fee-related and outcome-related) and managing matters to reach them."  Such skills include the technological capacity and human expertise to analyze, bid on and track client matters, including producing interim progress analyses to manage staffing and expenses and keep the client up to date.  Lawyers working on those projects need to be spending their time doing what they do best--providing legal services, and should rely on non-legal professionals to fine tune the timing and extent of those services. 

Similarly, "staff managers" acting like purchasing managers are likely to be responsible for engaging and managing a complex and highly changeable array of lawyers and services for specific and often fixed-term projects.  They will need the technology and expertise to manage a large database of information on individual lawyers, temp providers and outsourcers, produce contracts, evaluate performance and follow up complaints and contract violations.

Making "frequent and accurate evaluations of lawyers and staff and effectively using targeted training" are not only complex processes in themselves requiring careful analysis but become critical to morale and retention as these evaluations and trainings impact compensation in the new merit and competency models (see, for example, "The Issues in Moving From Law Firm Lockstep to 'Levels' Compensation").  And those charged with determining compensation based on multiple indices and complex formulas applied across numerous parties similarly need to have reliably sophisticated expertise.  The mid-level partner who doesn't have a lot of client work these days isn't the best choice to run with these valuable, exacting tasks.

Finally, "building relationships, which is key to exerting leadership influence, will be more challenging," and firms are likely to require more leadership time from their leaders--whether firm-wide or practice group leaders--which implies more time diverted from practice to firm management and more reliance on professional assistance.  Work assignment evaluation and management, leadership development, diversity compliance, client succession planning--these tasks can be taken on or assisted by non-lawyer professionals with the appropriate skills.

Of course, these professionals mean a rise in overhead--whether you obtain your expertise by in-house personnel or from outside consultants, another reason profits are likely to be diluted going forward.

But we lawyers can't effectively do all these jobs.  We can't because we are not diverse enough in our approaches and talents (see "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers").  We not only haven't been trained in the relevant areas--project management, talent  evaluation, competency testing--but we also aren't likely to be naturally inclined toward or good at the process, patience and attention to the types of details that are required. Or if per chance there are lawyers among us who are so inclined or talented, we are not likely to know who they are.

There is the problem of overcoming the legal ego--it's not important if we can't do it well, and conversely, if it's important, then we can do it--but don't let that attitude be what keeps your firm from moving ahead.  Good management these days lies in identifying and locating needed expertise, not in attempting to be it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We spend our days advising law firms and law departments about the changing landscape for their professional services.  But just as the legal industry is in a state of transition, so is the industry that consults with the legal industry. 

We at Robin Rolfe Resources are retuning our services in order to offer you cost-effective updates on the fast-paced corrections and counter-corrections occurring daily in the legal world.  And we are going to do so without killing a lot of trees or landing in your bottom file drawer.

We can meet with your general counsel or managing parter, executive committee, planning committee, a practice group or the whole department or partnership to discuss trends and innovations--both successes and bloopers--in many realms of practice management: governance, client service, compensation, recruitment, lateral integration, retention, performance evaluation, motivation, promotion, training and development, leadership, morale, diversity, and succession, among others. Our own years of experience in practicing law and then advising practices of all sizes, coupled with an expertise in lawyer psychology, make us uniquely capable of providing sophisticated, up-to-date and practical advice.

We can meet for a morning, a day or regularly on a quarterly or other basis.  If you need more extensive research or written advice, we can provide it.  Regardless of the extent of our role, we are on your side of the table when you are analyzing the tough calls.

A much-heralded business author is working on a new book about reinvention and has concluded that both law and consulting fall into the category of needing to be reinvented.  In both of our businesses, tomes on best practices should be relegated to the last century.  Ours certainly are.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir points out in her article What the New Law Firm Looks Like that building bigger firms does not necessarily produce better bottom lines.  Of course for many firms long-term client development or other factors beside profitability fuel growth.  And then there are some growing firms which in fact achieve greater profitability in spite of the odds.

K&L Gates is one of the firms that has managed to accomplish that.  The product of a 2007 merger of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart with Preston Gates & Ellis, and then mergers with Nicholson Graham of London, Washington's Hill Christopher and Boston's Warner & Stackpole, the firm has completed since the beginning of 2008 three additional mergers -- one with Texas-based Hughes & Luce, a second with Charlotte, N.C.-based Kennedy Covington Lobdell & Hickman and the third with Bell Boyd, which took effect March 1, 2009, bringing together a total of over 1,800 lawyers. Over the same period, the firm opened offices in Paris, Shanghai, Frankfurt and most recently Dubai, among others, and established a relationship with Taiwanese firm J&J Attorneys at Law, for a total of 33 offices.

This astounding growth trajectory is true to Chairman and Global Managing Partner Peter Kalis's express intention to "grow aggressively," taking advantage of the firm's lack of short-term and long-term debt. Not only has growth been achieved but in this case the approach has so far proved profitable--revenues for 2008 were up 27% over 2007, while profits per partner for that year rose almost 7%, with first half 2009 continuing to show significant increases, again meeting Kalis's stated goal of increased profitability every year. 

So if a firm like K&L Gates manages to do the difficult if not impossible by growing aggressively while increasing profits, what are the challenges?

Of course the firm has been through a few clouds, as there always are around silver linings.  No firm, regardless of its size, can escape them.  Microsoft Corp.'s list of preferred legal providers did not include Bill Gates's father's firm this year. While Microsoft GC Brad Smith had welcomed the original merger of the Gates firm and Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, former Microsoft GC William Neukom left K&L Gates last year, perhaps signaling something. Or perhaps it was simply time for a change.  The firm did not add another DuPont "Meeting the Challenge" Award this year to those accumulated over the past few years.  And K&L Gates has had its share of difficult client relations--MTV Networks noisily canned the firm as defense counsel a few months ago.

One insight into the challenges that the firm's success raises may be in a comment from K&L Gates' most senior trademark lawyer Mark Peroff, who left the firm last year for a smaller firm.  "In my experience at K&L Gates," he was quoted as saying in explanation of the move, "the focus was entirely on making money.  There was no glue among the partners."  (Peroff also pointed out that in a smaller firm he could significantly lower his billing rate.)

There might be some who would question the importance of glue, both as to whether it significantly colors one's experience at a firm and also whether it adds to the bottom line, a discussion we will take up in a later entry. But Peroff 's comments raise the conundrum that many growing firms in fact face, and often without the benefit of rising profitability. 

Every year the ranks of new hires, lateral hires, and various contract, counsel, income, equity and other lawyers shift, while there is simultaneous shifting among personnel at various offices. How to add so many bodies to various locations and still keep a sense of commonality if not collegiality among the players?  

And similarly, if a firm hopes to improve profitabiliy, can it push bottom-line results persistently, making each person accountable for their own production, and still maintain strong relationships?

In other words, do our goals and policies bind us or divide us?

Sometimes glue is simply a commonality that keeps all the various firm systems running in decent working order.  Sometimes glue produces real revenue through cross selling and enhanced relationship building.  Sometimes glue is just that ineffable bond that keeps people from leaving.

It may sound pretty fuzzy, but it's important to consider the glue in your firm.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yes, Virginia, there is a future for law firms, but it is a strikingly different one from the law firm of the past. 

Not Your Grandfather's Firm

What would have been bombshells ten years ago, and maybe even five years ago, continue to drop from the legal firmament: Double digit reductions in revenues and profits; big shops--Bingham McCutchen, Howrey, Orrick, DLA Piper, Morgan Lewis--shelve or reduce their reliance on lock-step promotions; many firms cut back or eliminate summer programs; salaries are frozen or reduced; behavioral interviewing becomes the newest buzzword in recruitment at Vinson & Elkins and elsewhere; old-line English firms Slaughters, Linklaters and Clifford Chance all acknowledge engaging outsourcers for their clients' low-level legal work, in some cases after years of deriding the practice; and English firms Addleshaws and Linklaters take steps to convert to all equity partnerships, while a number of American firms secretly consider it.

What the New Law Firm Looks Like

Muir's article What the New Law Firm Looks Like: the Necessary Reinvention of a Reluctant Industry reviews some of the areas where changes are sure to appear, and are often already in motion: the rise of merit compensation, multisourcing, non-lawyer stakeholders and the demands made on leadership generally and practice group management specifically; the decline of mergers, hourly billings, big real estate holdings, compensation generally, and fixed levels of staffing. 

In other words, transition is the keyword.  Your competitors are leaving no stone unturned in their search for an edge in a difficult market--neither should you. 

Let us know what steps your firm or your outside counsel are taking to better position themselves for the road ahead.  We will compile these results and pass on the best to you.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

One of the more interesting developments in the law industry over the last couple of decades is the emergence of the mega-firm.  Or what might be called the strange case of the temporary triumph of the delusion of efficiency.

"Convergence," the short-hand name of the corporate model for managing outside legal fees by reducing the number of preferred firms, was developed originally in the early 1990s by DuPont and then trumpeted by interested advocates--primarily consultants--who benefited from advising both sides of the aisle. Law departments needed to know how to evaluate firms for their preferred list, and law firms needed to know how to get on those lists.

The theory was that dealing with fewer law firms meant that a company would have more leverage in negotiating fees and conditions with those few that they did hire, that the company would no longer pay repeatedly for bringing firms up to speed on its business, and that this more holistic global legal approach would benefit the company in both concrete and intangible ways. 

Leading the way, DuPont reduced its 350 outside law firms to 41 and its 150 legal vendors to 4.  Five years after the program's introduction DuPont reported that

• Legal service expenses were reduced 39 percent from 1994 to 1997.
• Litigation savings amounted to over $30 million in the last four years of the program.
• Cycle time dropped from 39 to 22 months in two years and the docket was cut in half.
• Legal staff requirements can be forecast accurately.
• Purchasing power was leveraged.
• More women and minorities are employed in the PLF and supplier firms.
• True partnering was achieved: work is usually performed so seamlessly that outsiders have trouble distinguishing between DuPont's outside attorneys and in-house counsel.                     

Over 200 other major companies followed suit--General Electric's hundreds of outside firms were reduced to 140.  Pfizer slashed its outside litigation counsel from 200 to 52.  Pfizer eventually designated only 1 outside law firm to advise them nationally in some practice areas, a bold step again followed by others, such as Tyco and Honeywell.

Law firms were told that more types of business from a single client would guarantee a more consistent flow of work, again reduce the embedded cost of getting up to speed repeatedly and, with the more rounded view of a company's issues, ultimately make better lawyers of us all. 

So law firms geared up to offer companies a broad range of legal services and it was only a short step from there  to offering those services at locations all around the world.  Whatever you need, we can do.  Wherever you are, we are there.

Law firms started acquiring IP, land use and employment departments and boutiques to supplement their usual expertise. They opened offices in Hong Kong, Abu Dhabi and Omaha.  

In 1992, an admittedly lean year because of a financial downturn, there were 9 law firm mergers, which accelerated into a record high of 75 mergers in 2001.  By 2008, also a year of financial downturn, there were 70 mergers.  And those numbers don't reflect the many acquisitions by firms that don't count as a "merger"-- acquisitions of groups of lawyers, practice groups or other pieces of firms. A 2007 Law Firm Inc. survey of AmLaw 200 COOs found that evaluating merger possibilities was the single matter on which COOs collectively spent most of their time. 

Top US-based firms (NYLJ 250) grew from an average of 100 lawyers in 1985 to today's behemoths, topped by DLA Piper's 3,785 lawyers with 2008 revenue of $2.26 billion. As to profitability, before the current downturn, law firm revenues (along with expenses) had been ticking upward for years at double digit rates, fueled by pass-along billing practices that also rose without fail each year, resulting in compounded average growth in profitability of over 9%. 

Corporations and big law firms seemed to be on to something.  Consultants were in hog heaven. 

But the economic slowdown has hit big firms particularly hard. Clients are turning increasingly to small and mid-sized firms who charge hourly rates 20-50% lower for large swaths of work that don't require legions of associates, firms which are also less likely to dump them because of the complicated conflicts arising from a global presence.  

So where is the mega-firm now?

More than half of the 50 largest US firms have fired associates and staff in anticipation of or reaction to revenue declines and some firms, such as DLA Piper and Dewey & LeBoeuf, have cut year-end payouts to partners as well.  Star partners at the country's biggest firms--DLA Piper, Skadden Arps--are leaving for smaller firms in order to offer clients more reasonable rates and avoid the thicket of conflicts. Regardless of the economy, the promise of cross-selling did not materialize and no one's sure if they are better lawyers for the mega-firm experience, or just poorer ones.

So did the DuPont Legal Model of convergence and its virtues fail? 

If you ask DuPont, "the keys to the legal model’s success have been its ability to streamline legal representation through its designation of primary law firms (PLFs) and its commitment to the utilization of paralegals."  And you should note that DuPont's current roster of Preferred Law Firms includes eight of the 100 biggest U.S. law firms but four times as many smaller firms, which General Counsel Thomas L. Sager says he prizes for their “flexibility and creativity” in billing.

Perhaps the real bottom line is, as was clearly stated in an analysis of law firm mergers done by Vanderbilt Law School back in 2005: “There are no obvious economies of scale or scope for law firms in a merger, where productivity is largely a result of billings by individual professionals.”

That conclusion has been born out by the financial statistics kept by Dan DiPietro of Citibank’s Law Firm Group, who said flatly at a recent conference forecasting future growth that "bigger has not yet proved to be more profitable."

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here's some more data that puts into question our reliance on high scores and law school credentials in determining which lawyers we want to populate our firms with.

LSAT Scores

According to a chart prepared by the Tax Prof Blog, math or physics majors are likely to score the highest on their LSATs, theoretically making them the best candidates for law school and the best lawyers.

Or maybe not. As one blogger commented, "At a prior AmLaw 100 firm, I was chastised for not getting the chair of the IP department 'out there more,' writing, doing press. My response, 'The guy has an undergrad in chemistry, then went off to law school. I’m lucky if he opens his door.'

But this blogger goes further: "The BUSINESS of law, and the success of any given individual lawyer, is becoming more dependent on the development of personal relationships, the ability to reach out and promote one’s self, and SALES, [so] we need to remove the barriers that keep those who are so predisposed out of law school."  Or, as one article recently proclaimed: "Emotional Intelligence a New Hiring Criterion."

Following that prescription--matriculating and then hiring candidates based on something other than hard scores or law school credentials--would require a much more sophisticated method of discriminating, such as personality testing, as part of law school entry requirements or firm recruitment considerations.  Are we ready for that? 

We know that rainmakers and managing partners show a different array of personality traits than most lawyers--they are more social, more extroverted, more resilient, more empathic and more persistent--in total, more emotionally intelligent.  Should we be populating our firms from the bottom up with more of those traits?  Particularly now that one of the survival strategies for practicing law requires successful marketing, business closing and relationship building? And if so, what are the best procedures to insure that we identify a high percentage of the kinds of lawyers we want to hire?

Screening for these rarer combinations of traits might also require firms to look at a broader range of law schools than they typically have--at the very time that the pendulum appears to be swinging back to hiring only from the most prestigious schools. 

Premier Law Schools

A recent study entitled "After the JD" by the American Bar Foundation points out some of the benefits of broader recruiting.  The study concludes that graduates of non-elite law schools who work at the top 200 firms are happier than their colleagues from top-tier schools and also last longer in their jobs.

Why would that be?  It makes sense that lower-tier law school grads would work harder to nail the few BigLaw positions available to them, and, as a result, would be both more grateful for their jobs and also likely to have fewer opportunities to leave.  Other pundits have suggested that student who opt for regional law schools are more likely to have stronger family and community relationships that they want to maintain.  And that they are also more likely to have financial considerations that militate in favor of attending a less expensive law school with the possibility of working part or even full time.  Strong relationships, financial savvy, self-regulating drive--maybe our kind of candidates?

But regardless of how good it is for us, recent market pressures may in any event make firms drop the broad-barreled recruiting approach.

As Aric Press in The American Lawyer points out: "I fear that we will look back at the exuberant spree of the last few years as the high-water mark of non-elite law school hiring. There simply weren't enough bodies to go around, so the Big Law machine was willing to expand its recruiting pool. The fact that some of those hired performed well, or were happier with their lots, or possessed the drive and emotional intelligence that clients crave will not be enough to change old habits. When it comes to preserving the prestige patina, sometimes the rules of cognitive dissonance are suspended."
 

Press also reminds us of the opportunity these kinds of findings afford those firms who are thinking about their future and trying to insure its success--"an opportunity for the firms wise enough to seek first-class talent no matter what brand is on a diploma. Putting that attitude into practice would be an important part of an effort to take hiring more seriously, of not relying on admissions officers to do the work of hiring committees, to actually define attributes that firms and their customers need--and then try to recruit for them. Rather than retrench, this is a moment to put your partners to work on the future of your firm. As it happens, they have plenty of time to devote to the project."

Informal Survey

Let us know what you and your firm are doing in two areas of recruiting: 

1. Have your target law schools broadened or narrowed and why?

2. Have the attributes you are looking for changed?   In which ways?  And how do you identify those attributes in candidates? 

Stay tuned.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

An article this summer in the New York Times Magazine describes the launch by Hyatt Hotels of a customer relations program that CEO Mark Hoplamazian describes as "random acts of generosity."  Prompted by years of behavioral science research and months of consumer research, the program charges Hyatt employees with occasionally picking up bar tabs and other obligations of customers free of charge. The point?  To generate gratitude.  Which ultimately "increases... sales growth," as the Journal of Marketing quite bluntly puts it. 

Unlike frequent stay programs with specific qualifications that reward customers with an extra night or an upgrade, these Hyatt freebies are not "earned," and are therefore theoretically more likely to be truly appreciated.  Although there is a risk.  There is, after all, as the Times article points out, a thin line between promoting gratitude among the favored and creating resentment among those left out. 

So is this a viable relationship-building model for us in the legal business?  Is there any possibility that some sort of generosity extended to our clients could engender the type of gratitude that would fall to the bottom line?  And even if it were possible, how specifically are we supposed to be generous in the context of what sometimes amounts to cut-throat dances with resentful clients who are convinced they are being taken advantage of ?

While a young associate at a big firm, I was charged with the closing of a deal that had been a nightmare from beginning to its not-too-soon end.  The client had originally chosen another firm that had been conflicted out, hiring us begrudgingly and making sure we knew through the entire timeline that we were not their first choice.  The General Counsel was young--an interim replacement for the GC who had taken a better position--and afraid of losing his job.  Aggressive questioning of our strategy and reasoning was a daily event, followed by further questions rechecking the initial explanations, followed by very obviously running past us the reasons unnamed others (lawyers from the favored firm?) thought we were making an error.  It wasn't a major transaction we could boast about, we were certain not to be able to recoup the time we were investing, it was a client we obviously were unlikely to hold onto--we all longed for the closing to put us out of our collective misery.

The closing followed of course, as night the day, the same pattern of dysfunction.  Late in the night the GC called to complain about our printing of a report, which was commencing as we spoke, to be distributed with a collection of other documents--an important Senior Vice President had that day located sufficient copies of that very report boxed away in the corporate basement.  Had we no concern for expense?  Canceling the new run would have involved a lengthy and not inexpensive transition, of course--but.  I was looking for some small way to connect with this company.  We got the printer, the SVP and the GC on the line and as the most senior lawyer left standing, I     negotiated what we all knew would be a cumbersome and more time-consuming but ultimately somewhat less expensive solution using the found reports.

The partner in charge questioned my judgment after I straggled in the next day--primarily on the grounds of throwing more good time after bad.  My only defense was that our two main company contacts--the GC and the SVP--really wanted the face-saving, if nothing else, and, with primarily the investment of a few more hours, we could accommodate them.

There is, of course, a happy and relevant ending.  The matter closed.  The interim GC quickly announced that he was moving to a GC slot at another company.  The SVP became the one responsible for approving our bill and recommended that the company use us instead of the other firm as its ongoing counsel.  The GC, in his new position, brought us his next major deal, evidently with the intent to use our firm on a consistent basis.  The partner called me back into his office and praised the judgment he had earlier found wanting.  All because we figured out how to use the reports in the basement.

So sometimes the incidental gesture produces a gratitude that rewards.  Particularly in this economy, I would say it is worth the try.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In David Maister's article "Are Law Firms Manageable?" on the seemingly intractable challenges to law firm management, he points out only half facetiously that firms may get away with perpetuating these inefficiencies because there is no competitive fallout:  "The greatest advantage that lawyers have is that they compete only with other lawyers."  

 

The time may be fast arriving when that is no longer true.

 

Australia's Slater & Gordon is the world's first publicly traded law firm.  S&G went public in May 2007, the first IPO for a law firm after new legislation went into effect Down Under permitting investment by non-lawyers.  Last February, the firm reported net profit of $8.46 million for the six months ending Dec. 31, 2008, a 22.4% increase over $6.9 million the prior year.  S&G's revenue increased 35% to $50.5 million over the same time frame. The firm expects earnings to rise into the second half of 2009.

 

At the time of its listing, the Melbourne-based plaintiffs firm, known for its contingency fee personal injury work and securities class actions, had a market capitalization of $89.7 million and gave stakes worth between $2 million and $8.5 million to seven equity partners.

  

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Pond, Lyceum Capital became the first investment house to openly target legal services, positioning itself ahead of a law similar to the one in Australia--the 2007 Legal Services Act--which comes into full force in the UK in 2011.  This act also authorizes the investment in and management of law firms by non-lawyers, and could produce what some have termed the most liberal legal market in the world. 

 

Lyceum Capital has raised over $500 million and intends to take minority and controlling stakes primarily in midtier midmarket firms with revenues of 20 million pounds plus who are doing bulk work and who would benefit from outside investment for purposes of carrying out a merger, developing a new practice area, and funding expanded IT systems. 

 

According to Lyceum Capital’s Managing Partner Jeremy Hand: "Law firms are businesses. We are not pretending we are lawyers but we can help businesses develop -- whether through giving advice, overhauling IT systems or allowing them to grow with new hires."

 

He added that lawyers "think they are in a competitive industry but they do not appreciate how different it is in other sectors. This will change the entire business landscape. There is no doubt in my mind there will be winners and losers in this situation: Firms cannot be complacent. There is no guaranteeing firms at the top of their game now will be there in a few years' time."

 

To some, it is clear that the outside investor revolution is not coming to the U.S.--"It's a perpetual conflict, at least potentially, with non- lawyers controlling a law firm,'' says Steven Krane, the chair of the American Bar Association's ethics committee and a partner at New York's Proskauer Rose. "There's very little interest in changing the rules.''  That said, in response to another change in the market--the avalanche of lateral hiring--the ABA has not balked at changing the ethics, and specifically the conflicts, rules to clear the way for laterals to move in and out more easily.

 

Law firms, which could use capital to expand and fund cases, are grappling with the arrival of public offerings in the same way as did the old guard investment banks.  Another industry once dominated by private partnerships, it began the transition to public ownership 30 years ago. Financial pressures on other banks mounted after Merrill Lynch & Co. listed its shares in 1971 in what became increasingly obvious as a competitive advantage, culminating in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. becoming the last major investment bank to make the change in 1999.

 

"If the English firms can sell stakes in their law firms publicly, that will then give them an advantage,'' said Ralph Baxter, the chief executive officer of the 924-attorney San Francisco-based firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe.  And off to the races we go.

 

For purposes of comparison at the time of S&G's listing, an American Lawyer article attempted to attach capitalization values to several Wall Street law firms, grouping them into "blue chips"--Cravath, Swaine & Moore, and Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz,  "multinationals"--Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins, "growth stocks"--Dechert and DLA Piper, and "small caps"--Pepper Hamilton and Womble Carlyle, and arriving at equity market capitalizations of from $552 million (Womble Carlyle) to $2.9 billion (Skadden, Arps). 

 

Those numbers look mighty healthy to the partners who have seen not only a slowing in profit growth but even decreases in profits over this past year.  With no quick rebound in sight, there will be increasing pressure from partners of U.S. law firms on management to explore, and if required, work to legitimize the option of obtaining public investors. 

 

And if non-lawyers are not yet investing here in the U.S. in law firms, they are already investing in litigation. 

 

A $100 Million Wager 

 

Juridica is a publicly traded UK fund that invests in plaintiffs commercial litigation in the United States. This spring the company announced that it had completed a second round of financing, raising 33.2 million pounds (about $47 million) on London's secondary exchange, the Alternative Investment Market, after an IPO in December 2007 of 74 million pounds, making a total of over $100 million available for investment.

Juridica is not the only hedge fund betting on litigation. There are several such investors in U.K. litigation, including a fund under the auspices of Allianz, the insurance company. In the U.S., according to Juridica CEO Richard Fields, Credit Suisse is a major player in the commercial litigation funding market as well.

Evidently Juridica has already taken an equity interest in 17 large commercial cases, most of them in the U.S.  One case and one law firm loan paid off by the end of the year, so Juridica offered investors a 4.6% dividend.

Fields says general counsel seeking alternative billing arrangements with law firms have

created opportunities for Juridica. "Having an outside investor that takes an equity piece is not that big a leap," he said. "In a way, our timing was fortunate. The recession created more interest in spreading risk."

 

Who Needs the Money Anyway?

 

Lyceum Capital is only one of three private equity funds that have sprung up in anticipation of the implementation of the Legal Services Act of 2007 and there are several litigation investment firms already.
 

With the tightening of credit, says Simon Johnston, senior partner of the 550-lawyer London firm Nabarro, "people will be thinking about their options." 

 

The major Magic Circle firms have said they are not interested because they don't need the money.  "Why would we need the money?" Allen & Overy managing partner Wim Dejonghe asked.

 

Why indeed?

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Now is the time to really get to know your clients. What are their budgetary constrictions?  What are their priorities for the next two years?   What do they want more of and less of from their outside counsel?  What keeps them awake at night? 

Do you not only know the answers to all of these and other questions but are also proactively doing something about each of them?

In a recent article in The Legal Intelligencer entitled "Firms, GCs Starting to Talk the Talk," Gina Passarella reports on the growing awareness of law firms of the necessity to dialogue with their clients about their delivery of legal services. 

As Lorraine Koc, general counsel of Deb Shoppes, notes, "the idea of communicating with clients is something that virtually every business does except for law firms."

Some firms realize the importance of addressing that, particularly in the context of this economy.  "If you don't have communication and [clients] can't tell you what they like and dislike, then you're leaving them one choice and that's to leave," Flaster Greenberg managing partner Peter Spirgel says of the reasoning behind their hosting client panel presentations.

Reed Smith has held a client panel at every one of its firmwide meetings since at least 2000. The firm also surveys clients at the conclusion of large matters and survey its largest clients regularly. Managing partner Gregory Jordan also meets with clients regularly to learn more about their businesses and get feedback on the firm's work.

What is the best approach to determining client feedback and where do you start?  Which clients do you include?  How do you format the inquiry? In a forum or with each client individually?  Who inquires and what questions do you ask?  What technology best assists the inquiry?  And, most importantly, how do you translate the information you get into substantive improvements in client delivery?

Our firm provides unparalleled expertise in assessing and cementing relationships between law firms and their clients.  Now is the time.  Let us help.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on the New Haven Fire Department vocational advancement exam in Ricci v. DeStefano once again stirs the waters on the question of how to choose the best from among a crowd. (See our entry "The Outliers of Law--Embracing Heresy".) The "best" in this case was determined to be simply the highest scorers, even if those scores seem to imply discrimination against a particular group. 

What's Sonia Got to Do With It?

A lot of press has been devoted to parsing whether Sonia Sotomayor's vote with the majority at the appeals court, which affirmed throwing out the test results, implies her personal position on affirmative action.   

A look at Sotomayor's own test scores gives an interesting gloss to the discussion.  She was, by her own admission, an "affirmative-action baby" who did not do well on her SATs  and LSATS, or at least not as well as her fellow students at Princeton and Yale.  Yet she went on to graduate from Princeton with highest academic honors and has reached the upper echelons of law practice.  As Walter Kirn said in a recent New York Times article about his own experience at Princeton, "the poorer and browner of my classmates — particularly the women — seemed to study twice as hard as I did, clocking endless hours in the library and forgoing weekend parties for late-night cram sessions. Maybe their SAT scores were lower than mine, but they ranked higher than I did on the effort scale. And on the bravery scale too." 

So was this a case of retrospective justice-making by Ms. Sotomayor? 

Regardless of what Sotomayor was doing in the public sector, the glaring lesson to be taken from her own story is that aptitude assessments are not the last word on potential for achievement.

The Texas Experiment

In 1997, Texas House Bill 588, better known as the "Top 10 Percent Law," was passed, guaranteeing high school graduates who ranked in the top 10% of their senior class, regardless of their SAT or ACT scores, admission to a state institution.  While hotly contested at the time as risking the influx of less able students, it is a law that school administrators and legislators agree "by any measure of public policy is a success."

Not only did the 10% plan in Texas get more minority students into top public universities with race-neutral criteria, it spawned similar programs in California and Florida and the consideration of many other states. (Due to its immense popularity, last month the Texas Legislature agreed to limit to 75% of its freshman slots the number from the program that their flagship school, the University of Texas at Austin, had to admit.)  According to the most recent issue of Inside Higher Ed, "every internal study that... the UT system conducted and every external study has shown that the 10 percent students, relative to others, have done better by any measure -- lower attrition rates, graduate in shorter time periods," etc.

As Malcolm Gladwell wrote in his 2001 New Yorker article "Examined Life": "Critics of the policy said that it would open the door to students from marginal schools whose SAT scores would normally have been too low for admission to the University of Texas—and that is exactly what happened. But so what? The 'top ten percenters,' as they are known, may have lower SAT scores, but they get excellent grades. In fact, their college GPAs are the equal of students who scored two hundred to three hundred points higher on the SAT [emphasis added]. In other words, the determination and hard work that propel someone to the top of his high-school class—even in cases where that high school is impoverished—are more important to succeeding in college (and, for that matter, in life) than whatever abstract quality the SAT purports to measure. The importance of the Texas experience cannot be overstated."

Predicting the Best Lawyers

A number of studies have looked for what might predict eventual success as a practicing lawyer. Evidently LSAT scores, and not undergraduate grade point averages, are the best indicators of academic performance in the first year of law school, and academic performance in the first year of law school appears to be the best predictor of whether the new graduate will pass his/her state bar exam on the first attempt. There is also a very strong correlation between the personality attribute of pessimism and law school grades, i.e., the higher the pessimism, the higher the grades.

But none of these factors--undergraduate grades, LSAT scores, law school grades--gives us the key to determining who is likely to be at the top of the lawyering heap. 

A New Kind of Test

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the current stressful marketplace, the rate of lawyers' incidence of impairment has been ratcheting up from high (see, for example, our September 5, 2008 entry "The Depression Demon Coming Out of the Legal Closet") to even higher.  See "Employment Woes Fuel Uptick in Lawyer Depression."  Firms suffer losses in productivity, morale and recruitment because of impaired lawyers, and also risk client desertions, losses to their reputations and malpractice liability. 

Firms can take several approaches to both assist their lawyers and protect their bottom line.  Thomas & Knight attorney Peter Riley, as managing partner, instituted an extensive program to address lawyer stress caused from depression, substance abuse, anxiety, etc. in order to provide help fast, without worrying about insurance authorization or long waits for appointments, and with complete confidentiality.  Even with the costs of the program, Riley finds it cost-effective to the firm.  "When a lawyer or lawyer's child or spouse is in crisis, that is going to be the focus of their attention," he says.  "If we can provide assistance for them quickly, we have not only done the right thing for our lawyers, we have done the most economic thing.  It's the perfect intersection of what is right and what is profitable."

Let us draw from our extensive experience in this area to help you spot and support critical talent confronting personal distress.  We can assist on an individual-by-individual basis or by helping you set up a confidential, effective program attuned to your goals and budget.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Malcolm Gladwell's latest book Outliers, the Story of Success argues that what accounts for success is often not what we expect.  High IQs or a prodigious ability in computers or exceptional musical talent is not sufficient to explain Nobel Prize winners and Bill Gates and the Beatles.  While a certain level of intelligence, skill or talent may be a necessary ingredient for success, it is not sufficient.  Luck, opportunity, hard work, support and training all play important roles.  Raw ability--intelligence or talent--is only a threshold.  When faced with a class of clever boys, as Gladwell repeatedly points out, knowing one boy's IQ is of little help in determining his standing among the group.  Extensive research validating that attitude has led psychologist Barry Schwartz (full disclosure: he was my psych professor at Swarthmore) to suggest that elite schools could give up their complex admissions process and simply hold a lottery for everyone above a certain threshold of eligibility--the "good enough candidates"--without producing a loss in their graduates' accomplishments.

In April 2008 the Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington issued a research paper entitled "Are We Selling Results or Resumes?: The Underexplored Linkage Between Human Resource Strategies and Firm-Specific Capital" by William D. Henderson, a respected authority on lawyers and law firm management who may be in need of better title-writing skills.

Henderson describes the "Cravath system" that Cravath, Swaine & Moore developed in the early 20th century in order to distinguish its legal services:  "Hire the best graduates from the best law schools; provide them with the best training, and at the end of a six-to-ten-year apprenticeship, promote the best associates to partner."  Ironically, instead of distinguishing Cravath's brand, in fairly short order that system became standard industry practice, hence the run-up in associate salaries when increasing demand over the last 20 years from all those wannabe premier law firms outstripped the stagnant supply of premier graduates.

Included in the "peculiar market dynamics" that Henderson notes as a result of the widespread adoption of the Cravath model is 1) the resistance of clients to having those escalating salary costs passed on to them, resulting in their request that junior associates not work on their matters, and 2) the inability of a large proportion of firms who use this model to simply absorb pay raises that can't be passed on to clients. 

So-- Voila, the current standoff between valued-centered clients.and expense-laden firms.

What does Outliers and that very long, obscurely-titled paper have to do with one another?  Henderson makes the point that law firms able to deliver high quality legal services at a fixed cost are in a position to reap enormous financial rewards.  How to do that?  He cites empirical evidence that "within a certain range, differences in cognitive ability, such as I.Q., are uncorrelated with contributions to organizational productivity, and that among knowledge workers, organizational productivity is primarily a function of work strategies that are teachable and trainable."  Those conclusions were drawn after evaluating engineers and other high-level service providers.

Henderson points out that young lawyers with slightly less elite credentials are willing to work very hard for less than elite salaries, particularly if they are being trained.  These lawyers provide firms with the opportunity through knowledge management, business processes, lawyer training and teamwork to develop "firm-specific capital.--i.e., an asset whose value is unique to the firm because it cannot be removed by departing partners nor easily duplicated by competitors."   That is, by engaging "good enough" lawyers and aggressively managing them using the tools that other industries employ to provide high-quality, fixed-price services, a firm can make a name for itself and profitably escape the Cravath model.  Both Gladwell and Henderson point to the enormous financial success of Wachtell Lipton and Skadden Arps in the 70s, firms started by unmarketable lawyers who addressed underserved niches. 

Howrey has just announced that starting this fall it will be paying first and second year associates reduced salaries in connection with a program of limited billing requirements and supercharged career development.  During those years, associates will have intensive training opportunities and be seconded to clients, judges and not-for-profit organizations in order to ramp up their skills.  Managing Partner Robert Ruyak "said the new approach is not a way to save the firm money. In fact, he said, it's going to cost between $3 million and $4 million to implement once training costs and the unbilled hours the associates work are thrown in."

"The way we see it though is that it's going to cost more in the beginning because we're creating something from scratch, but once we get going and we start having a group of young, experienced lawyers coming out ready to handle client matters, we're going to turn a profit much more quickly than we would under the old model."

Howrey and the few other firms who have introduced a version of this approach have not said that part of their plan is to hire "good enough" lawyers, instead of the most highly-credentialed, but the effect remains similar--they are paying less for their incoming talent on the theory that those young lawyers will be bright enough to learn the types of skills and service that the firms intend to pin their reputations on.

What's the biggest hurdle here?  The hurdle that may keep some firms hesitating is the feared implication that by not paying the top entry salaries, which for decades has signaled the pecking order of firms in recruitment, firms adopting this kind of approach do not have "the best" lawyers. 

Perhaps now is the time to embrace the heresy that having "good enough" lawyers is in fact good enough to be successful.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

"In times of drastic change, it is the learners who will inherit the earth.  The learned will be perfectly positioned for a world that no longer exists."  Swarthmore College's 2009 Lax Conference's keynote speaker Richard Teerlink started his presentation with this quote from Eric Hoffer.  

Teerlink led Harley-Davidson's fabled turnaround, fueled in part by his belief that people are the most important resource in any company.  Teerlink was CFO, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Harley-Davidson during the time it went from the stepchild of a public company to private ownership by 13 managers carrying $40 million of debt to its reemergence as a public darling again.

How did they do it?  At the time of HD's privatization, the Japanese dominated the motorcycle industry, and HD's board had to make some tough decisions: they laid off 40% of the workforce--all at once, Teerlink points out, so that fear would not weaken the remaining group; cut compensation of the rest of the employees; killed an expensive new development project; reduced their dealer network; asked suppliers for reductions; eliminated all the Senior Vice-Presidents so that responsibility would be pushed down further in the ranks, with more direct reporting to top management and fewer silos; and collaborated with employees, dealers and customers to enhance the HOG experience. 

Teerlink says that as with all major shakeups HD made some dumb decisions but learned to reverse course quickly.  An advertising campaign was launched that honestly acknowledged past weaknesses and promised owners a different experience.  And the company delivered. 

Teerlink emphasized to HD employees that they were not selling machinery, but an emotional experience, one that offered entertainment and a community.  Thus the HOGS--Harley Owners Group--was born, with networking, social events and riding support (fly and ride, for example) offered nationwide. 

The premise that "people are an organization's only sustainable competitive advantage" drove Teerlink's transformation of HD.  His book, "More Than a Motorcycle: The Leadership Journey of Harley-Davidson," chronicles how he brought that premise into reality.

At a time when law firms are facing some of the most challenging marketing conditions of all time, we might do well to learn a few things from the people who brought us the HOGS.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In the April 20, 2009 issue of The New Yorker, James Surowiecki recalls that during the Depression (the one in the 1930s) Kellogg and Post, but primarily Post, dominated the cereal market. In response to uncertainty, Post reined in expenses and cut back on advertising. Kellogg, on the other hand, doubled its marketing budget. “By 1933, even as the economy cratered, Kellogg’s profits had risen almost thirty percent and it had become what it remains today: the industry’s dominant player.”

 

During hard times, Surowiecki points out, most businesses act like Post in order to preserve what they have. “But there’s a trade-off: numerous studies have shown that companies that keep spending on acquisition, advertising, and R. & D. during recessions do significantly better than those which make big cuts.” They also maintain those gains well into recovery. “[R]ecessions create more opportunity for challengers, not less.” 

 

Why do most businesses insist, then, on pulling back? Surowiecki suggests the uncertainty that so dominates recessions makes any business outcome calculations unlikely to be reliable. Unable to gauge risk, managers forego the gamble.

 

Certainly there are managers who risk “sinking the boat” by boldly forging ahead, but there are others who “miss the boat” by failing to do so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir will participate as a panelist and breakout leader in the Jonathan R. Lax Conference on Entrepreneurship on Sunday, March 29, 2009 at Swarthmore College in Philadelphia.  The topic of the conference is "Building a Strong Enterprise: Critical Skills for Successful Entrepreneurs."

Keynote speaker Richard Teerlink led Harley-Davidson's fabled turnaround, fueled in part by his belief that people are the most important resource in any company. Muir will address "Developing High Performance Teams: understanding the dynamics and characteristics of high performance teams and the critical success factors needed to take teams from forming to performing status."
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Thursday, March 26, at 2:00 pm EST, Ronda Muir will lead an audio conference sponsored by the Center for Competitive Management entitled "Turning Lawyers Into Leaders: How to Survive the Economic Slide."  The discussion will cover who leaders are, what skills and attributes they should have in this economic climate and how to develop them.  For more information and to register. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Wednesday, March 25, at 12:30 pm EDST, Ronda Muir and Robin Rolfe will lead a round table discussion of  "How Progressively Managed and Adaptive IP Firms Can Gain an Advantage in a Down Economy."  Sponsored by the Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) as part of its Brand of Excellence series, this program is offered at no charge and to members only. Additional information can be obtained by contacting admin@plf.org.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

OK, the news has been relentlessly bleak these past few weeks-- Black Thursday followed by just as black Monday through Friday.  To keep things in perspective, here are five great things about the 2009 depression:

1. You don't have to worry about keeping up with the Joneses or the Cravaths... They're not up either.

2. Remember how you always used to say that you'd love to do business development but you just didn't have the time?

3. "I told you things might go to hell in a handbasket."  Even if you didn't quite get the specifics or the timeline right, isn't a global meltdown at least a little gratifying to us world-class pessimists?

4. With the downside not so far down anymore and the upside potentially critically profitable, why not give all those crazy ideas you didn't dare experiment with before--flextime, merit compensation, fixed fee billing--a whirl!

5. What an incentive for change!  The time and tumult generated by the downturn can stimulate a tune-up of both your practice and your firm that will serve you well in the long-term, whether it is totally rethinking and retooling your career, becoming expert in getting your best work done even more efficiently, or redefining what your firm or department is and how it functions.  It is today's inquiries that will fuel your future.

And as an added bonus:

6. Gratitude for your blessings, whatever they are, large and small, never felt better.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

How did women in the spotlight fare in 2008?

Here's a sweeping and eclectic review of women in business, politics and law--Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor Sarah Palin, Caroline Kennedy and Michelle Obama, among others--before the year is too far behind us.  Plus an interesting commentary on how we perceive each other.

Women in Business

A New CEO Record. A January 4, 2009 article in USA Today by Del Jones entitled "Women Still Struggle to Get CEO Jobs" reviewed the current challenges for women. Starting off 2009, Ellen Kullman replaced Chad Holliday at DuPont, bringing the number of female CEOs running the nation's largest 500 publicly traded companies to a record 13, one more than 2008. As recently as 1996 there was only one female CEO of a Fortune 500 company, co-CEO Marion Sandler of Golden West Financial, acquired by Wachovia in 2006, in the news recently because of its high level of mortgage defaults.

Does the gender of the CEO make any real difference in performance?  USA Today has evidently tracked the annual stock performance of Fortune 500 companies with female CEOs since 2003, when female CEOs so out-performed men that it looked like there might be a gender advantage, or at least the possibility that the glass ceiling was so difficult to crack, the women who made it to the top were more talented than their male counterparts.

Devastation for All.  But 2008's devastation gave no advantages to anyone.  The chaos in the financial markets claimed three of its highest-ranking female players—Sallie L. Krawcheck, head of Citigroup’s wealth management unit, Zoe Cruz, a co-president at Morgan Stanley, and Erin Callan, chief financial officer of Lehman Brothers.

And female corporate managers fared as badly as the males. With the S&P 500 falling 38.5%, its worst year since 1937, the average large company run by a woman CEO performed 4% worse. The best-performing of women-led companies was Kraft Foods, down 18% under Irene Rosenfeld. "Nine of those 12 companies have now lost money for any shareholder who invested on the day the women got the job,” Jones notes. “The only exceptions: Susan Ivey at Reynolds American and the two longest-tenured women, Andrea Jung at Avon and Anne Mulcahy at Xerox. Avon is up 65% during Jung's nine years, and Xerox is up 1% during Mulcahy's 6 1/2 years. Reynolds is up 21% since Ivey began in 2004." 

The Glass Ceilinged Pay Scale.  What is clear is that women are paid worse than men at the top. A 2008 survey of CEO pay at 3,242 North American companies by the Corporate Library found that female CEOs earned more in base pay, but when cash bonuses, perks and stock compensation were included, women made a median $1.7 million, or 85%, of what male CEOs made.

Women in Politics

Women in the political arena seem assured of arousing strong reactions, reactions that often have little to do with where they stand on the issues.  And Hillary Rodham Clinton is surely the woman of 2008 who raised the banner for women highest, with her long drive toward the White House, but also the one who took the most sustained barrage of counter fire--as to all matters both professional and personal, such as her experience (does being a first lady count?), her honesty and forthrightness (are tears the real test?), and her relationships with her husband (is she true to her man, unable to stand up for herself, or simply astute as to his political usefulness?).

As an example of the broad-based criticism, Caitlin Flanagan in No Girlfriend of Mine, in the November 2007 edition of The Atlantic, had little good to say about Clinton.

Her speaking style: "It’s cringe-inducing to watch her try to talk…there’s nothing more uncomfortable than witnessing someone straining to be natural.”

Her relationship with her husband and reaction to his philandering: "[A]t a La Raza conference… [Hillary] told her interviewer that they should talk like ‘two girlfriends…’ Hillary’s girlfriend-to-girlfriend moment was awkward because if she wanted to talk that way she would have to be willing to let us women in on the big, underlying struggle of her life that is front and center in our understanding of who she is as a woman. Her husband’s sexual behavior, quite apart from the private pain that it has caused her, has also sullied her deepest—and most womanly—ideals and convictions, for the Clintons’ political partnership has demanded that she defend actions she knows to be indefensible…In glossing over her husband’s actions and abetting his efforts to squirm away from the scrutiny and judgment they provoke, Hillary has too often lapsed into her customary hauteur and self-righteousness, and added to the pain delivered upon these women… she has of necessity made herself complicit.”

Even Hillary's treatment of Socks and other pets came under withering attack.  According to Flanagan, as first lady Hillary had taken Socks with her on personal appearances, had retired servicemen and women at the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Home in Washington, D.C. send out kitty-cat 'greetings' to Socks’s correspondents, and had written about her in Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, which Flanagan calls "cloying, super-cute, and pun-riddled… and which Hillary, being Hillary, had to turn into a lecture on pet care…the person whose shining example we should all follow being Hilary herself."

In response to rumors that Socks would not make it to Chappaqua, entreaties from the official Socks the Cat Fan Club as to the fate of Socks were reportedly met with a message from Clinton’s office “at once chilly and patronizing… that they butt out,” Flanagan reports. The news came later that Socks had gone to live with a White House staffer. “In Dear Socks, Dear Buddy, we are hectored never to give away a pet, always to regard one as an ‘adoption instead of an acquisition’ and to be forever on guard for its physical safety (cold comfort to Buddy, who had barely sniffed his first Chappaqua crotch before the poor beast ran off and got killed by a car, as had the Clintons’ previous dog, the much-loved but equally ill-tended Zeke).”  According to Flanagan, Hillary "should really be on Cat Fancy’s Most Wanted list.”

Then of course there was Governor Sarah Palin, who leapt on the scene, connecting with a large swath of middle America while enraging those further flung. Toward the end of the year, Caroline Kennedy appeared on the political stage in search of Senator Clinton's seat (before she awkwardly bowed out early this year), and, with Clinton and Palin, formed a veritable troika of controversy over a woman's place in government, and what qualifies her to get there. 

In an article entitled When is it Sexism?, Elizabeth Wurzel claims to have an answer to the question of whether these women were treated unfairly because of their gender. "In Sarah Palin’s case, it was [sexism] (sorta). In Caroline Kennedy’s case, it isn’t. Here’s the difference," she asserts.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 18, 2009 Muir will lecture students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program on how to improve management decision-making. Based in part on the article "Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group," the discussion will explore, among other subjects, optimal personality traits for good decision-making, constructing effective teams and avoiding extreme decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The news is out:  "Law is becoming more of a business."  That was the headlights line by David Lat, founding editor of AboveTheLaw.com, in a January 25, 2009 New York Times article about the salary freezes, layoffs and dropping profits in the legal marketplace. Lat adds, "And you will see more of an emphasis on results than in the past."

Surprisingly enough, that realization seems to be downright radical, and a gathering consensus to that effect may mark a tipping point, pushing the conception of legal practice into a brave new future.

Certainly some firm managers will respond by taking out their calculators and trying to quantify their way to results--slashing salaries, reducing pencil-count.  Jones Day partner Mickey Pohl advocates refocusing legal services on providing "business-focused solutions." The job of a law firm is not to solve "a legal problem," he contends. "It's to approach a client's legal situation with an eye toward the overall health and strategy of an ongoing business, a business that has to worry about remaining in existence; satisfying customers, shareholders, and stakeholders; staying acceptably profitable; protecting its reputation; and resolving litigation disputes in a cost-effective manner." In short, brilliant legal strategy, at least in isolation, can make for poor business solutions for a client.

We counsel both our law firms and individual lawyers that "getting the right answer" is only a small factor in the successful practice of law.  Getting it right in a timely manner, getting it right in a way that best serves the client from a holistic viewpoint, getting it right so that the client understands and appreciates the answer, and getting it right in the method of delivery and followup are other critical parts of providing valuable professional services.

According to a pundit at Law and More, "there is a downside to recognizing that law is a business and that it should be focused on the business of its clients. For one thing, the specialness of this profession ends... it loses its protective aura... Instead, it stands out there like, well, any other brand, competing for attention...In addition, lawyers, even the most legally adept, will be called upon to put a human face on new business development, ongoing client interaction, and being influential with all other constituencies, be they judges or government agencies."

"Yet, this [skill] remains alien to many prominent lawyers...They address me in legalspeak or, worse, in the top-down tone and content of those who know far more than I but are patiently taking the time to bring me along. They lack more than a conversational mindset. They are downright deficient in Emotional Intelligence [EI].  Boosting EI of the individual lawyers, the law firm, and the classes in law schools seems like it's job-one in the business of law." 

The data demonstrating the challenge most attorneys face in emotional intelligence is already in. Fortunately, emotional intelligence, unlike IQ, can be improved through training, but most law firms have not considered it worth the investment.  But not only will the type of interpersonal style described above fail to obtain, keep and develop business, we also know that it clearly risks alienating the client to the point of litigation. Research shows that more than 80% of malpractice lawsuits against doctors can be predicted by examining not the doctor's education or skills, but simply the tone of the doctor's interchange with his/her patient:  a tone of "dominance" places the doctor at extremely high risk for a lawsuit.  And who but lawyers know how to pitch dominance to an off-the-charts level.

We are being pushed to explore taking bold new steps on every front that has historically defined our profession.  Compensation is being overhauled, partnership structure is adapting to the demands of the times, the billable hour is under siege, real estate is being reevaluated and leverage is under scrutiny.  But perhaps one of the most radical steps that may come from considering legal practice to be, after all, a business is the one that pushes us to educate ourselves and our attorneys in the fine, perhaps once known but now lost art of providing service.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This is the time of year when many of us take stock of our direction and goals and make plans to step up our effectiveness.  This particular year, 2009, many lawyers are facing an extremely difficult once-in-a-century marketplace for which no one has been truly prepared.  So we may also find ourselves questioning our ability to successfully grapple with the challenges ahead.  

How to acquire the skills that will improve your practice and advance your leadership in such a disorienting environment?

The old adage of two heads being better than one is born out by the data available on the results of coaching.  According to a January 13, 2009 article by Susan Letterman White in The Legal Intelligencer, "a research report by Diane Coutu and Carol Kauffman in the January Harvard Business Review found that coaching is a business tool most often used to develop the capabilities of high-potential performers or facilitate leadership transitions," and one which produces quantifiable benefits. "The Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology has reported that coaching leads to higher interview ratings for individuals. Telecommunications Weekly reported in November that a change program, which included coaching, improved customer satisfaction by 10 percent and call resolution rates by 56 percent at Motorola. And according to a 2008 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, coaching of university faculty improved the writing process of professors who were under pressure to publish."

As Ms. White states, "coaching is to a lawyer what organizational development is to a law firm; they both foster intentional change toward particular goals through a collaborative process. The goals are those that move the client to a higher level of professional effectiveness...Most importantly, a good coach is paid to ask the right questions."

In addition, a good coach is one who listens.

Sheryl Axelrod of Hepburn Axelrod & White, a Philadelphia firm, was quoted in the article as extolling the benefits of coaching in a law firm context. "We worked with a coach who had an uncanny ability to not only listen to our needs, fears and desires for our firm, but our own internal dilemmas and concerns about each other."

Of course, after listening, a coach must also be able to help coachees arrive at and implement beneficial changes.  And those changes are sometimes unexpected.  In the Hepburn Axelrod case, "one of our partners...reach[ed] the difficult decision to leave the partnership."

But the proof is in the pudding.  "The result of the coaching is that our firm, on our own, and our former partner, on his own, are each thriving in a market in which most firms are doing worse, not better, than the year before, " Axelrod said.

Quantitative evaluations of coaching are rare, but those that have been done demonstrate conclusively its effectiveness and bottom-line contribution.  In an evaluation by MetrixGlobal of an executive coaching program provided by the Center for Performance Excellence in 2004 to Booz Allen partners and principals, results indicated that "all leaders readily applied what they gained from their coaching experiences to make significant strides in self-development, while over half (53%) made significant improvements in their relationships with peers and team members and some  leaders (19%) went on to significantly improve client relationships; gaining greater clarity about how their behavior impacted clients and being better able to respond to client issues."

Of eight business areas senior leaders expected executive coaching to impact, "two were found to be positively impacted by at least half of the leaders who were coached: teamwork (58%) and team member satisfaction (54%). Three other areas were selected by 31% of the leaders as having been impacted: quality of consulting, retention and productivity."

Monetary benefits were rigorously documented in this evaluation. "The total monetary benefits were $3,268,325 with four impact areas each producing at least a half million dollars of annualized benefit to the business: improved teamwork ($981,980), quality of consulting ($863,625), retention ($626,456) and team member satisfaction ($541,250). Given a total, fully loaded cost of the coaching of $414,310, the ROI was 689%."

Coaching can provide to all lawyers the simple but valuable assistance of a supportive yet out-of-the-law-firm-box perspective that can be critical when steering through dangerous waters--and that can positively impact the bottom line. That perspective can help you become a more effective  partner, develop individual business, expand your expertise, master management responsibilities and otherwise plan and implement the next step in your career (whether you are motivated to do so proactively or reactively).

At RRR, we offer confidential high-performance coaching programs of six to eighteen months that are tailored to your objectives and your schedule.  Contact us for a consultation on how we can help you achieve your goals in 2009.

Happy new year!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Results from two surveys show growth at the country’s largest law firms to be down significantly in 2008 although employment is generally still on the rise. The National Law Journal’s 31^st annual survey of the NLJ 250 reports that those firms added 4.3% more attorneys in 2008, consistent with increases in 2006 and 2005 but at a lower rate than 2007’s 5.6%.  Partner growth in 2008 averaged 3.5%, which was down from 4.6% in 2007 and 5.1% in 2006. Non-equity partners increased 9.2% compared to 2007, when their ranks increased 8.2% compared with 2006. The average number of women partners stayed stable.

The West Peer Monitor Index, a measure of legal market conditions, reported in late November that large law firms had the lowest productivity during the third quarter of 2008 since keeping records, on average down 4.5%. Productivity at the largest firms, the AMLaw 100, was down even more--6.5%, largely as a result of continued increases in hiring at a time when there is less (particularly transactional) work for those associates to do. Often it takes two years for large firms to respond to market conditions in their hiring practices.

According to the Index, average associate hiring at all firms declined 6% in the 3rd quarter of 2008 compared to 2007, with firms offering equity partnerships to half as many attorneys as they did last year (including mega-firm Mayer Brown, which recently announced making 27 partners worldwide compared to 43 last year). Average lateral growth remains comparable to 2007.

Billable hours for all firms dropped 2.5% in the 3^rd quarter after declining 2% in the second quarter. Overhead expenses grew 6% compared to 8.3% in the 3rd quarter 2007 and direct expenses grew 8% compared to 9% last year. 

The short-term tact many firms are taking now is to lay off lawyers. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 7,300 lawyer jobs were lost nationally between June and October, with an expectation of far more shrinkage when November and December numbers are tallied.       

                                                                                                       

Big firms, and particularly the big New York-based firms who draw much of their work from transactions for or financed by Wall Street financial institutions, have been particularly hard hit, and are responding accordingly.  The tally of recent attorney layoffs from New York offices includes 96 lawyers dropped from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, 20 from Clifford Chance, 40 from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 35 from Proskauer Rose, and 70 from White & Case.  Clifford Chance attorneys have been quoted questioning whether it's worth having a New York office at all. The fact that major transactional firms--Heller, Thelen, and now Thatcher, Profitt--have already folded this early in the recession may well presage more big firms collapsing in 2009.

                                 

Freezing salaries, as Latham & Watlkins has announced, and cutting bonuses in half and eliminating special bonuses, following the lead of Simpson Thacher, Davis Polk, Skadden Arps, Cravath and others in the US and Allen & Overy and Clifford Chance in the UK, are among the other responses to all this bad news, as well as cutting staff, reevaluating off-shore back office services, and trying to offer more flexible fee arrangements.  The recent explosion of non-equity partners is also being scrutinized for its impact on firm finances during these difficult times.  

Hard-pressed law departments are taking another look at the pros and cons of outsourcing, as well as insisting on more accommodation from their firms on staffing and pricing. 

There are a few benefiting from the downturn. The work of outplacement firms has expanded exponentially and attorney recruitment firms have had an influx of talent.  In recognition of this growing pool of lawyers, LegalOnRamp, among others, has added a legal positions component to its site. So those firms looking for talent are at an advantage now.   

Is there any silver lining?  Firms can take this time to experiment with different fee arrangements and also to shore up organizational fundamentals--enhancing performance evaluations, professional, leadership and business development training, and succession plans--so as to be better able to weather the continuing storm, and to be poised to take advantage of the economic improvements that will eventually come.  

Although some pundits are claiming that the economic impact on the law business hasn't been as disastrous as first expected (which we may have to wait a while longer to fully evaluate), there is no denying even at this stage a sea change of sorts---if only that the current fear and trembling in the legal community, historically one of the most economically stable professions, will cast a long shadow over firms as they embark on 2009 and the years to come.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Teamwork may be the 21st Century's technology, in that it promises greater productivity--but only when used well.  After seeing double digit increases in firms that have implemented team systems--management, marketing,  industry and client teams--an initial question many interested law firms have is how to go about achieving teamwork.  Luckily, research provides a clear "life cycle" of teams that can help firms successfully reach team goals.

The stages of teamwork, according to the established models, are 1) forming, 2) storming, 3) norming, and 4) performing.  The forming stage, even among lawyers, can be marked by tentative and polite accommodation.  Unsure of their roles and the leader's competence, team participants need the leader to be clear, directive and highly structured during this first stage. This is not the time for a consensual  "Well, what do you think we should do?" approach.

During the second, storming stage, team members, particularly lawyers, will stake out their positions to test what their authority will be.  Conflict is often a result.  This is a positive development.  Handled well, the team will learn from experience that it is safe to engage in conflict, and that issues can be settled without lasting acrimony or division, even if it requires agreeing to disagree.  This is the basis on which trust and respect is established.  Leaders are often criticized during this stage, as much because of their role as because of their personal attributes or performance.  Leaders who can keep from reacting defensively will avoid exacerbating and prolonging this stage, which, being awkward and uncomfortable, helps propel the group to resolve their differences and move forward into the next stage.

During the third, norming stage, based on the higher level of trust achieved during the 2nd stage, the group's goals are revised and a division of labor, with clear roles, is determined. 

The problem in law firms is that often lawyers don't make it out of stage 2.  Tenacious about protecting their authority and unwilling to trust others to whom work must be delegated, these lawyers keep the team in unnecessary meetings and conflict.  Yet it is only in stage 3 that delegation becomes effective and the individuals are freed up to do their work.

Stage 4 is performing, which is the highly productive stage that teams are made for.  At this point, if members are added or removed, or the goals or delegation changed significantly, the team may regress back to an earlier stage and have to work their way up again.

Ideally, team members spend about 75% of the team time on accomplishing their tasks and 25% on participating in the team process, i.e. on maintaining group relations. Goals that are most amenable to team accomplishment are ones that require collective action, i.e. that no one person could accomplish on his/her own and that are meaningful, even inspiring.  The most effective teams have an emotional commitment to the goal, so framing goals as being in the individual team members' interests is vital. 

Finally, team goals should be specific, measurable and attainable, with a real deadline that allows the team's work to culminate in a completed project.  Ongoing goals make it difficult to maintain team motivation and momentum.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir is participating  as a panelist in CMM's audio conference on "Revenue Per Lawyers: Increase Profitability not Billable Hours" being held at 2pm on Wednesday, October 29, 2008.  To register, please go to www.c4cm.com/lawfirm/lawyerrev.htm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Citibank's Law Firm Group has recently issued its mid-year financial assessment of the legal industry and it is not a pretty sight.  But that bad news is based on results as of June 30, 2008, well before the takeover of Freddie and Fannie, the bailout of AIG, the disappearance of WaMu and Wachovia and Merrill, and the bankruptcy of Lehman, not to mention the failure of the Congressional rescue plan, all of which portends even worse carnage to come.

The first half of 2008 looks very different from the previous six years.  Revenue growth was the weakest it's been in seven years--averaging 4.8% compared to the 10.6% 7-year average. With law firms continuing to add lawyers to their ranks (up 5.6%), a slowdown in productivity comparable to mid-2001 is taking hold, with expenses (up 10.1%) increasing faster than revenue.  Compensation costs are up 15%, well above the 7-year 10.1% average increase.

Practice areas like restructuring and bankruptcy that have been anti-cyclical in the past have not yet helped cushion the fall. 

Profits per Equity Partner dropped 9.1% during the first half of 2008 even though the 1.8% increase in the number of equity partners is substantially down from the 2.9% seven-year average.  Top tier firms suffered the most, falling from a 11.7% increase in PPEP in 2007 to a 11.8% drop, victims of the languishing deal/financings markets and an inability to be nimble in changed circumstances--the big firm head count increase doubled that of smaller rivals, which is in part why smaller firms had only half the drop in PPEP (5.3%) for the first half of 2008.

Interestingly, "international firms," those who have 10-15% of their lawyers overseas, have been subject to the same downturn, while "global firms," with 25% or more of lawyers overseas, have fared much better.  However, it may just be a matter of time before the global economy starts to throw out the same challenges to those firms.

Projections as of June 30 of PPEP for the year 2008 are flat to down 10%, indicating top-tier firms risk up to a 15% decrease, putting 2008 on track for the worse year since at least 2001 and maybe earlier.

Unfortunately, those numbers are likely to be rosy.  They do not take into account the recent paralysis in the credit markets, the enormous financial burden the government (and ultimately taxpayers) has taken on and the disappearance of several major banking clients.  Word of mouth indicates that many firms are holding back distributions to a level as much as 30-40% below last year's. Given the fall of Heller Ehrman and the teetering of a number of other law firms, those who register a 15% decrease in profits this year may be the winners. 

How to make the best of a difficult situation?  Tying associate bonuses to their and/or the firm's profitability may help motivate young lawyers and limit expenses.  Attrition has recently dropped dramatically so firms can winnow out unproductive lawyers and cherry-pick lateral hires that are consistent with their strategic plan, making sure they really know why those lawyers are leaving their old firms.   Making sure collections are current is also critical.  And this is the time to clamp down on administrative and other non-essential expenses. Finally, robust business development is more important than ever.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sonja Lyubomirsky, Professor of Psychology at the University of California, Riverside, admits being surprised by the results of the research she conducted on how to permanently increase happiness, funded by a 5-year million-dollar grant from the National Institute of Mental Health.  She conducted a meta-analysis (a "study of studies"), along with Ed Diener and Laura King, two well-known names in positive psychology, of 225 studies and concluded by writing The How of Happiness (Penguin Press, 2008).  

Lyubomirsky expected, consistent with a number of previous, more limited studies, that relationships would emerge as the over-arching key to well-being.  Contrary to those expectations, she found that, more than any other variable, including relationships, work was both a cause and consequence of happiness.  

"The evidence demonstrates that people who have jobs distinguished by autonomy, meaning and variety - and who show superior performance, creativity, and productivity - are significantly happier than those who do not," she concludes.

"Why does our work make us happy? Because it provides us a sense of identity, structure to our days, and important and meaningful life goals to pursue. Perhaps even more important, it furnishes us with close colleagues, friends and even marriage partners."  So the relationship piece is not lost, but plays a supplemental role to work itself.

The story doesn’t end there, however. Her studies reveal that the causal direction between happiness and work runs both ways. Not only do creativity and productivity at the office make people happier, but happier people have been found to be more creative and productive. They are better “organizational citizens” (going above and beyond their job duties), better negotiators, and are less likely to take sick days, quit or burn out.

One interesting finding was that people who express more positive emotions on the job receive more favorable evaluations from their supervisors as much as 3.5 years later.

"The more successful we are at our jobs, the higher income we make, and the better work environment we have, then the happier we will be. This increased happiness will foster greater success, more money, and an improved work environment, which will further enhance happiness, and so on and so on and so on."

What does this have to do with our legal business?  Of autonomy, variety and meaning, autonomy is the one we have nailed.  Autonomy is often an attribute of the legal job, one that research shows lawyers embrace, sometimes to the detriment of collaboration.  Variety is worth noting, given the rush to specialization.  In light of high salaries, many firms have retreated from the first-year rotations through departments and later year department-wide assignment systems that used to give young lawyers some claim to it.  Carefully reinstating some opportunities for variety may be greatly appreciated.

Meaning can be harder to come by, being the trickier piece to consciously engineer.  Information we have on why young people, particularly Gen X and Yers, go to law school, and what they hope to achieve in their careers, reinforces the importance of meaningfulness.  As a practical matter, that is often assumed to be measured by the amount of public or pro-bono work available to them.  Reinvigorating your pro bono program, and involving young lawyers in the process, is a good first step but also articulating and reaffirming the firm's values vis-a-vis those within the organization (for example, "we provide premier training and career support") and its clients ("we build long-term relationships based on superior industry expertise and unparalleled service") helps young lawyers place themselves in a framework of meaning.

Creativity is a skill not as often singled out for recognition by law firms, and even productivity is usually rewarded only on a single level minimum-billed-hours-required-for-the-bonus formula.  Fine-tuning both salaries and bonuses so as to reward specific behaviors, such as business development activities or developing a specific expertise, offers eager Type As the opportunity to both increase their compensation and distinguish themselves from the pack, while achieving firm goals.

Providing positive feedback is an important part of evaluations that firms often overlook, so set in their problem-solving mode that they forget to reinforce what's working.  This study points out the importance of encouraging evaluees to crow or compliment too, for the firm's sake as well as theirs.

In short, this meta-study flags as important some of the same things we hear from lawyers going out the door:  provide a more meaningful, personally relevant work experience with supportive personal relationships in order to increase satisfaction and earn loyalty.

Now, back to work...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

It isn't a tardy response to Dick the Butcher's rallying call in Shakespeare's King Henry VI to "kill all the lawyers" that may end it for us, according to the forthcoming book The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services.  Richard Susskind, Emeritus Professor of Law at Gresham College, England, IT adviser to Britain's Lord Chief Justice, recipient of an Order of the British Empire award, and consultant to a number of leading law firms in Great Britain and abroad, contends it is rather our own stubborn resistance to the metamorphosis of the business and technological world that will do us in.

"I write not to bury lawyers but to investigate their future...in the face of challenging trends in the legal marketplace,"  Susskind assures.

Let me paraphrase a few of his points from excerpts of his book.

Ignoring The Future and Its Technology

Susskind, also author of The Future of Law (1996), says that during the more than 15 years he was Executive Editor of the International Journal of Law and Information Technology, not once did he receive a submission of an article on the nature of legal practice in the long term.  Governments, managing committees and law schools are not worrying about the fate of the profession for the next generation, in his opinion.  The assumption is that the profession will continue to look like it does today-- skilled professionals dispensing consultative advisory services on a one-to-one basis. While major oil companies have strategic plans in place for the next 50 years, very few lawyers look beyond the next five. 

But the profession is on the brink of a fundamental transformation, in Susskind's opinion.  Within the next 10 years, he contends, all manner of legal guidance and resources, barely imaginable 10 years ago, will be at everyone's fingertips.  The last 10 years intimates the kind of progression that can be expected in the next 10.   Technology today already makes the expanding web of hyper-regulation--vast interconnections of complex regulations--manageable.  They become search-able, reportable and the questions raised resolvable in microseconds compared to the old system of researching and reviewing regulations and case law. Commoditization and technology will likewise reshape 21st century legal services, making conventional legal advisers less prominent, even to some extent invisible. 

The market is increasingly unwilling to tolerate legal expenses born out of inefficiency. So the challenge is to identify lawyers' distinctive skills and replace the rest by advanced systems or less costly workers.  The already apparent tendency of lawyers now to point to their negotiating, deal-making, counseling, risk management, even therapeutic skills, over their mastery of black letter law shows the great tide of recognition of the sinking value of black letter lawyering, which can be increasingly standardized, systematized, packaged and even commoditized without the bespoke handling of an expensive lawyer.  New age lawyers will combine law with some other substantive expertise (like IP, for example) and there will be a new cadre of legal knowledge engineers, whose specialty will be to access, manipulate and package relevant law.

The Potential Impact of Non-Lawyer Investors

For the first time in England, non-lawyers will soon be able to invest in law firms. Delivery of legal services will be a very different business when financed and managed by non-lawyers.  It is improbable that investors would put money into the traditional law firm business model, with its hourly billing, expensive premises, pyramidic organizational structure, etc. 

Savvy business people will surely find that traditional law firms are over-resourced, with enormous duplication of effort, and with too many smart lawyers and too few smart systems.  A revolution in delivery will quickly take advantage of the most profits to be rung from high-volume, low-margin consumer legal work. It has been determined that of 10 billion pounds of consumer-based legal services business in Britain, 6 billion could easily be captured by common consumer outlets, like supermarkets and banks. 

Companies are starting to decompose the components of their spending into high value, big ticket and other matters.  With $40 billion currently being spent on engaging the top 100 US law firms alone, there is likely to be some potential for savings.  Big law firms feel smugly secure in their bet-the-ranch niche, but among general counsel it is clear that if new legal businesses emerge offering quicker, more convenient, less costly alternatives, their companies will embrace them.  And the incentive is there for those businesses to emerge.

Confident In Our Naivete

Lawyers' confidence that "disruptive legal technologies," such as document assembly and review, personalized alerting, on-line dispute resolution and open-sourcing, will not impact their practice is only matched by their lack of familiarity with these trends and their naivete.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir will be participating in an IOMA audio conference presentation entitled "Associate Compensation: New Alternatives for a Difficult Economy" on July 22, 2-3:30 pm EST.  For more information or to register, go to www.ioma.com/audioconferences/1053.html. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The use of assessments worldwide is rapidly expanding and lawyers are still lagging at the back of the pack--way back. 

An article by Lisa Belkin in yesterday's New York Times notes that there are 2,500 "profiling instruments" that companies rely on more every year when deciding whom to hire or promote. Sixty-five percent of companies surveyed reported using assessments in 2006, up almost double from the 34 percent reported a year earlier, according to Staffing Industry Report, a human-resources newsletter.

To paraphrase her article, the content of tests has stayed more or less constant for three decades. What has changed is the workplace. The cost of losing experienced employees now represents a tremendous lost of investment.  "Employers want a guarantee that a new hire will stick — and the best way to do that is to make sure that job and candidate are a good fit in the first place."

Globalization that separates performance and accountability/review across continents has further complicated the process of finding and training the best person for the job. So offering on-line testing across those continents makes these assessments not only appealing but also fast.  

I am often asked by potential clients, particularly those who have been in corporate settings, if we either offer or recommend simple, cost-effective assessments for them to use in attorney recruitment, training and development.  While we can recommend and administer a number of good assessments that can be highly useful -- Myers Briggs Type Indicator (the most popular test in the country, used by 89 of the Fortune 100 and taken by 2.5 million Americans each year), Caliper's Personality Profile, Birkman Method, MayerSaloveyCaruso Emotional Intelligence Test, Thomas Kilmann Conflict Instrument, among others--they are not inexpensive and they are not targeted to lawyers. 

A recent college graduate friend took a Johnson O'Connor aptitude assessment, a common test for teens and young adults to help determine career possibilities.  Since her father and grandfather are lawyers and she is considering going to law school, she was surprised to find that "lawyer" was not one of her designated career possibilities.  She was told that a few years ago Johnson O'Connor stopped offering "lawyer" as an option for any of their test-takers.  The reason?  They are no longer able to reliably correlate attributes or aptitudes with the successful practice of law.

And therein lies one of the problems with assessing attorneys.  While research has indeed identified a number of attributes that lawyers exhibit to a greater degree than others-- for example, high pessimism, skepticism, urgency and autonomy, and low resilience, sociability and collaboration-- the problem lies in the data that shows the impact these characteristics are having on practitioners.  These very attributes present in so many lawyers are also the attributes contributing to the dissatisfaction and distress that the legal profession exhibits:  astonishingly high rates of depression and other mental illness, substance abuse, suicide, and divorce, for starters. High rates of dissatisfaction that are also contributing to the staggering drop-out and attrition rates.

In addition to the challenge of identifying what makes for a good (as well as well-adjusted lawyer), there is also the expense of doing that well.  The testing often done at corporations is highly individualized, developed after an extensive review of what attributes in fact produce productive and satisfied employees at that particular company, and sometimes at that particular location.  Google hires over 10,000 new employees each year and enjoys the amazingly low attrition rate of 4%, but to accomplish that.it invests in a highly detailed questionnaire and assessment that is developed from extensive employee data   That process is not inexpensive. 

Not only is it the individual lawyers who have complex and sometimes hard-to-read attributes.  Law firms and law departments, often in spite of their studied denial, also have "personalities."  Understanding those personalities is critical in determining the type of person who will thrive or fail there. 

Our unique expertise in understanding the attributes of individual lawyers, as well as each legal workplace, makes us ideally suited to help you enter the challenging world of 21st century attorney assessment, development and retention.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What's the route to higher efficacy and productivity?  Might that be by staffing with "messy" groups?  So suggests a recent book entitled The Difference:  How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools and Societies by Scott E. Page, professor of complex systems, political science and economics at the University of Michigan. 

Using mathematical modeling, Dr. Page shows how variety in staffing produces organizational strength-- and bottom line results.  In his models, diverse groups of problem-solvers outperformed groups made up of similar individuals with high problem-solving ability.  The diverse groups got stuck less often that did the smart individuals, who tended to think similarly.

According to Dr. Page, different talents and perspectives, which he calls "tools," bring more and different ways of seeing a problem and result in faster/better ways of solving it.  Diverse cities are more productive, diverse boards of directors make better decisions, diverse companies are more innovative.  Interdisciplinary work is the biggest trend in scientific research, he says, and should be the route that business and the professions pursue.

So what does this have to do with lawyers?  Law departments that stretch across many countries are often diverse by necessity.  And by going global, many firms are diversifying by circumstance.  In both cases different cultural, personality and economic perspectives come into the mix.  While trying to preserve the benefits of diversity, these departments and firms are also confronted with the morass of confusion that many different people doing things differently can make.  Molding those differing perspectives into the "BigLaw" firm or department way of doing things--either purposefully, by circulating the administrative memo or lecturing the new recruits, or inadvertently, perhaps by unconsciously discouraging lawyers from ringing an alarm when they spot missteps, can leave you with unintended consequences. 

KPMG's program to test all US partners (see our KPMG Model Delivers Risk Management, Teamwork, Client Satisfaction and Diversity Too) and then use that information to balance various teams--marketing, client, industry and management, to name a few--is a shining example of the usefulness of diverse approaches to every type of issue facing professional services firms.  KPMG is affirmatively pursuing and integrating diversity in their business model to great benefit.

Finding the right balance to both capitalize on the benefits of diversity and to minimize the administrative and management fallout produced by those differences is a modern law firm's challenge.  There is every reason to believe that getting it right is worth the effort.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir is participating in a business development program for new partners of a global law firm.  The program involves small group training and individual coaching to produce individual business development plans that can help put new partners' careers on a productive course. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lawyers have been making it into the big-time news lately.  That is, not just into the AmLaw publications, where spots about closely-argued decisions vie for those on the merger of the month, but onto the front page of  the New York Times SundayStyles section in early January  ("The Falling Down Professions") and more recently the front page of the NYT ThursdayStyles section ("Who's Cuddly Now?").  And they're not talking about what celebrity lawyers are wearing, or about those errant lawyers taking their clothes off in the conference room or screaming obscenities at the judge. 

What's making the news these days are regular law firms and the vast universe of everyday lawyers--and the bedeviling challenges that they face:  declining law school applications over the last few years, plummeting retention rates, rising dissatisfaction among lawyers and clients.  But while some law firms have been bemoaning how hard it is to get lawyers to stay in place, just doing their job, servicing their clients, it is occurring to a number of other firms that--drum roll--some tweaking of the business model might be in order.

So it is, as persistently promoted here, and now even trumpeted in the style sections of the news, that law firms, they are a'changin'. 

Why are they changing?  Richard Florida, the author of “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life” (Basic Books, 2003) says the old grand professions have “lost their allure, their status. And it isn’t about money.”  The money, as firms contemplate a $200,000 salary for a brand new law school graduate, is still pretty good. But especially among young people, according to Mr. Florida, professional status is now inextricably linked to ideas of flexibility and creativity, values not traditionally nurtured by the legal industry. 

But exactly how are law firms changing?  They are experimenting with different fee structures for their clients, and experimenting with different compensation and engagement arrangements with their associates and even partners (see our The Fracturing World of Lockstep Compensation).  They are contracting, out-sourcing and e-commuting. They are introducing sensitivity, transparency and flexibility not only into their vocabulary (see our entry Sullivan & Cromwell Proves Mom Right?) but also into their culture, providing professional development that promotes leadership skills and career planning in addition to CLE mastery, and reworking their retirement, work sharing and required billable hours policies.  In fact, there are so many changes afoot, that there is a good chance that not only will law firms of the mid-21st century look very different from their 20th-century antecedents, but they may also not look much like each other.  See our Leaving Behind the Medieval Model.

Lawyers are well-known for their risk aversion, and personality assessments bear out that propensity on the individual level.  But ruminating over these forays in experimentation brings one to the conclusion that the biggest change amongst us lawyers is that we are becoming demonstrably capable of, and willing to, change.  Ok, maybe only after a short walk past the gangplank, but still, at least when prodded, able to change.  Or at least willing to try to change.

And that's how we are going to get better at this business.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For the first time in six years, law firm expenses in the US and the UK are growing faster than revenues, according to a recent article in The American Lawyer.  For the first six months of 2007, gross revenue grew at a strong 13.1%, well above the compound annual growth rate of 10.5% of the prior three years, while productivity (average hours per lawyer) was flat.  Rate increases were in line with the six-year average increase of 7% and, continuing an upward trend, there was an increase in leverage-- total lawyers rose by 7.4%, significantly above the increase in equity partners.

But there were also big increases on the expense side, with the expense growth rate of 13.7% much greater than the average 9.2% of the last three years and outstripping the increase in revenues (13.1%) for the first time in six years. 

The reasons are pretty obvious.  A 17% rise in compensation costs accounted for the bulk of the increase in expenses.  This last year has seen not only big jumps in associate compensation and bonuses but also the announcement of special additional bonuses yet to come.  Equity partner growth in the first half of 2007 was also up 1.5 percent, over .5% from the prior year, although still not up to the average six-year rate of 2.6%.  Operating costs (occupancy and overhead) also grew close to 12%, in many cases driven by additional new hires.  And poor currency conversions rates relating to foreign office expenses have driven those costs up dramatically.

So what does the crystal ball tell about the future?  With the drop off in transactional work caused by the credit crunch and no up-tick in bankruptcy and litigation, productivity in the second half of 2007 is likely to slow, and those higher salaries and bonuses on top of bonuses will fully hit the books.  Revenue for the entire year is likely to be cushioned by the strong inventory accumulated during the first half of 2007, resulting in still decent increases in profits per equity partner of 6-8%.

But 2008 may be another matter altogether.  If transactions don't come back and other practices don't take up the slack, reduced revenues and even layoffs may be in the offing. 

It's a new year coming.  Let's hope the party hats stay on.

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a report released October 1^st, Catalyst, a New York consultancy, found that Fortune 500 companies with at least three women on their boards strongly outperformed those companies with fewer or no women. Based on a study of four years of corporate results, the correlation was found to be so direct that the more women who serve on a board, the better the bottom line. 

The companies with the highest percentage of women on their boards had equity returns 53% higher, returns on sales 42% higher and returns on invested capital at least 66% higher than those companies with the least number of women board members. Higher returns kicked in once at least three women served on the corporation’s board, the study found, with companies having only three women board members raising each of those returns an average of 5% over corporations with fewer women.

Why would female board participation produce such concrete financial results? Various consultants and academics speculate that women are better able to understand the customer base, particularly of consumer goods companies, and that showcasing women on the board helps attract and retain women employees throughout the company. 

Another reason may well be women’s often strong collaboration skills, empowering them to better resolve conflict and move boards through the thorny discussions necessary to make and carry through critical decisions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

"We evaluate 'courage' as a behavioral characteristic of our lawyers, and we link this evaluation to compensation," says John P. Donahue, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Rhodia Inc., in the July 2007 issue of InsideCounsel.   Rhodia has "embraced professional objectivity of its in-house lawyers as a core value" and Donahue wants to make sure that "our lawyers can deliver bad news to clients," with whom they are often closely aligned. 

Valuing Courage

Given the data we have about the strong tendency of lawyers to avoid rather than confront conflicts (yes, even those feisty litigators, oddly enough) (see my article "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers"), Donahue's goal is one that can't be lauded enough.  Hospital administrators contend that a ratio of 1 conflict avoider in 4 employees results in a "dangerous workplace"--think:  "I don't want to get so&so in trouble over reusing needles" or "Maybe she'll start writing down dosages after she gets used to our procedures". 

Left to their own proclivities, lawyers' much higher rate of avoidance than hospital workers risks being just as dangerous.  Avoidance not only fails to resolve firm and client issues, but at the extreme, failure to report and confront violations of Sarbanes-Oxley, insider trading and discrimination laws, to name a few, can not only crater a career, but also a firm or a company.  Add in malpractice, fraud and the range of criminal possibilities (see, for example, Enron and other corporate demises and the unfolding saga of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman) and silence should never be considered golden.

Hence Donahue's laudable efforts to support and promote courage.   

Which is where our thought for today could end.

Evaluating Courage

But Donahue goes further than suggesting putting in place environmental supports like "constantly talking" about maintaining objectivity, creating a culture that embraces bearers of bad news and rotating lawyers among client departments. He wants his lawyers' courage to be evaluated and then to compensate them accordingly.

Evaluating courage or any other personal characteristic as it relates to their work is a radical idea to many lawyers. Basing compensation on that evaluation is outlandish.  They don't know what a "behavioral characteristic" actually means, don't trust the evaluation process, and certainly don't think their compensation should be linked to so un-rigorous a process.  They are, after all, good lawyers, and good lawyers average in the top 10% on the characteristic "skepticism" in personality assessments (see again my article "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers").

In this case, they should get over it.  Whether Donahue is using structured assessments or more unstructured evaluation techniques, these behavioral and personality evaluations are likely to be the key for law firms and law departments to break their recruitment and retention quandaries and, as icing on the cake, help solve the diversity dilemma.  (See my January 5, 2007 blog entry "KPMG Model Delivers Risk Management, Teamwork, Client Satisfaction and Diversity Too," reporting on KPMG's use of the Birkman Method assessment to revamp its business model and achieve retention and diversity goals.)

This is not a new position, at least for me.  (See my article "The Case for Assessment: Using Discrimination for Better Hiring," which outlines all the uses of assessments in the non-law firm world and how law firms might profit from them.)  And now the tipping point is in sight as more law departments and law firms inch towards greater use of evaluations and assessments-- and trumpet the benefits.

General Counsel Scott Terrillion, of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, uses an "evaluative selection method" to find the best attorneys for his company, with diversity being a natural consequence.  Roland Dumas, director of diversity for the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, points out that "if a law firm screens candidates based on what law school they went to and how well they did there, it won't achieve much diversity.  There simply are not enough African-American and Latino law students in the top law schools who would survive the 'top quarter' cut."  Instead, Dumas recommends "capabilities" interviews, which use rich conversations to probe candidates to find those who have the talents the firm values. 

Struggling to complete with bigger firms, Kansas City, Mo.-based Blackwell Sanders developed a system for selecting and assessing associates that is more behaviorally evaluative than most firms use, and it found that using these behavioral evaluations, starting with the initial interview, enabled the firm to spot talent it might otherwise miss. The firm has documented its efforts in a handbook, From Classes to Competencies, Lockstep To Levels, which, according to the foreword by Ida Abbott, is "an act of remarkable candor and leadership ... [that] will enable law firms to expedite the design and implementation of competency-based evaluations and performance-based advancement."

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.  Blackwell Sanders doubled the total number of minority associates, tripled the number in recent incoming classes, and increased by 22% the number of females associates.  Perhaps even more notable, a "high" minority attrition rate declined to "0" within four years. 

Jeffrey N. Berman, managing partner at Berman Fink Van Horn, says that for the last 10 years his firm has taken an even more radical step--using individually administered psychological assessments as part of their hiring process. Determining assessment traits important to the firm has given the firm "a handle on the type of attorney that is going to be happy and successful here," Berman says.  

The firm tells all prospective hires, lawyers and staff, that they will be required to take a personality test if an offer is made.  Contrary to the fear of many hiring partners, Berman reports that no one has ever objected to the assessment or refused to proceed, in part, he believes, because everyone in the firm has participated and also because it has been so accurate in predicting success.   "It never ceases to amaze me how accurate the testing is," he adds, noting that it has never proved inaccurate with anyone they've hired, even when the results contravene the impression of interviewers.

So diversity is not the only benefit firms can expect from the targeted use of evaluations and assessments--law turnover and high satisfaction and performance result as well. 

Our firm offers law departments and law firms state-of-the-art advice on identifying the characteristics that produce happy, productive lawyers in your environment and designing evaluations and assessments to use in hiring and promoting those candidates.  Don't be left in the backwash.  This is a wave that can do much to move you forward.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is no substitute for face time, as people in my business are wont to insist. But maybe there is.

During an interview with Mark Chandler, General Counsel of Cisco, to discuss the evolving legal marketplace, see Leaving Behind the Medieval Model, he demonstrated for me Cisco's newest entry (competing with Hewlett-Packard, Polycom and Tandberg, among others) into the web conference market— a small meeting room that boasts an IP (Internet Protocol) phone, three broadcast-quality cameras, three ultra-sensitive mikes, three 60-inch plasma screens, a crescent-shaped table that seats six and soft back-lighting. The result, as one satisfied client related, is that "you can literally see and hear a pin drop a continent away."  The sensation is of simply being in a small conference room with well-lit colleagues across the table--I admit to the eerie feeling of being able to reach out and touch someone, only I couldn't. 

At $300,000+ for each of these pods (and it takes two, of course) and monthly maintenance costs in the thousands, it would require a lot of deferred traveling to pay for the luxury of not having to sit on tarmacs. Nonetheless these systems seem to be enjoying brisk demand, with prices down from $550,000+ two years ago and double digit increases in sales annually. 

There are a number of circumstances that might prompt law firms to take advantage of these technospheres. In light of how time-consuming air travel has become, the need for rapid decision-making and the globally far-flung nature of more and more law firms and their clients, they offer a reasonable and efficient tool in law firms' management and delivery arsenals.

But my interest in this product (in case you've been wondering why I, a techie manqué, am going on about this) relates to something one of the true techies touting this system remarked when I saw it. "The name of the game today is collaboration," he said, and went on to discuss the myriad tech tools now available that promote collaboration—web-conferencing, intranets, extranets, wikis, individual attorney blogs, etc.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the name of the game at many, if not most, law firms has not historically been collaboration, whether we are talking about firm management, practice group, committee or even client and document issues. Lawyers are notoriously independent and skeptical/untrusting of others. The impact of many firms' broad dispersal of offices and lawyers has not necessarily been to produce more of what wasn't much there in the first place. Compounded with the arrival almost daily of lateral lawyers from different work and culture environments, cities, and even countries, the tendency among lawyers towards isolation is often only magnified.

So here comes the possibility of virtual face time, whether you think you need it or not. While we can agree that what needs face time, and what that term means, is often subjective, the absolute necessity of it among lawyers, their staff and clients is indisputable. I concede that web conferencing still lacks a certain something—building a critical relationship, hiring and firing, and even congratulating might still best be done in person. Real person. Where a shoulder to cry on, a slap on the back or a firm handshake can make a difference.

But if a firm determines to include one of these technologies amongst its tools or toys, it should not forget to put introducing, acknowledging, appreciating, recapping, explaining, consolidating, networking, socializing, rewarding, giving feedback, even gossiping and complaining on the list of things they are used for. It is an efficient way to build rapport and community and the productivity associated with that cost assuredly drops to the bottom line faster than whatever productivity associated with paying for either lunches at everyone's desks or sitting on the tarmac does.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

On Thursday, September 21, at 2:00 pm EST, Ronda Muir will lead an audio conference on Associate Compensation: Where Do We Go From Here?  Included in the discussion will be a review of current trends and out-of-the-box ideas for dealing with the impact of escalating associate compensation, how to find the best strategy for your own law firm and overcoming the problems and pitfalls in making that strategy work. 

The audio conference is sponsored by IOMA, which publishes Law Office Management & Administration Report, as well as other legal publications, and provides research, educational and training products to lawyers.  To register, go to www.ioma.com/law_firm_management/. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir's article "The Looming Associate Crisis" leads the July 2007 ALM Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, Volume 13, Number 6.   

After reviewing statistics that show an ever-tightening supply, and potentially less qualified pool, of associates who are paid more yet leaving earlier than in years past, Muir recounts some of the tried (and perhaps less currently true) strategies for coping, and also identifies some more radical solutions that innovative, forward-looking firms can benefit from.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Burnishing an image that is bankable is what every professional tries to do--both for him/herself individually and for the profession as well.  Doctors take bed-side manners lessons, the NYPD are being instructed on common courtesies.  What about lawyers?  What do they do to bring out the gold?

From the looks of things, not much.

A Harris Poll annually asks the question “Who would you trust?” about various professions.   Doctors, teachers, scientists, police officers, professors, clergymen and military officers routinely end up at the top of the trust chart, garnering more than 70% of the votes. 

Lawyers are usually found settled at the bottom, where members of Congress, pollsters, trade union leaders and stockbrokers rank above them with 35% or less of the vote. There, in next-to-last place in 2006, lawyers sport 27% trustworthiness, one notch above the bottom-feeding actors, over whom lawyers are able to boast a one percentile advantage.

The recent portrayals of lawyers in mass media are evidence of how low the reputations of lawyers are sinking. Long gone is Perry Mason reassuring the wronged and bringing evildoers to justice.   Last season’s TV series about a lawyer was titled “The Shark,” which pretty much says it all from an image standpoint.  That series has been one-upped by this summer’s arrival of a lawyer drama entitled “Damages,” starring Glenn Close, who will always be remembered as one of our generation’s scariest persona—the man-eating, marriage-dashing, family unfriendly “Fatal Attraction” psycho.  Legal advice, anyone?

Then there are the real-life reports that manage to make these fictional scenarios look reasonable:  the senior partner who throws law books at associates, the criminal defense attorney found naked with an adolescent in the court's conference room, the litigator who admitted to altering documents in a consumer class action, the tax lawyer who bribed IRS officials to accept tax positions, the partner whose language in court was so egregious the head of the firm flew in to apologize. 

Into this combustible scenario comes the question of whether law firms should be able to advertise in mass media, as do other professions, and if so, what they should be able to say. 

The recent back and forth in New York, New Jersey and other states about whether law firms should be allowed to tout their "Super Lawyers" or other commercially recognized stars on their websites, use testimonials from prior or existing clients in their marketing materials, use unidentified actors in their ad campaigns or even send emails that don't clearly identify themselves as "soliciting" are no doubt reflections of the growing role that image marketing is likely to play for lawyers. 

A recent article in the New York Times heralded the arrival of professional-looking canned law firm television commercials that are affordable to "the smaller, more local firms for whom the most important thing is the message to their communities," according to Spot Runner, who is working together with Martindale-Hubbell to market the commercials.  While that approach may benefit a local firm whose clients and potential clients are individuals in the community, as the article notes, it is unlikely to be useful to large corporate firms.  And the unseemly associations with ambulance chasing still prevail.

So, other than mass advertising, how do we burnish our image in this modern era? 

Perhaps in the most old-fashioned of ways:  by building relationships, one at a time.  It does not produce a quick fix or an instant cache.  It takes time-- both immediately and over the long run, so it's not very efficient.  But building individual relationships is effective.

Clients say repeatedly that the quality they most want in their counsel is trustworthiness.  Not just someone who gets the answer right.  Or gets the answer right enough for the price.  But someone who the client can count on to look out for their best interests, provide honest feedback and reliably follow through. 

It's an image worth the investment.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An article by Ronda Muir entitled "The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Law Firm Partners" appears in the July/August 2007 issue of the ABA Law Practice Management Section's Law Practice Magazine. 

Among the attributes that emotionally intelligent partners bring are better judgment, higher productivity, enhanced business development skills and better client relationship management.  Most importantly, high emotional intelligence fuels the kind of leadership-- one which promotes collaboration and teamwork-- that is critical to excellence in the 21st Century, and that can provide firms with a competitive edge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Herewith a short but concise history of the twisted path that has led to billing by the legal hour, and the consequences of its tyranny.

During the 1800s, US legal fees were capped "per service" by state law, and litigation fees were usually paid by the losing party.  Some lawyers were able to collect "bonuses" or charge retainers to circumvent the limitations of capped fees. 

In 1908, the ABA declared contingency fees to be ethical, which opened a new source of revenue at least for litigation matters.

By the 1930s and 40s, however, the nature of legal fees was set on its head: what had been a capped system turned into a base system.  State bars began publishing minimum fees, in most cases providing that those lawyers charging less than the minimums were to be punished.  Similarly, the ABA Model Code, which stayed in effect until 1969, declared it unethical to "undervalue services."

Helping fuel this change in attitude was the expansion in 1938 of the Federal (and many states) Rules of Civil Procedure, which made litigation potentially more complicated and therefore also less amenable to flat fees.

Over time lawyers complained that dentists and doctors were out-earning them.  A 1958 ABA pamphlet contended that lawyers were bad businessmen in comparison to other professionals, the remedy being to better track time and to keep more detailed records.  That pamphlet also suggested that lawyers work 1300 hours a year-- or 5-6 hours @ day, five days @ week in a 48-week year.

In 1975, the Supreme Court, outlawing both the capped 1800s practice and the base system from the 40s, held that set fees for legal services constituted price-fixing, and was a violation of the antitrust laws.  In response, by the late 1970s, most lawyers charged for their services based purely on hourly billing.

In 2001, the ABA asserted that too much emphasis was being placed by firms on billable hour requirements, which was leading to bill padding and general inefficiency, as well as damaging firm culture.  This time, the ABA recommended billing expectations of 2300 hours annually, composed of 1900 hours billable to clients plus a total of 400 additional hours for: firm service (100 hours), pro bono (100 hours), client development (75 hours), training and professional development (75 hours) and professional service (50 hours).

Those expectations translate into a total 9-10 client and other hours @ day, five days @ week, 48 weeks @ year.  The standard guideline for billable hours is that it takes approximately 10-12 hours to bill 8 hours.  In which case, to achieve the ABA expectations, lawyers would be expected to work 12-15 hours daily.

In April of this year, a group of more than 100 law students from several of the nation's most prominent law schools--Yale, Stanford, NYU, Berkeley-- sent an open letter to law firms on the AmLaw 100 requesting that they improve working conditions at law firms.  Students Building A Better Legal Profession called for law firms to reduce billable hour requirements and to make their billing expectations of attorneys clear.  The group offered to exchange lower salaries for fewer hours. 

The group also promised that prior to the fall recruiting season it would post a list of firms that have and have not agreed to these principles.

Touche.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In connection with the 129th annual International Tradmark Association meeting in Chicago, Ronda Muir, Senior Consultant, presented a program on Wednesday, May 2, at Robin Rolfe Resource's Women's Power Breakfast for seventy senior corporate and law firm women in intellectual property.   Her presentation focused on what makes lawyers, and women lawyers, different from other professions and how to use those differences to make good lawyers better.  This year INTA welcomed over 8,500 registrants from around the world.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Do we have a deal?  An easily-missed recent entry in the legal press noted that DLA Piper had decided to award the latest round in starting salary increases to entering associates in only one practice area--patent litigation.  The article noted that patent litigators often have science and engineering degrees and that clients are willing to pay premium billing rates for these services.  DLA's co-managing partner for the US, J. Terence O'Malley, said the move was in response to "listening to the marketplace."

Partner compensation at law firms usually differs depending on seniority, origination, productivity and whatever else goes into the formula, and individual compensation arrangements, at least for a trial period, are often negotiated with lateral hires, including associates.  According to an Altman Weil Survey, however, nearly 2/3rds of firms with more than 100 lawyers have some sort of lock-step feature by class for associate compensation, and that proportion must approach 100% when it comes to first-year associate entering salaries. 

DLA's small step is remarkable in several respects.  Given the traditional associate compensation structure, hiring entering associates at varying salaries, particularly in this competitive recruiting environment, is a real departure.   This proposal must have provoked lengthy discussion at DLA about whether, regardless of its usefulness in snagging more patent types, the move would also turn off high-quality associates not interested in patent litigation.  Isn't DLA saying that some associates are more valuable to them than (most) others? 

But if there is premium billing to be had, why not pay premium compensation?  There is something to be said for sharing the wealth with the associates who are doing that work.  It's just that that is not how law firms have reasoned in the past.  Call it a "professionalism ethic," or maybe something else, but there has been a widely-recognized premise that at least all young lawyers in any given firm are created, and paid, equal. 

Further, for a law firm to have gone through the process of officially determining that some corporate legal services--in this case, bet-the-ranch patent cases-- are more valuable in the marketplace than others, and that they are going to pursue those, is notable, the critical word being "officially."  Firms have long been able to bulk up bills in areas where they own the field, using an implicit what-the-market-can-bear standard.   What is the client's alternative? 

But this announcement publicly acknowledges parsing the demand for legal services in a way that law firms have traditionally not owned up to--we intend to take advantage of the demand for a specific type of particularly profitable work.

The correlation drawn in the article between premium billing and the associates' salaries makes it look like DLA's analysis was based on the old-line cost-of-production concept--since we will charge a higher hourly rate for this work,  we can afford to pay these associates more as well and still retain our profitability margins.  But in fact, these facts can also support a newer type of value pricing-- we can pay these associates more because this work is worth more to the client, regardless of how much time it takes to perform. 

This announcement may also be part of a shifting in the wind away from the convergence rage. There has been much made of the convergence trend among corporations, no doubt the brain-child of a legal consultant hoping to reap the law firm M&A bonanza that the announcement of such a trend has in fact put in motion.  But this bit of DLA's market analysis, if true, may put the lie to the contention that  firms should do it all.  IP boutiques have in part managed to ratchet up hourly rates because of the uniform nature of their hotly-demanded business.  In short, they are the antithesis of the general service law firm and they are profiting from that status.  Large law firms, burdened with years of the convergence message, currently sport a blended, averaged or standard-per-class billing rate that applies to both more and less profitable work.  

According to last year's survey, 28 of the AMLaw 100 law firms shrank in size.  All but two of those also improved their RPL.  For example, Akin Gump shed 25-30 lawyers as they found asbestos defense work to be increasingly commoditized and price-sensitive.  That  move raised RPL nearly 5% for 2005.  Managing Partner R. Bruce McLean noted that  "In the 1990s we tried to build a national firm, and we grew from 450 lawyers to 1,000 lawyers."  The firm now has 794 lawyers.  "Since 2000 we have tried to focus on doing what we do well, so we can compete at the top of the market in those practices."  In other words, they are no longer trying to be all things to all clients.

DLA's move looks to be in response to clients who, at least in this particular patent litigation area, want the best in the business, wherever that is, and further, whatever that costs. 

Where this type of reasoning could take law firms is wide open:  carefully drawn billing rates (and salaries) that differ among practice groups, and possibly even among types of work within practice groups, as well as over time, all based on the latest market analysis.

Regardless of whether DLA's analysis is right, the important step taken may be in their acknowledging publicly, however quietly, that engaging in this process, "listening to the marketplace" and then attuning your firm's economics to what you hear, is a respectable way to run a law firm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir, Esq., Senior Consultant at Robin Rolfe Resources, was featured as a speaker at a conference on Risk Management for the Modern Law Firm, sponsored by ARK Group. The conference was held in Chicago on April 17 and 18, 2007. 

Muir's presentation was on the risks that arise in managing a law firm's greatest asset: its people. She pointed out the ways in which lawyers are different from all other professionals, the challenges and risks that those differences pose to management, and how to use those differences to make good lawyers better. 

Participants raved:

• "Innovative, new information!"
• "Excellent, new material of real value.  I would love even more detail and time on this topic."
• "Great presentation!" 
• "Great speaker!  Knowledgeable and forward thinking."

ARK Group also lauded Muir's participation: "Your involvement was pivotal to the success of the program… and brought a fresh perspective to the agenda."  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks