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

Muir will participate in a webinar entitled “Think Like a Lateral—How to Hire and Retain Quality Lawyers” to be presented on Tuesday, March 9 for the members of the Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society (ALAS). 

• 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

On Wednesday, February 17, 2009 Muir will lecture students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program on improving management decision-making, using law firm management committees as a case study. 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, how to construct effective teams and the challenge of avoiding extreme decisions.

 

• 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

Muir led an inter-active limited-attendance roundtable on Law Practice Management for Current and Prospective Law Firm Leaders at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) in Chicago, Illinois on Thursday, September 17, 2009.  Topics discussed included the distinction between managers and leaders, the importance of values-driven firm identity, the role of practice group leaders in moving the firm forward, and transitioning from consensus-led management to more executive approaches.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Muir is leading an inter-active limited-attendance roundtable on Law Practice Management for Current and Prospective Law Firm Leaders at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Association of Patent Law Firms (APLF) in Chicago, Illinois on Thursday, September 17, 2009.  For more information or to register, go to http://www.aplf.org.

• 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

Not only do lawyers score very differently from the rest of the population on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (see Muir's article "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers"), but it appears that a lawyer was responsible for the development of the assessment in the first place. 

According to the Center for Applications of Psychological Types, Inc.  (CAPT),  the organization Isabel Briggs Myers established to research and maintain the assessment, the MBTI was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel in the middle of the 20th century because of questions they had about Isabel's husband, who was a lawyer.

Katharine’s father (Isabel's grandfather) was on the faculty of Michigan Agricultural College (now Michigan State University) and her husband (Isabel's father) was a research physicist who became Director of the Bureau of Standards in Washington. Isabel had a bachelor’s degree in political science from Swarthmore College, where she met and later married Clarence Myers, who became a lawyer.

Katharine first became interested in types because her son-in-law Clarence was so different from the rest of the family, CAPT reports. To try to help them both better understand Clarence, Katharine introduced Isabel to Jung’s book, Psychological Types, which was published in1921.

As they worked on the indicator during World War II, Myers' and Briggs' goal became “to show how our differences... can be valuable rather than divisive, and can be used constructively . . . to promote personal development . . . manage conflict and . . . increase human understanding worldwide,” and specifically to help women who were entering the industrial workforce for the first time identify the sort of war-time jobs where they would be "most comfortable and effective."

The Myers' marriage was by all reports happy and long-lived, so Isabel's inquiry into types may have proved productive not only for the greater world--where over 50 million MBTI assessments have been given, making it the oldest and most widely used personal style instrument. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Grant Study is an extraordinary longitudinal study undertaken in the late 1930s to shed light on "the urgent question of how to live well."  As participants, a group of 268 (male) Harvard College sophomores, including John F. Kennedy and Ben Bradlee, were chosen for showing particular promise.

An article interestingly entitled "What Makes Us Happy?" in the June 2009 issue of the Atlantic explores what we might learn from 72 years of following that gifted group.

The biggest surprise may be how unreliable those evaluations at a formative age turned out to be for purposes of predicting future success and happiness. Or perhaps, that in spite of those evaluations, how inevitable stumbling is.

As David Brooks, in his May 11, 2009 editorial "They Had It Made" in The New York Times relates: "Their lives played out in ways that would defy any imagination save Dostoevsky's.  A third of the men would suffer at least one bout of mental illness.  Alcoholism would be a running plague.  The most mundane personalities often produced the most solid success."

Almost as interesting as the study is the man who has been overseeing it for more than four decades, George Vaillant.  Vaillant doesn't hesitate to arrive at a familiar yet profound conclusion:  relationships are the key to happiness. 

Yet the difficulty of putting that dictum into practice is evident in Vaillant's own life.  At work, he has proved to be a valued colleague and mentor.  On the personal front, things are much more challenging.  His father committed suicide, which his mother never acknowledged, his three marriages all ended in divorce and his children describe their home as being a "civil war" and their father as having a problem with intimacy.

There are some other interesting takeaways from the study, which Brooks points out.  All the men tended to cope better as they aged.  Those who suffered from depression by age 50 were much more likely to die by age 63.  Those with close sibling relationships proved much healthier in old age than those without them.

What is not clear is why these particular young men were chosen to participate in the study in the first place.  All we really know about them is that their admission to Harvard College at that time meant they were at least reasonably bright and probably the sons of influential and wealthy families. And that someone at  Harvard College had a high opinion of them. 

Of course, in the 1930s they didn't have access to the bundle of assessments available to us in the 21st century.  The "science" of head size and phrenology (the study of bumps on the head) had had its heyday during the prior century. The concept of an assessable intelligence quotient had only recently been introduced; the Wechsler Intelligence Scale would appear a few years later.  

What did the Grant Study originators think success in "living well" meant?  And what did they think it took to accomplish that?   In other words, what specific attributes were they looking for?  Might the many different paths that the participants eventually took reflect a lack of a clear vision on the part of the originators as to their concept either of success or its antecedents?

Perhaps Brooks' note that "the most mundane personalities often produced the most solid success"  informed another editorial, "In Praise of Dullness," that appeared a week later.  There he cited a recent study that seems to point to "relentless and somewhat mind-numbing commitment to incremental efficiency gains" as the critical attribute of successful CEOs.  Even if that correlation is in fact relevant (see the comments on Richard Edelman's "Dull Advice," which question its relevance as a broad-based indicator), it seems unlikely that it was young men with that attribute whom the Grant Study originators sought to identify.

Knowing what you are looking for in any selection process is critical.  Organizations around the world use sophisticated assessments to choose candidates for employment and advancement based on the competencies, attributes and traits that they have found predict success in their organizations.

Yet we recruiters of legal talent often don't know what we are looking for.  At a roundtable two weeks ago on legal hiring, David Van Zandt, Dean of Northwestern University School of Law, entreated law firms to develop a better model for selecting their summer associates.  "I've long advocated that firms really need to look at their data... and identify the characteristics that they're looking for in their candidates," Van Zandt said. Now, "you just go out and throw a wide net and pull people in." 

In fact, as we've suggested (see our entry "The Outliers of Law--Embracing Heresy "), the single attribute--high class standing--that firms do look for may be the one that could well be jettisoned--or at least modified--with little impact on the quality of legal services.

What the Grant Study does show is that predicting the future course of even a bright young person with a shiny veneer of promise can be difficult.  And that regardless of their credentials or intelligence, many are likely to fall to the various vicissitudes of man--mental illness, addiction, relationship breakdown. 

So then, what can one do to be happy?

Valiant knows: "Happiness is love, full stop." 

Now it's just a matter of implementation.

 

• 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

Ronda Muir will be a featured panelist at the annual general meeting of the Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society (ALAS) in Quebec City, Quebec to be held June 25-26.   ALAS is the premier provider of professional liability insurance for large law firms in the United States, currently insuring 237 firms.  Muir will discuss lawyer personality, firm culture and other aspects that impact risk particularly in the context of mergers and lateral hires. Over 250 loss management and managing partners are expected to attend. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Muir's September 5, 2008 entry on "The Depression Demon Coming Out of the Legal Closet" has been published in the Spring2009 newsletter of Virginia's Lawyers Helping Lawyers, a 20-year old non-stock corporation endorsed by the Virginia State Bar, The Virginia Bar Association, the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association and the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners.

• 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

In the final tranche of a triad of bad news over the last few weeks, two recent reports--one about associates and another about partners--point out how, despite the current abysmal employment market, there are still lawyers of various stripes who, given the chance, would choose to jump overboard rather than hang on to their position.

In a recent New York Times article, it was reported that Skadden Arps had offered all of its 1300 associates worldwide the option of taking a year off for one-third pay, with no pro-bono obligation.  One hundred twenty-five associates opted in, a number that a partner was quoted as describing as "in excess of our expectations."

The Lawyer reported April 14 that CMS Cameron McKenna, a large English firm, in a makeover termed a "Magic Roundabout" because of its spiral design [the English are into monikers: Linklaters calls its remake "New World" and Clifford Chance has settled on the term "size and shape review"], offered all of its 160+ equity partners the opportunity to move to non-equity status.  Sixteen partners stepped forward, more than managing partner Duncan Weston said he had expected.

There is no denying that much is changing in the structuring of firms on both sides of the pond, and these two firms are among those riding that wave.  The interesting note in both of these reports is that management remains surprised at the number of lawyers who, in spite of perilous times, would rather step away or down than stay at the helm.  Unfortunately, it speaks to the still prevalent but now less obvious dissatisfaction that was manifest in the massive attrition rates of only 18 months ago.

When things get back to normal (yeah, right) and probably even before then, firms still have to tackle the issue of how to attract and keep the loyalty of their talent--since that is what in the end makes for a successful law firm.  In spite of, and perhaps also particularly in the midst of, the rush to distribute pink-slips, let's not let that particularly item fall off our "to-do" list.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A well-known investment banker confided recently that lawyers are partly to blame for the financial meltdown.  Why, apart from wanting to deflect the responsibility to someone other than bankers? 

The reasoning was that, particularly with the advent of Sarbanes-Oxley, lawyers have become such an integral part of the business process that their bias toward risk-aversion has seeped into the bones of corporate decision-making, making those decisions technically compliant but shortsighted from a policy and business standpoint.  Life without lawyers, or at least life with fewer lawyers, according to this highly-respected viewpoint, would improve business and the economy.

Covington & Burling partner Philip Howard arrives at a similar conclusion for somewhat different reasons.  He contends in his new book "Life Without Lawyers" that a fear of litigation has stricken many of America's industries, including both health care and education, paralyzing doctors and teachers, among others. "It's as if everyone has a little lawyer on their shoulder whispering in their ear all day long," he says. Howard argues that the economic crisis presents a needed opportunity to overhaul the legal system. With an activist president and a Congress controlled by Democrats, he sees major structural changes on the horizon.

"An essential component to making anything work that's broken is rebuilding the legal infrastructure," Howard says. It's harder to change the rules in times of prosperity, he says, but the challenging times ahead could initiate just such a reset.

A recent series of front-page New York Times articles reports that worker-compensation programs, designed to fairly and efficiently compensate workers for workplace injuries, is neither: bureaucratic gridlock and expense have resulted in a high-cost system for employers that is slow and inefficient in compensating deserving employees.  Who is to blame for these problems?  Lawyers.  Both those working inside these programs and those on the outside who made a "fair and efficient" alternate system necessary in the first place.

Finally, if you are not already doubled over from guilt, a Talk of the Town entry by Jane Mayer in the April 13, 2009 issue of The New Yorker recounts the research of English barrister Philippe Sands into the activities of the six Bush Administration officials, including William J. Haynes II, former Pentagon general counsel, who are being sued this week in Spain for the torture of Spanish citizens at Abu Ghraib. Sands' conclusion: "I've got a particular bugbear about lawyers.  If not for lawyers, none of these abuses would have ever occurred."

So there you have it.  Not only are our finances in disarray but our reputations and future prospects are sinking faster than a rock.  

There is no doubt that data shows that lawyers are more risk-averse, analytical, pessimistic, short-sighted and zero-sum out-to-win-oriented than their business contemporaries/clients.  Those same attributes often are what makes them good lawyers--able to see and remedy highly technical compliance and other problems that others cannot and win verdicts for their clients in a zero-sum justice system.  But, as with all good things, there are also downsides.

One challenge that lawyers are going to have in the new age dawning is to refashion in a major way at least the perception and probably also the reality of their impact on business and the economy.  The (very) old perception of lawyers as trusted advisors has given way to something closer to that of self-interested leeches who manage to rain on everyone's parade while siphoning off a percentage of GNP. 

As always, it is the balance that is key.  Lawyers can genuinely assert expertise in a number of areas that business people need and lack.  And lawyers should be compensated for that expertise.  And certainly lawyers are obligated to take stands to protect their clients and to avoid allegations against themselves of malpractice or furthering crime.  However, maintaining respect for the business process, even when it differs from how lawyers would do it, structuring your practice (and your fees) so that reaching the goals the client sets is the driving force, remaining cognizant of the lawyer's role of delivering services rather than achieving dominance-- these are changes of attitudes easier advocated than done. 

How to accomplish those changes is not found in any class any of us took in law school. A careful look at each firm's practice, its values and its strategic plan--and how those influence client service and associate and leadership development on the ground, rather than just in classrooms--is a critical first step to finding the appropriate balance.

• 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

In a February 8, 2009 New York Times op ed column entitled "Mistresses of the Universe," Nicholas Kristof notes that senior staff meetings of Wall Street types resemble “a urologist’s waiting room” and suggests that "Wall Street could use an infusion of women as well as cash." 

Having more women in financial services might counter some of the risk-taking and competitive urges fostered by high levels of testosterone and would improve decision-making, according to the research Kristof cites.  In addition to suffering from testosterone-overload, men are also found in the studies he cites to be “particularly likely to make high-risk bets when under financial pressure and surrounded by other males of similar status. Women’s risk-taking was unaffected by this kind of peer pressure.” 

Of course, women managers also have their Achilles heels. The January 2009 Harvard Business Review includes a 360-degree feedback study by Herminia Ibarra and Otilia Obodaru that finds that female leaders are perceived to be strong in traits such as tenacity and emotional intelligence, but trail men in one important aspect: their superiors, peers and subordinates say that women leaders lack vision.

Better Performance in Diversity. Regardless of our specific gender strengths and weaknesses, the data on the advantages of having diverse management is piling up. Two separate studies in 2008, one by Catalyst, an organization that supports expanded opportunities for women at work, and the other by management consultant McKinsey & Co., looked at gender in management and found that companies with more female executives perform better. 

Why would that be?  University of California-Irvine professor emeritus Judy Rosener says brain scans prove that men and women think differently. Rosener says she's concluded that a company with a mix of male and female leaders, with their differing attitudes regarding risk, collaboration and ambiguity, will outperform a competitor who relies on the leadership of a single sex.

Women aren't better, Rosener says, but they bring to the table something that men don't.

• 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

A 2008 ABA Journal survey, with reponses from more than 1400 women lawyers, produced some interesting results as to who they prefer to work with.  Of the 42% of women who expressed a preference in the gender of colleagues, that preference was different depending on the age of the respondent. 

Female supervisors age 40 and over preferred working with women lawyers because they 1) take direction better (80%), 2) have more discretion (79%) and 3) take constructive criticism better (59%).  

Yet younger female lawyers don’t have the same regard for their older female colleagues. Of those under 40 who thought gender matters, the majority preferred male supervisors for 1) keeping confidential information private (64%), 2) giving better direction (58%) and 3) giving more constructive criticism (56%). 

Theories about the reasons for the difference abound. Some contend that younger women (and also some younger men) are not on the same wave length about the role of work in their lives, and are not willing to make the sacrifices that older women have made.

According to Lauren Stiller Rikleen, who advises law firms about workplace issues, “I'm concerned that more senior women don’t fully understand the profound demographic changes taking place,” demographic changes that affect all young lawyers and override issues of gender. As a practical matter, Arin Reeves, another lawyer who does diversity consulting, notes, the differing generational views of women can mean that women’s initiatives developed by female partners are often not useful to female associates.

The upshot is that there may no longer be “the woman’s situation,” but rather a growing diversity in what women lawyers want, and, given the luxury of having more role models to choose from, a growing diversity of what they can actually have. Perhaps it is worthwhile reminding ourselves that, as we have advocated for years, rather than placing judgment on women generally or on any particular choice, we as women lawyers can and must accept more diversity even among ourselves.

• 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

What do you know? Narcissists--big personalities with big egos who like to exert control and reject collaborative decision-making--are the ones leading many law firms through these perilous times. 

"Narcissistic leaders are distinguished by their big ideas...and general indifference to the opinions of others,” according to Douglas Richardson of Altman Weil. “They resolutely reject the status quo, thus affronting all those tied to tradition and cautious about change. They want to reshape the world to their vision. They don’t much care if others label them vain and self-centered; they count on the power of their vision and their personal charisma to drive them to the top during periods of great upheaval or change. Their style is at best despotic, and often coercive.”

Such leaders tend to be nonreflective and poorly attuned to the needs of differing individuals, Richardson writes. The results are high lateral partner movement and high attrition among younger lawyers for whom money and status are not primary motivators.

Richardson says such leaders may display genius and vision, but they are at their best when they know their limits—or when someone can point them out. He suggests hiring an outside coach “with plenty of candor, a tough skin and a strong mandate from the firm to help with top team-building.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is no denying that Gen X and Y are most comfortable interacting via technology--IMing, texting, emailing--possibly to the detriment of their face-to-face skills, as some contend.  Employees in large corporations have come to use this technology, particularly on line social sites, as a way to form community and communicate within vast, impersonal organizations.  IMing with the Senior Vice President about favored jazz albums instantly creates up-and-down-the-ladder rapport and also an enhanced commitment to the organization. 

Associates at most law firms are also making use of these technological avenues of communication.  Most firms have official or unofficial firm social groups on MySpace, Facebook and other sites. Ning is a private interactive social networking site that several IT consultants recommend as a good site for law firms to use.  It allows participants to chat real time and also post documents, and the software is free. 

Some firms have banned these social groups while others have embraced them.  On the positive side are the potential gains in networking, which Paul Lippe, CEO and co-founder of Legal OnRamp, claims "is the number one predictor of a lawyer's income," as well as an increased sense of community and therefore commitment.  Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle uses Facebook as a recruiting tool and an "I'm in Love with MoFo" site probably hasn't hurt Morrison & Foerster's recruiting either.  Of course, these sites, largely unsupervised and unsupervisable, also provide renegade employees with the perfect weapon to embarrass a firm.  As do the multitudes of privately run, individual blogs that comment on particular firms or corporations.  See, for example, our February 26, 2008 entry entitled Decorum, Virtue and Other Values in the Age of the Internet, which recounts Skadden Arps public shaming of two Skadden employees for their (unofficial) blog contest for the "Hottest Female Associate."

Microblogging offers an alternative to these social networking sites, with entries that can be relayed not only on line and by email, but also as text messages over cell phones. The degree of privacy varies as to both the individual's information and that of friends or followers.

Twitter, the leading microblogging network, has become a household name with its contribution to the Obama political campaign and its on-the-spot reports on tragedies like the Mumbai terrorist attack.  Started in 2006 and with over 3 million people using its free service, Twitter has no revenue, even from ads.  When you log on, the question that first appears and that you can use 140 characters to answer is "What are you doing?"  Twitter boasts such regular "twitterers" as Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud Party in Israel and Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia, as well as Shaquille O'Neal, Center for the Phoenix Suns and John Cleese, the actor and comedian.

Yammer is a new and smaller microblogging site aimed at business customers with the stated goal of making offices more productive--when a user logs on, the first question is “What are you working on?”  Yammer charges $1 per user when a company joins, although anyone with a business email address can use Yammer free.  Membership gives the business administrator the decided advantage of some control over security and how the site is used. 

Apart from the networking, communication and recruiting advantages, these constant technological interchanges among a growing group of contacts offer a glimpse into the business model that is likely to become more and more the norm for lawyers and their clients.  In a global age that threatens individual anonymity, social sites and microblogging permit personal, even intimate relationships to form and thrive around the world, regardless of where the individual IPs or mobile devices are geographically located.  And it is relationships, however they are formed, both within law firms and with their clients, that will drive the future of the legal business.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In an article entitled "Welcome to the Future: Heller Shock?", Paul Lippe, founder and CEO of Legal OnRamp, a private interactive legal services site, makes the case that, in the future now dawning on the legal services industry, the inevitable downsizing will not only be a matter of laying off lawyers, but, as with the case of Heller Ehrman, the failure of large, global firms.

And Lippe argues that none of us should be surprised.  He cites the underlying fallacies that have driven many of the mergers that created these firms: inevitable growth, economies of scale, and organizational allegiance, among other things.

The truth behind these fallacies is often associated with the unique personalities of lawyers.  See Muir's "The Unique Psychological World of Lawyers."   Lawyers often lack the inclination or ability to collaborate or the critical relationship skills that are necessary to fuel the drivers, such as cross-selling and teamwork, that produce economies of scale, increase revenues and reduce expenses.  And many compensation systems don't incentivize lawyers away from their natural tendencies toward those results.

Similarly, lawyers' lack of institutional loyalty and the personal traits that fuel it, like high skepticism, low sociability and strong autonomy, are not only individual attributes but have become embedded in their organizational ethos also. The failure to build strong individual relationships within the firm is often compounded by firm policies that fracture what relationships exist--such as reducing partners with stakes in the financial success of the firm to non-equity employees--and that again encourage what are already ingrained lawyer tendencies, such as compensation arrangements that don't incentivize client sharing, so individually horded clients become easily portable away from the firm.

Other traits, like low lawyer resiliency and high pessimism, play a part in keeping firms from exploring innovation-- and thereby risking failure--at a time when nimble, creative, proactive change is vital.  Virtual law service?  Different fee structures? Customized work arrangements both with employees and clients?  Hard for most lawyers to consider, let alone agree on and deliver. 

Similarly, lawyers' preferred methods of dealing with conflict--winning and avoiding--limit their ability to recognize, confront and address collaboratively those divisive issues that could determine the future of both their own practice and their firm.

Lippe concludes that managing the changes that are going to be forced on firms will require greater investments in capital and culture, a difficult pill to swallow in these lean times, but one, he maintains, that could make the difference between survival and failure.

In spite of the economy, now is the time to invest in your people, the most critical asset of law firms and law departments.  Your strategic plan, leadership model, partnership structure, partnership compensation arrangements, legal services delivery model, recruitment policies, attorney education and development methods, associate compensation, evaluation and deployment systems, and client relationship evaluations and business development strategies all require a well-informed understanding of the lawyers who populate your workplace.  It is a wise investment in those people that will bring your organization out the other side of future shock.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At the meeting of the American Bar Association's Law Practice Management section today in Tucson, Arizona, Muir was presented with the 2007-2008 Law Practice Magazine Edge Award for Bronze Feature Article for her article in the July/August 2007 issue of the magazine entitled "The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Law Firm Partners." The Edge Awards are sponsored by Edge International, and each year recognize excellence in writing for the magazine.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Norton Rose, a 200 year old UK firm with over 1000 lawyers in 20 offices around the world, is considering scrapping its academic requirements for new hires in order to increase diversity.  How then to decide who to bring on board? 

Like a number of leading UK law firms, it will rely on aptitude and psychometric testing instead.  Lovells, CMS Cameron McKenna, Linklaters and Clifford Chance all already use some form of testing as part of their selection process. The approach is expected to be particularly effective in efforts to recruit international students who may not meet UK academic guidelines. 

• 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

The depression demon attacks lawyers with particular vengeance, and denial and secrecy have long been the response. The recent loss to suicide of prominent lawyers from across the country, and the near loss of others, has inspired the courageous to speak out, a first step toward turning the professional spotlight on a condition that is rampant, but also treatable.

Evidence of the problem is long-standing. A landmark 1991 study by Johns Hopkins University ranked lawyers first, among 105 professions surveyed, in the rate of clinical depression.  A 1992 OSHA report found that male lawyers in the US are two times more likely to commit suicide than men in the general population. Lawrence Krieger, a clinical professor at Florida State University College of law, who focuses on work-life issues for lawyers, has research showing that practicing lawyers exhibit clinical anxiety, hostility and depression at rates ranging from 8 to 15 times that in the general population. Research in North Carolina indicates that 11% of lawyers in that state think of taking their own life at least once a month.

After the suicide of several prominent Texas lawyers, including Kenneth Malcolm “Mack” Kidd, a justice on the 3^rd Court of Appeals in Austin, and Hermes Villarreal, a lawyer who had a loving marriage, three happy children, a successful personal-injury practice and was chairman of a community mental health facility, Texas State Bar Association president Martha Dickie commissioned a task force and video on depression last year as part of her focus on lawyer mental health issues. Over 1500 videos have been distributed. “Lawyers and suicide—it’s rampant,” says Dickie. “I am absolutely convinced that this video is saving lives.”

Daniel Lukasik, managing partner of a Buffalo, New York personal injury firm, became a courageous advocate of treating depression in lawyers after his therapist told him that one-quarter of his clients were, like Lukasik, lawyers suffering from the illness, yet there were no peer support groups. 

On a mission, Lukasik helped create the Committee to Assist Lawyers with Depression for his county bar association, which was recognized with a Certificate of Merit during the New York State Bar association annual meeting this year. He also created the web site www.lawyerswithdepression.com to offer lawyers information on the disorder. Further, he organized  in Buffalo this year what may be the first national seminar on attorney depression. 

The problem of depression is starting to be addressed at the law school level.  This year the 51,500-member American Bar Association Law Student Division launched a mental health initiative to help law students battling depression and anxiety. A mental health on-line toolkit is being offered to student bar organizations and law schools around the country. 

Complicating all these efforts to assist lawyers is the individual's fear of being stigmatized should their condition be known.  This year the ABA adopted a model rule that would grant conditional admission to practice law to applicants who have substance abuse or mental health conditions, for which in many jurisdictions applicants are deemed unfit to practice law. Applicants must demonstrate recent rehabilitation or successful treatment.

These and other initiatives to recognize and provide assistance for depression seem to be starting to have an effect.  Patricia Spataro, director of the New York State Bar’s Lawyers Assistance Program says that now 30-40% of their calls are related to depression, compared to almost zero only a few years ago. The New York City Bar’s Lawyer Assistance Program reports similar increases. “When I started with this program nine years ago, I actually had a lawyer with depression tell me that he wished he was an alcoholic because it would have been easier to deal with,” said Ms. Travis, director of that program.

In England, the Solicitors Benevolent Association, Solicitors’ Assistance Scheme and Law Care have all resolved to work more closely in helping solicitors cope with the pressures of modern practice. Lawyers in the UK, as in the US, spend so much time solving other people’s problems, they believe they should be able to handle their own problems as well, even though they have no expertise in this area, notes LawCare CEO Hilary Tilby. “Our joint aim is to help them recognize they have a problem and offer a solution for dealing with it.”

Why does such a debilitating illness strike the legal community so fiercely? Pessimism is an attitude that has been demonstrated to be highly correlated with success in the practice of law, but it is also a trait that is strongly associated with depression, particularly when coupled with ambitious, high-achieving, perfectionist, type-A personalities who put tremendous pressure on themselves.

The key is making sure lawyers know that there is assistance available that can make life and work more rewarding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

The American Bar Association has announced that Ronda Muir's cover article in the July/August 2007 issue of Law Practice magazine, entitled "The Importance of Emotional Intelligence in Law Firm Partners,"  has been awarded the 2007-2008 Law Practice Magazine Edge Award for Bronze Feature Article. 

The Edge Awards are sponsored by Edge International, and each year the awards recognize excellence in writing for the magazine.

Muir will be presented with the award at the Tucson, Arizona October 16-18, 2008 meeting of the Law Practice Management section.
 

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

Lawyers are introverts, big time.  According to Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) results, almost 3/4th of lawyers, compared to only 1/4th of the general public, are introverts.  That means they go inward to charge their batteries-- preferring internal introspection to external interaction. 

On the Caliper Profile personality test, lawyers also rank astonishingly low in the sociability trait--which measures how comfortable a person is initiating and building close relationships. Low sociability scorers are less inclined to enjoy interacting with others, preferring to spend more time with information. 

Of course, we know that lawyers are thinkers--they think, analyze documents and deals, edit and write, all loner tasks.  In a recent study, lawyers ranked sixth overall on a list of the 200 best jobs for introverts, just behind the loner braniacs who work as computer software engineers and accountants. 

The question for management becomes how to integrate these loners not only into a coherent, committed organization but also into the 21st century vision of service delivery:  coherent, committed teams.  How do you overcome/compensate for the introverted nature of lawyers in day-to-day management, business development endeavors, client service?

Slowly.  Start by using the strengths of introverts--such as their tendency to (appear to) listen and to deliver well-thought-out opinions-- and proceed from there logically to the overwhelming consensus from research that collaboration improves productivity and satisfaction. 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In April, Shearman & Sterling's entire Mannheim office packed up and reverted back to its original form, Schilling Zutt & Anschutz.  What prompted the schism?

"There are some great lawyers at Shearman & Sterling," one former partner is reported to have said.  "I just don't think they are particularly happy."

• 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

On Wednesday, March 12, 2-3:15 pm EST, Muir will be conducting an audioconference for the Center for Competitive Management on Associate Compensation: Remain Competitive Without Breaking the Bank.  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.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On February 12, 2008 Muir is scheduled to discuss with students at Northwestern University's Business Institutions Program how to improve decision-making.  Based in large part on the information contained in "Promoting an Effective Board or Management Group," the discussion will explore, among other subjects, optimal personality traits for good decision-making and how to avoid extreme decisions.

• 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

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

As many of the biggest law firms are concluding, “professional development” has become the preferred vehicle for addressing diversity attrition. Professional development encompasses enhanced orientation, mentoring, assignment and delegation processes, leadership training, career planning, diversity training, management skills, feedback training, business-development training, affinity groups and other tactics aimed at recruiting and keeping a diverse associate group.

The concept of professional development or talent management did not exist in law firms 20 years ago, and the data shows a clear pattern of women and minorities historically reporting less assistance with professional development, as well as lower job satisfaction, compared with white males.

Now most large law firms have some sort of professional development program and recent data from the NALP Foundation shows that this trend toward formalized programs is paying off. In 1998, 20% of associates left their positions at or near the end of their second year of employment. This year, entry-level lawyers are more likely to make their first move at the end of their third year of employment, staying 30% longer. 

The ABA Commission on Women engaged the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago to examine why retention rates for white men are so much higher than those for women of color, and women of color retention rates are higher than those for men of color and white women. Consistent with the NALP’s data, the study found specifically that women of color felt excluded from networking opportunities, felt they were denied desirable assignments, and had limited access to client development opportunities, thereby making their billable hours targets harder to achieve.   

The NALP found that white men are more likely to report a consistent workload, regular feedback and intellectual challenge in their work, and they also report the intention of staying longer at their firms.

A consistent workload, regular feedback and intellectual growth are matters within the control of each firm, and are geometrically enhanced with the involvement of a person charged with professional development.

What specifically can firms incorporate into their processes to improve diversity retention? For starters, here is a short list.

• Exit interviews
• Coaching for partners to improve associate management and feedback techniques
• Formal mentoring program
• Color-blind assignment program
• Sophisticated evaluation and feedback forms and procedures

But the best way for firms to systematically enhance diversity retention is to establish a professional development department/person/consultant who can provide benchmarks to identify areas for improvement, formulate goals and then work with the diversity committee, the associate recruitment committee and associate managers to realize those goals. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A recent article in the New York Times on young 20-something Internet mega-millionaires quoted one as saying “You ask yourself, ‘Why am I not happier given how lucky I’ve been?’”

While we as lawyers, being supremely circumspect, would rarely verbalize this sort of “squishy” sentiment out in the open, given the levels of unhappiness in our profession, it is a question we should be asking ourselves. 

So here are some of the findings about "happiness," which has exploded as a subject of research over the last few years. Let’s start with the data on the current state of happiness in the US.

Recent surveys point to a relatively high “happiness quotient” these days:

·             86% of Americans are content with their jobs (General Social Survey)

·             76% are satisfied with their family income (Pew Research Center Survey)

·             62% expect their personal situation to get better over the next five years vs. only 7% who expect it to get worse

·             65% of Americans are satisfied over all with their own lives—one of the highest personal satisfaction rates in the world.

As the query of that Internet mega-millionaire illustrates, happiness is not correlated with financial resources or even political stability: countries like Nigeria, El Salvador, Columbia, Mexico and Puerto Rico (along with Switzerland, Denmark and Canada) register higher rates of happiness than the US in the World Values Survey. Other countries, such as Romania, Russia and other former Soviet countries, consistently score at the bottom.

This fairly rosy picture in the US becomes decidedly darker when we factor in the “happiness” data on lawyers:

·             Lawyers generally have one of the highest dissatisfaction rates with their work of all industries/professions, with 65% of young associates surveyed by the ABA last year intending to change professions within two years.

·             Lawyers also have the highest “personal distress” rates of any industry, exhibiting dramatically higher incidences of suicide, mental illness, divorce and substance abuse than other industries. 

Women lawyers seem particularly effected by these developments:

·             Fewer women are seeking law degrees: from 1963 through 2001 female enrollment at law schools climbed nearly every year, from 3.7% to a peak of over 50%; since 2002, however, the percentage of women in law schools has declined each year, currently down to 46%.

·             At a time of very high attorney turnover generally (over 20% leave their jobs every year), the highest drop-out-of-the-profession-entirely demographic is women.

·             In spite of many years of women in the "pipeline," only a small proportion of women stay to become partners in law firms (17%) or senior legal counsel in corporations (18%).

The message seems to be that, in spite of Americans' general glee, few lawyers are happy living the lawyer's life.

What Makes Us Happy?

As it turns out, over the last few years a wave of books on happiness, primarily written by academics, have been published. Among them are:

The Pursuit of Happiness, by David G. Myers

Happiness, The Nature and Nurture of Joy and Contentment by David Lykken

Happiness, A History by Darrin M. McMahon

Authentic Happiness by Martin Seligman

The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama and Dr. Howard C. Cutler

The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt

Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

Happier: Learn the Secrets of Daily Joy and Lasting Fulfillment by Tal Ben Shahar

Most of these books are based on David Lykken's findings that there is an individual “set point” of happiness to which most people revert, regardless of their life circumstances—illness, financial concerns, family problems. Lottery winners and paraplegics, those both accepted and rejected as partners or general counsel, all on average return to their baseline levels of happiness within a year.

If health and other circumstances don't impact our happiness, what does? Jonathan Haidt compares our emotional life in The Happiness Hypothesis to a small, conscious monkey riding a large, unconscious elephant: in many ways we are estranged from the great bulk of our own inner feelings. The running commentary in our minds about what we feel and why is often simply wrong, he contends. For example, research subjects unknowingly hypnotized to react in a specific way to a cue quickly come up with rational, and in their mind truthful, “explanations” of why they acted that way, even though those explanations are causally entirely beside the point: their reaction was programmed in their unconscious by the hypnosis. 

Not only are we not able to access a great part of our inner feelings, evidently we are not very good at analyzing the happiness data that we do have access to. Daniel Gilbert in Stumbling on Happiness explains that we are very bad at remembering what made us happy in the past and in predicting what will make us happy in the future, often overestimating the bang we will get and how long it will last. For example, people often list children as a source of happiness, yet the data indicates that children in fact are "extremely negative," "mildly negative" or have no effect on overall happiness. (More about this later.)

Could We Be Happier?

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

What is the most important attribute to be looking for as you groom your young lawyers for management? 

A 2006 study reviewed in the Leadership and Organization Development Journal assessed the relationship between emotional intelligence and managerial effectiveness, confirming what you might expect.  A total of 38 supervisors (37 males and 1 female) and 1,258 subordinates from a large manufacturing organization participated. Data analysis found that the total MSCEIT score (an emotional intelligence assessment that I consider most reliable) displayed a strong positive correlation with supervisor ratings; that is, the more emotionally intelligent the supervisor, the more effective and productive s/he was rated by others in the organization.

First, I would point out that this study doesn't tell us whether these emotionally intelligent supervisors who were rated more effective actually were more effective than their lower EI colleagues.  All we know is that they were perceived to be more effective.  The implication being that even if those high EI supervisors weren't quite so great in the accomplishments department as advertised, their loyal team still saw them in the best possible light.

This distinction is particularly important in environments such as law firms and law departments, where dramatically high skepticism (averaging in the top 10% of the American population) creates hurdles that make it hard for managers to establish rapport and trust, much less garner appreciation for a job reasonably well done.  Second- and third-guessing is often standard procedure, regardless of how demonstrable  the accomplishment might be.  While emotionally intelligent managers may be in fact most effective, this and other studies demonstrate that they are in any event going to have the interpersonal skills to align legal staff and professionals on the same side.  Given the challenge of creating supportive cultures for growth and accomplishment in law organizations, identifying these kinds of leaders becomes imperative.

Two major subscores make up the MSCEIT total score.  In the study above, Experiential EI, which includes perceiving and using emotions, was found to be very highly correlated with high supervisor ratings, whereas the Reasoning EI subscore, which includes understanding and managing emotions, displayed no significant correlation.

Our study of emotional intelligence and lawyers (also using the MSCEIT) indicates that lawyers' scores in EI are generally a standard deviation below the general population (that is, 85 compared to 100).  In addition, lawyers score significantly lower on the Experiential subgroup than on the Reasoning one.  Their ability to "read" their own and others' emotions is notably low compared to the general population, and they also are not facile at "using" emotions, i.e., moving from a less appropriate emotion to a more appropriate one.  Their Reasoning scores are usually significantly higher than the Experiential ones, lawyers being evidently well-suited to logically analyze even the emotional realm.  The problem is that weakness in reading emotions creates a garbage-in, garbage-out result when that reasoning horsepower is applied to inaccurate information.  So lawyers often get blind-sided by what they hadn't originally correctly perceived .

This finding as to the importance of Experiential EI to effective management can be critical in the case of managing lawyers.  Not only should we be grooming our young lawyers to be emotionally intelligent managers, but we should also be specifically rewarding those who are expert at recognizing and using emotions, an item I would bet is not currently on any evaluation form.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

According to Steve Davis, it all went pretty smoothly and quickly: negotiations in July and August, a preliminary agreement the last week of August, votes last Wednesday, September 26, and on Monday of this week, he became chairman of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the newest megafirm in the global law firm firmament, with 1300 lawyers, 26 offices in 12 countries, and a billion dollars in revenue.

So what accounts for this dramatically better outcome, compared to the Dewey/Orrick debacle-in-the-making that first hit the press last year this time? 

For starters, Davis credits the two firms’ long-standing familiarity with each other. No East Coast/West Coast mystique to decipher and reconcile in this case: the two firms were only two floors apart at 140 Broadway for years and had dealt with each other on myriad matters. With good relationships long established, people at both firms, Davis contends, “quickly understood the underlying strategic rationale” for a combination. 

Davis also believes Dewey & LeBoeuf enjoys another advantage that other recent megamergers did not. Both Dewey and LeBoeuf had high concentrations of lawyers in the same key markets—New York, London and Washington D.C. That’s an advantage? The beauty of the Dewey/Orrick merger was thought to have been little overlap, promising to produce that far-flung “globalness” instantly. Overlap, Davis contends, works in the firm’s favor. Unlike the “Noah’s Ark” that some combinations are left with—two of everything, with 1 in LA and 1 in Boston--Dewey & LeBoeuf’s geography is more likely to force the people and cultures at each key location to mesh.

D&L's executive committee of 22 is composed of 11 partners from each firm, and includes Morton Pierce, Dewey’s Managing Partner, with Davis in the chairman’s seat. After the Dewey/Orrick talks failed, Pierce’s management style was the subject of some bruising commentary, with particular notice given to the fact that he billed 3300 hours that year. See our February 7, 2007 entry “Talking to the Troops.” 

So what will management at Dewey & LeBoeuf be like? Davis is often described as managing “like a CEO,” a role which, perhaps in a reflection on the famous independence of lawyers, one LeBoeuf partner characterized as an “elected dictator.” 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A grand old firm has gone through a rough patch recently—one of its associates not only sued for sexual orientation harassment and discrimination, but also proceeded to file partnership documents and communications that S&C certainly would prefer to not have circulating publicly. Further, an article in the legal press lampooned a memo S&C sent around to its partners exhorting them, among other things, to say "thank you," in case their mothers had forgotten to instill in them that finer point of social intercourse. The legal blogosphere enjoyed batting that one around.

But S&C may have gotten the last laugh. In the Midlevel Associates Review released last month by The American Lawyer, New York law firms (as defined there to mean firms with more than 45% of their lawyers in New York) were once again roundly denounced, with this year only 7 firms making it into the top half of the 162 firms surveyed. The New York associates registered their dissatisfaction particularly regarding relations with partners, training, communication about what it takes to make partner and openness about firm finances. While New York firms have always performed poorly in these ratings, several firms fell precipitously since last year's survey—Cravath Swaine slid 27 places, Paul Weiss was down 59, Debevoise Plimpton fell 64 slots and Wachtell Lipton plummeted 74 places.

Thumbing its nose at the rest of the straggling New York herd was Sullivan & Cromwell, which vaulted from number 153 on the list up to number 48. 

So now that all the chortling has died down, was it the "thank yous" that worked? Perhaps. But also, for the first time this past year, S&C leaders gave associates a series of briefings about firm finances, business strategy and the road to partnership.  Chairman H. Rodgin Cohen and vice-chair Joseph Shenker, among others, made in-person presentations and took questions. 

On those two most damning survey questions for New York firms, "communication about what it takes to make partner" and "openness about finances," S&C's ratings this year were 3.48 and 3.64 respectively, out of the ballpark compared to their prior year's ratings of 2.14 and 2.13, and even much higher than this year's average New York firms' ratings of 2.59 and 2.94. 

So it looks to me like Mom was right. Talking it out—even those tricky financial matters and partnership issues that several New York firms said, and continue to say, were either too confidential or essentially none of the associates' business—creates rapport, incentive and even, get this, trust in an environment that sorely needs all three. And it does so quickly—with the results showing up in the first survey! 

Mom would be so pleased.

• 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

"Think of a succession plan as life insurance for a law firm." 

An article in the August 24-30 issue of the Puget Sound Business Journal entitled "Firms Make Plans to Carry on When Leaders Go" quotes Ronda Muir on the subject of succession planning and describes the services that she and Robin Rolfe Resources performed for a Seattle law firm.

"Senior Attorney Jay Derr of Seattle firm GordonDerr said that nearly three years ago his firm decided to hire Muir and company to put together a succession plan... Thus, the preparations were in place when founding attorney Peter Buck decided to leave... to start his own firm...' We felt no economic blip from it at all,' said Derr."

"Succession is especially critical to the survival of so-called first generation 'founder firms,'"said consultant Muir.  'It involves finding a dynamic leader who can transition into a new role... and moving the founder to a different level...'"

 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Behavioral science is not often invoked in the halls of law departments, but maybe it should be.  Two recent articles highlight the importance to a GC's success of understanding why people think and act as they do.

General counsel are in the position of having to reconcile two jobs: being both a business partner in the management of the company's business and the guardian of the company's integrity.  One aspect of their work requires creativity, risk-taking and far-sightedness.  The other requires careful scrutiny of every corporate action in the short and long term for potential regulatory, liability and just plain reputation pitfalls.  Achieving high productivity with high integrity might strain even Superman's talents.

An article in Corporate Counsel by Ben W. Heineman Jr, former GE senior vice president-general counsel, entitled "How GCs Can Avoid Being Caught in the Middle" recites some of the recent scandals that attest to how difficult that balancing act can be:  the fraudulent financial practices at Enron, the pretexting at Hewlett-Packard Corp, and the wave of options backdating.

Perhaps what chilled GCs to the bone most recently were the guilty pleas by Purdue Pharma L.P., its president, GC and former chief medical officer to misleading the public about the drug OxyContin's risk of addiction.  They have agreed to pay a total of $634.5 million in fines.  Rather than relaying focus group concern about potential for abuse, Purdue Pharma gave false information to its sales representatives that the drug was less addictive than other painkillers.

Heineman mentions a number of attributes that can help GCs successfully straddle their two roles.   Vis-a-vis the other corporate managers, the GC must have the ability to stand his/her ground on clear illegalities and to make sure he/she has enough time to assess those situations that are not clear cut.  And GCs must be able to take those stands in the pressure-filled environment of a board meeting where the CEO is likely to be a ferocious skeptic and many board members will side with the CEO.  See our July 18, 2007 entry on Promoting an Effective Board about the importance of personal attributes in good decision-making.

The Texas Lawyer article "It's All in Your Head:  Cognitive Theory Can Help GCs Lead Organizations to Better Decisions" by Michael Maslanka, a managing partner at Ford & Harrison in Dallas, contends that a GC's real power--the ability to influence decisions-- comes from understanding the way people think, which requires tapping into cognitive science.

Maslanka lists a number of biases that people in general and managers specifically can suffer from if they aren't on the alert: 

• The bias that there is only one cause when something bad happens
• The tendency to focus on conclusions and generalities instead of specifics
• Hardwiring that makes it easy to believe accusations and hard to disbelieve them
•  A confirmation bias, which only admits facts that support our beliefs (and further reinforces our belief bias)
• Overreliance on what is first heard
• Resistance to change that can only be overcome with practice, practice, practice

Maslanka encourages GCs to be open to all possibilities and to question rather than dictate.  Heineman also points out the importance of maintaining within the law department a culture that welcomes, even requires, lawyers to raise concerns about financial, legal, ethical or reputational issues.  We refer to this as a "culture of dissent"-- one that invites concerns, follows up on them and does not punish anyone for raising them, but rather praises them.  See our March 16, 2007 entry on the article Handling Conflict and Dissent in Law Practice (and Life).

While it may not be mind reading, being cognitively aware of your own personal attributes and biases, as well as others', can help steer you toward that Superman performance to which all GCs aspire.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• 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

Oddly enough, where it is most needed, Boards and other management groups may be the last frontier for achieving enhanced performance management. 

Historically, the perceived advantages of relying on a managing group, instead of one individual, include access to the group's collective wisdom –"several heads are better than one"–as well as the ability to spread an increasing management workload over a number of people. 

A recent Center for Creative Leadership study identified an additional advantage. Effective management these days requires the resources of several people, rather than the lone hero, in order to meet the global challenges of collaboratively connecting across boundaries of all kinds—geography, language, culture and expertise.

Avoiding "Extreme" Group Decision-Making

Yet there is a well-documented propensity for groups to drift toward "extreme" decisions, that is, a committee often makes a decision that none of the individual members of the committee, acting alone, would make. These group decisions can be extreme by being either extremely risky or extremely conservative, and you see lone Directors routinely disavowing their cohorts’ actions after the fact. There seem to be a number of reasons for this tendency:          

Diffusion of Responsibility. An individual's part in a group's decision evidently weighs less heavily on him/her than an individual decision would, the implication being that not as thorough an evaluation of the issues is made when the decision is attributed to the group.

Ignoring the Lone Voice. Often groups do not properly take into account the most relevant expertise in the room.   Most small groups tend to make decisions based on the information all members share about a topic, overlooking important facts that one or several people bring. Although management committees are usually looking for creative, out-of-the-box strategies, a solitary opinion is often taken lightly or ignored in the flow of debate within the group.

Social Pressure. The more bonded the group, the more committed they are likely to be to reaching a decision, particularly one that pleases most of the members, even if a decision should be delayed or a less pleasing one would in fact be best. 

Competition. When committee members agree on the parameters of an issue, individuals may try to one-up each other by suggesting more and more extreme solutions, then promoting their solution as the best.

Stress. Groups under pressure act very much like individuals under stress, only more so. They often procrastinate, calling for further information, or become committed to bad decisions primarily to protect themselves and each other against criticism. This effect may account for the popular notion that committees tend to "split the baby," resulting in a less controversial solution that does not in fact work very well.

Seeing What Others Say

The impact of psychological factors on group decision making may go even further, to actually alter each person’s perceptions. A study using advanced brain-scanning technology shows that, in effect, group members often in fact see what the group tells them they see. In an exercise involving mentally rotating images of three-dimensional objects to determine if the objects were the same or different, subjects were assured of an incorrect conclusion by confederates and then agreed with those wrong answers 41% of the time. The brain activity of those who went along with the group was markedly different from those who took independent positions. When subjects concurred with wrong answers, activity increased in the area of the brain devoted to spatial awareness, meaning that their actual perceptions were being influenced. Those who made independent judgments showed activity in the region of the brain associated with conflict management, signifying an emotional toll for going against the group's perception.

Based on the results of this study, one of the potential major advantages of a group decision—"several heads are better than one"—can disappear if the group successfully, even if unintentionally, co-opts individual insights. The most problematic aspect of these results is that not only does the group lose the "lone voices," but also the lone voices lose their very awareness of their differing perspectives. The change in their perception makes them incapable of raising their idiosyncratic flags.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir will be making a presentation on managing the people risks that arise in law firms at a conference for Managing Partners in Chicago on Thursday, June 21. Sponsored by ARK Group, the conference, entitled “Developing a Risk Conscious Culture in Your Firm,” explores the relationship and interdependence of ethics, risk management and legal compliance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Should lawyers “do the right thing” in addition to “being right”?  

A favorite cartoon depicts two lawyers at a desk evidently discussing strategy. One lawyer says to the other: “Is it right?… Is it fair?  Get a grip, Carlton—we’re a law firm!”

Integrity

In an interesting study issued recently, the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence found that financial advisors who demonstrated high levels of “moral and emotional competency” nearly doubled the S&P 500 return on their client portfolios in the years 2001 through 2004, delivering an average return of 25%. 

Of the various attributes studied, integrity had the single strongest impact on client returns. “Results showed that Integrity was the key behavioral competency which predicted the most positive returns for clients." 

Integrity was defined as acting consistently with what one says is important, in other words “walking the talk.”  An example was an advisor willing to give up a lucrative client rather than compromise his/her principles, such as ultimately recommending that a client seek advice from another advisor because the advisor could not in good conscience implement a plan believed to put the client at significant financial risk.

Ethics

In the process of updating his 1996 book The Honest Hour: The Ethics of Time-Based Billing by Attorneys, William George Ross determined that lawyers in 2007 are significantly more likely than a decade ago to pad their bills with unnecessary hours or bill two clients for the same time. Almost 55% (up from 40%) of associates and partners surveyed report performing unnecessary work, and 35% (up from 23%) say they bill two clients for the same time. The number of lawyers who believe double billing is ethical also rose from 35% in 1996 to 48%, and more than two-thirds of lawyers say they have specific knowledge of bill-padding by others.   

Morals

In a May 2, 2007 Law.com article entitled “From Moral Partners to a Moral Firm”, Gregory S. Gallopoulos, the managing partner of Jenner & Block, suggests that the integrated enterprise model that many successful law firms are adopting now, in which strategy and vision belong to the entity as a whole rather than to individual partners, risks producing a vacuum in the area of firm morals. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir, Senior Consultant, has been asked by UNICEF's Armenia office to lead a two and a half day retreat at the end of May to help improve teamwork, communication and conflict resolution. Through the use of individual and team MBTI reports and emotional intelligence assessments, Muir will help the team identify personal and office strengths and challenges and determine strategies for improved communication and conflict management in order to better serve the country's children.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

Across the pond, the legal industry is addressing some of the same issues as US firms but with their own distinctive twist.  Facing attrition rates similar to those in the US, UK law firms are re-jiggering what it means to be a partner and whether lawyers even need to be one in order to stay over the long haul. One-third of the UK 100 law firms have over the last few years introduced non-partner career tracks, based on associate feedback that partnership and its lifestyle has lost its allure. 

On the legislative front, an NFO report in March 2001 on "Competition in Professions" recommended that unjustified restrictions on competition be removed. The government's report in response on competition and regulation in the legal services market concluded that "the current framework is out-dated, inflexible, over-complex and insufficiently accountable or transparent..."

Sir David Clementi, Chairman of Prudential pfc, one of Britain's largest insurance companies, was asked to do a wide-ranging independent review of the regulation of legal services in England and Wales, which is now known as the Clementi Report, was presented in December 2004 and was approved by British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government in October 2005.  It recommended allowing nonlawyers to own, manage, and finance law firms for greater access to management expertise and capital markets. 

The associated Legal Services Bill was introduced to Parliament on November  23, 2006 and is still pending.   It  proposes three key changes: 

•      creation of a new oversight regulator, the Legal Services board; 
•      a new Office for Legal Complaints; and 
•      new models of practice through alternative business structures.

Surveys of UK law firms find them staunchly in favor of many of the proposed provisions.  Ninety-two percent of surveyed law firms welcomed the introduction of multidisciplinary practices (MDPs), and found the most suitable prospective partners to be accountants (69 %), banks (19 %) and tax planners, IP agents and others.                                                             .

Fifty percent of UK law  firms are considering external funding, while more than half are considering adopting alternative business structures (ABSs).   Eighty-five per cent of firms questioned had discussed the issue of MDPs and  ABSs at board level, while 56% were considering adopting an ABS.

The idea of multi-disciplinary practices has been bandied around in the US for years, and the growth of global law firms, and the prospect of competing with UK multi-disciplinary firms, may again suggest that model as a possible development of the future.  What is interesting is the extent of support that UK firms are giving the idea. 

Stay tuned.

                                         

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ronda Muir will be making a presentation on the risks that arise when managing people in law firms.  The conference on Risk Management for Managing Partners, sponsored by ARK Group, is being held in Chicago on April 17 and 18.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

See Muir's article for guidelines on making your law practice (and life) more innovative, creative and collegial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

An extraordinary and convincing vision of a revolution in big law's future was presented by Mark Chandler, SVP and General Counsel of Cisco, in a speech in January at Northwestern School of Law's 34th Annual Securities Regulation Institute.  I would like to join other legal commentators in paraphrasing Chandler's comments and commending him on his far-sightedness.

Driven as are other GCs to realize productivity improvements in his department, Chandler is committed to reducing Cisco's legal expenses as Cisco gets bigger.  Chandler points out that information, a law firm's stock in trade, will only get easier, and therefore cheaper, to access over time.  Already standardized on-line legal data is available, with residential leases and individual tax returns now largely done by software.

But even Cisco's first tier corporate legal work is being drilled down to a cost-effective, accessible product.  Contracts are drafted, executed and archived by employees using on-line software. Cisco pays a fixed fee for patent prosecution and intends to pay at least 5% less each year, requiring its firms to find ways to lower costs.  It also pays a fixed fee for the review of license offers, which Baker & Botts has been able to make profitable by developing a more efficient systematic approach.   In the corporate secretarial area, Cisco has replaced a group of outside firms with a one-firm solution that aims for a 20% reduction in legal expenses in part by using standardized forms and open interfaces. 

In litigation, Cisco has a fixed fee arrangement with Morgan Lewis to manage all of its US commercial litigation, which has made litigation avoidance the firm's key goal, aligning perfectly with Cisco's interest.

Counseling will be the next frontier, Chandler believes, as online tools like tax counseling via www.taxalmanac spread to other legal areas, such as export regulations, human resources and employment and eventually securities law compliance.  Cisco is already working with eight other Fortune 500 companies and a number of law firms on a site called Legal On Ramp to allow direct access to search law firms' knowledge management systems.  See www.legalonramp.com.

And in each instance, what was novel in Cisco's legal management strategies five years ago has become more commonplace among its peers today and may well eventually become available for purchase as packaged software.

The current law firm business model, according to Chandler, reflects a fundamental misalignment of interest between clients who are driven to manage expenses and law firms compensated by the hour.  Clients are not in the market of buying time, he points out, but value.  The current system not only mis-serves clients, but also the lawyers themselves, particularly associates, who Chandler says are beating down his doors because they don't want to work for law firms any more--enslaved by a billable hour-based compensation system that is inefficient in producing a valuable product and that offers them little chance of making partner.

Chandler recognizes that law firms are currently profitable as structured.  Clay Christensen of Harvard Business School calls large American law firms "the most profitable businesses in the world.  Speedier information-gathering capabilities allow large law firms to increase utilization of less experienced lawyers without passing cost savings on to their customers."  But Chandler is convinced that the very source of success for firms today--the ability to control client access to expertise, requiring 1:1 delivery--will be the source of their failure in the future.  It is top quality boutiques that Chandler is betting will change and survive, and it is in Cisco's interest to help make them profitable while doing so.  Chandler views slower-moving, cost-heavy large centralized firms to be at risk. 

"If the economic system of law firms is frustrating to associates and even some partners, I can tell you that from the standpoint of a metric driven general counsel, it is more than incomprehensible.  It looks like the last vestige of the medieval guild system to survive into the 21st century."

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The linchpin to forging a solution to the associate recruitment/retention/compensation issue may be getting partners to acknowledge that partner profits, hotly negotiated, carefully calculated and closely compared, have to take a hit.  Accounting firms have managed to significantly lower their attrition rates and achieve strikingly higher diversity than their law firm cousins in part by sacrificing some portion of partner profits.

The Logic of Lower Partner Profits

Lower partner profits seem almost logical when today's associate pay is compared to historical ratios of partner profits, according to a recent National Law Journal article.  As a percentage of average profits per partner, the starting salary at top law firms is at its lowest level in a decade.  In 2005 new associates at 500+ lawyer firms made 11.7% of the amount partners earned, the smallest proportion over the last 10 years.  By contrast, new associate salaries at the AmLaw 100 were 15.4%of partner profits in 2001, the highest percentage over that same time.  While new lawyers at smaller firms earned a higher proportion of profits, their percentages have declined in recent years as well.  (The article notes, however, the methodological challenges posed by combining different sources of data to reach these conclusions.)

Surely no one is arguing that some set ratio should be rigorously maintained regardless of the larger economic scenario.  Or even if they are, that it could be.  Associate salaries are set for the year ahead, and are paid regardless of the legal industry's or the individual firm's profitability that year.   Partners, on the other hand, ride the wave of  what could be a banner year, like 2005, or a financial dog, like 2001.  No one asks associates for money back when the firm's economic projections have turned out to be too rosy, and few would argue that associates should be entitled to the same degree of additional compensation that partners realize in an unexpectedly good year.  So the variations cited above may well be left as just that-- the vagaries of profitability.

The general consensus is, anyway, that without any further ado the gap between associate salaries and profits per partner will narrow over the next few years as a result of an anticipated plateau in overall law firm profitability, which is being negatively impacted by the escalating race for qualified law school graduates, among other things.  See our February 20, 2007 entry "The Looming Associate Crisis and What It Means For Your Firm."  Salaries will have to rise for firms to stay competitive and partners will be the ones who finance them.  Simpson Thatcher, for example, the firm that started this latest round of raises, will, because of those raises, reshuffle approximately 2% of the firm's anticipated net profits for 2007, or at least $8 million, to its 520 associates, for a minimum contribution of $50,000 per equity partner.  And there is no anticipated increase in demand for legal services.  In fact, there are credible arguments that the legal business, like nearly every other industry, may well see a concentration of demand and streamlining of delivery over the next decade or so.

The Necessity of Lower Partner Profits

But still firms may have to contemplate even lower partner profits.  Hiring associates and keeping them are two different matters.  After high salaries have landed associates, it might be that only rejiggering the traditional law firm business model can make them stay for what seems to be the increasingly unattractive partnership prize.  Higher associate salaries put more pressure on productivity and hours, exacerbating precisely the quality-of-life issues that apparently make junior lawyers so unhappy.  See our February 14, 2007 entry "What All That Money Is Buying You."  Particularly for Generation Xers, Yers and beyond, the benefits and lifestyle that are their stated priorities may not only be a matter of steadily higher (and expensive) compensation, but, just as intrusive to partners' pockets, also require hiring more bodies to accomplish the same amount of associate work.

Leverage statistics often get bandied around in the discussion of associate salaries and partner profits.  Leverage has always been a two-edged sword: both an engine for producing more revenue when business is plentiful and an albatross around the neck when business turns south.  Interestingly enough, according to the (possibly skewed) NLJ statistics, over the last decade, law firms of all sizes turned out to be the most highly leveraged in some of the least profitable years-- 2001 and 2002.  But the kind of leverage we are talking about possibly evolving is the worst of both worlds-- leverage that produces no more additional revenue and, once again, higher expenses.

So it is partner profits that will suffer.  This is a difficult pill to swallow.  No one likes to see their compensation heading south, least of all the lawyers in your firm making the most money, i.e., those with the most seniority, the highest productivity and the strongest ties to clients:  the very ones who may well be billing more hours than the associates whose salaries they are being asked to subsidize.  The pundits say that firms will continue to raise either associate hours or hourly rates before they ask partners to pony up.  The alternative is too risky.

Firms are Already Lowering Partner Profits

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A number of corporations are taking steps to restrict which of the associates at their outside firms work for them, according to the Managing Outside Counsel Survey Report prepared by the Association of Corporate Counsel and Serengeti Law of Bellevue, Washington in late 2006.  In some cases, corporations specify that only attorneys with at least five years of experience be assigned to their matters.

Given the billable-hour fee structure that most firms retain, if such requests become a trend, it could play havoc with the traditional law firm business model. Currently, firms hire three times or more the number of associates that the firm expects to stay, immediately putting those young associates on clients matters in order to push down less complicated work, provide training and make a proving ground to determine who should stay and who shouldn't.  OK, let's admit it:  and also maybe sometimes to plump up some of those thinner bills.

If clients start demanding only more senior lawyers on their matters, the high cost of young associates would immediately become much higher, since it would be even longer before they could reasonably be expected to produce a return on the firm's investment in them.

Of course, one way to counter such a trend would be to use a more carefully calibrated hiring process that relies less on "where ever the outstanding offer chips may fall," and more on knowing the best fit for the firm.  We at RRR advocate the use of culture and personal style inventories as a way to fully understand your firm's prevailing attitudes, values and attributes and also to identify the areas where it needs to grow or broaden.  

Aggressively pursuing those candidates who meet that profile not only results in spot-on hires more likely to contribute from day one, but also produces a mountain of "I'm special-- you really-really-like-me" feelings in your incoming class that could make even Sally Field shed a tear, and also produce the kind of we're-made-for-each-other associate loyalty that not many firms currently enjoy.

Targeted hiring should then be followed by an equally targeted training program of the sort that few firms currently offer.   Information gleaned from the inventories would make this training much more efficient, so as not to necessarily require more time.   We at RRR also offer targeted associate training in the areas of understanding the business of law, professional performance and career development, business development, client relationship management and communication, among others.   

Together, these two strategies--targeted hiring and targeting training-- are likely to produce young lawyers who are valuable to clients and profitable to their firm.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is an associate recruitment and retention crisis looming for which there are no easy solutions.

Supply and Demand

Law schools continue to graduate 40,000 students a year, as they have for the last 20 plus years. The AmLaw 200 law firms have been steadily hiring an average of 4%+ more associates each year, resulting last year in an average incoming associate class of 50. That means that AmLaw 200 firms now hire about 10,000 new associates a year, or about 50% of the graduates from the top 100 (hardly the Ivy League elite) of the nation's 200 law schools.  

Every year the number of associates those firms will be trying to hire will be higher.  And the competition from hedge funds and investment banks offering attractive alternatives will increase.  Not far along the horizon is a point when nearly every associate in the top half of every law school, whatever the law school, is likely to have several high-dollar offers to choose from.  Which means many firms will be left with fewer incoming associates than they want, or certainly fewer of the caliber they are seeking.

The Starting Salary Piece

As day follows night, associate salaries are rising.  Entering associates are now earning $160,000 before bonuses at the largest law firms across the country (essentially the same that federal district judges make), thanks to Simpson Thatcher’s opening volley. Starting salaries (not including bonuses) at firms of 500+ lawyers are thus up 130% since 1994, with the annual rate of increase averaging more than 10%--significantly above both the rates at firms of other sizes and the average for all firms (6%). And with each new class's salary increase, the salaries of associate classes up the ladder must also be increased.

The Profitability Piece

One estimate is that this year's salary bump will result in an average hit to partners in big firms in the range of $40-70,000 per partner. But that is hardly where the impact on profitability stops.  Until this year, associates were usually not profitable until their third or fourth year.  Higher salaries stretch that time out even further.  With average associate attrition rates at big firms pushing above 20% annually, culminating in 78% of associates leaving by their fifth year, firms have less and less time to recoup their initial recruiting/training/salary/overhead investments in associates, let alone realize a significant profit.  

The graph showing the curves of how long it takes to realize a profit on associates and how long they are likely to stay make it clear that these two lines are coming perilously close.  What used to make for good document review/bill plumping fodder may start looking more like loss leaders in the business of looking for good lawyers who will actually stay.  It has already been noted that we have reached a state where partners often bill more hours than their associates.  How does it  feel to be working for those you supervise?

What's to Be Done?

The traditional solutions are few and running out of steam.

As always, billable rates can be raised, banking on good evidence that at least some clients will pay whatever they have to to get the best legal advice.  But there will be some clients insisting that their rates be reduced or hours written off while others may simply leave. 

You can try to recoup salary increases by raising billable hour requirements. But given the current associate sentiment about billing, ratcheting requirements up runs the risk of ratcheting up attrition rates as well. See our February 14, 2007 entry "What All That Money Is Buying You."

Recruiters may have to become modern conjurers, ranging broader among law schools and deeper down classes, looking for the proverbial gem in the rough.  Medium and smaller law firms may have to change recruitment strategies altogether.  Some have already publicly declared themselves to be out of the business of hiring first-year associates, like Philadelphia's Kleinbard Bell & Brecker, or recruiting at national law schools, like Pittsburgh-based Tucker Arensberg.  Instead, they will wait for those associates to come to their firms after they've spent a few years at larger firms willing to bear the cost of training them. 

The dire truth is that what ultimately may have to change is the current law firm structure, and possibly in several respects.  See our upcoming entry "Leaving Behind the Medieval Model."   And the fallout may include the hardest pill to swallow:  a reduction in the high profitability that partners have long enjoyed.  See our upcoming entry "The End of Profitability As We Know It?"

There are ways to read your firm's tea leaves and then progress toward a new vision, cognizant of the prevailing hiring and retention realities.  Is your firm taking the steps necessary to survive the looming associate crisis?

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

The legal industry's current strategy for hiring and keeping lawyers seems to be to throw more and more money at them, a strategy which has succeeded to date in producing unprecedented attrition and dissatisfaction rates.

Major law firms around the country just upped the ante for hiring a baby lawyer to $160,000 @ year, before bonuses, or roughly what seasoned federal judges in our country make.

Why more money?

Jack Nusbaum, Chairman of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, says "We expect our associates to work hard… maybe this will make them feel better about the Saturdays and Sundays."  

Has anyone taken note of the American Bar Association survey conducted just this past November?   Of the 2,377 respondents (most of whom were between 26 and 35 and had been practicing law for five years or less), 84.2 percent said they'd prefer to work fewer hours for less money.  More than 30 percent would like to work 20 percent less and said they'd give up between 25 and 30 percent of their pay in exchange.  The next largest group-- 27.8%--would settle for a 10% cut in hours.  Did you get that?  Associates would prefer to give up proportionally more money for incrementally less work.

So are we paying these high salaries--surprise!--for the clients? To show them that our firm can attract the best players?  

"When I saw the announcement about the raises, I said ‘Oh God,” says Michael Roster, executive vice president of World Savings, a subsidiary of Wachovia Corp.  But maybe not for the reasons you would expect.  Salary raises mean law firms will put more pressure on associates to bill, but paying more for legal services, Roster says, is less bothersome to him than associate turnover.  He says he and other general counsel prefer to work with associates with whom he has a history and who know his business well.  "It hurts when firms can’t keep qualified people.”

“From my standpoint, I would view [lowering billable hour requirements] as a creative and enlightened way to reduce associate turnover and keep the best and brightest young lawyers,” says Barry Nagler, who chaired in 2006 the Association of Corporate Counsel’s board of directors.

Susan C. Robinson, associate dean for career services at Stanford Law School, also thinks that lowering billable-hour requirements could be a great recruiting tool, particularly for attracting lateral associates.

There is no question that firms are struggling with the phenomenon of associates not wanting to work as hard as generations past.  Many studies indicate, in fact, that partners often bill more hours than their associates, turning the law firm pyramid model topsy-turvy. 

And attracting and retaining associates over the next decade may be even harder. The standard characterization of “millennials”—those who graduated from high school after 2000 and will be graduating from law school starting in 2008--is that they are unwilling to compromise life and family for work.

The obvious hit from reducing billable hour requirements would be to partners' bottom lines.  See our upcoming entry "The End of Profitability as We Know It?"  But there are some countervailing tactics that can help improve profitability.  Ida O. Abbott, former partner at Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe, contends that billable-hour requirements could be lowered without cutting partner profits if the change involved more planning and better management.  And law firms have not yet even begun to explore the types of management strategies that have produced the super-sized profits recounted in the newly released Firms of Endearment: How World-Class Companies Profit from Passion and Purpose by Rajendra Sisodia, David Wolfe and Jagdish N. Sheth.  See our January 31, 2007 entry "Firms of Endearment."

Steve Susman, whose 85-lawyer Houston/New York litigation firm Susman Godfrey gave 2006 associate bonuses of up to $125,000, contends that "Any lawyer who is unhappy with their compensation should check into a mental institution."

Based on the adage about the mental state of people who keep doing the same thing but expecting a different result, there may be a few managing partners who should be joining those associates there.

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

One difference in Dewey and Orrick, and perhaps the biggest one, that may lie behind their inability to get in bed together is their management structures. Adhering to the old school, white-shoe model, Dewey management is accomplished by a rotating "good lawyer" who is engaged primarily in what (s)he wants to do and, one might argue, does best—lawyering. According to a January 22, 2007 Wall Street Journal article, Dewey Managing Partner Morton Pierce spent 3,300 hours last year on billable client work, or an average of 12.6 hours every weekday, raising the obvious question of how much time, if any, he spent on management. "Management is not my passion," Pierce admitted. 

Orrick, on the other hand, is managed by Ralph Baxter, Jr., who hasn't practiced law since 1992, and who spends his annual 3,300 hours-plus on firm-wide town-hall meetings, informational web casts, and on-site and in-person office and partner meetings, exhibiting what David Wilkins, director of Harvard Law School's Program on the Legal Profession, calls "the epitome of 21^st century law-firm leadership." 

While those in academia may have easily come to that conclusion, in the industry trenches what constitutes the best firm leadership is still very much open to debate. There are plenty of issues raised by the 3-5 year rotating model vs. the long-term model, including the impact on long-term vision and strategy and succession planning, that we won’t go into here. But the even narrower discussion about whether firms should have full-time or part-time managers, regardless of their length of tenure, can start to sound positively moral, with both sides claiming rectitude. 

The word that crops up is "professional." One of the Dewey partners supports the part-time manager concept because someone "who practices is more tuned into the professional philosophy." And if that's not clear, Cravath's managing partner, Evan Chesler, also a part-timer, points out that "the law is a profession—not merely a business." (Note the "merely.") 

Of course, managing partners who enjoy only short terms would be foolish to give up their clients and cutting edge expertise for what might be a short round in management hell. Their “professionalism” is another word for survival. On the other hand, they are right that lawyers respect no one as much as another lawyer: what managers lack in management skills they may be able to make up for with sheer lawyer-to-lawyer hubris: my book beats your book.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Dewey-Orrick merger that was supposed to have closed this month has fallen through, and for reasons that seem to reverberate repeatedly over the law business landscape:  retention and culture.  Leading up to the announcement, at least ten Dewey partners left the firm, including rainmakers in the coveted M&A department.  This is Orrick's fourth failed attempt at merger over the last few years.

It looked like a good match--both venerable firms with complimentary specialities, similar per partner profits and each with rising revenues.  They had successfully negotiated the details at the top-- the name would be Dewey Orrick, the two chairmen would serve as the combined firm's co-chairs, with Orrick's chairman also named as presiding partner.  But, as the New York Times noted the obvious, "law firm consolidation involves combining two organizations whose main assets are their people"-- tricky assets to nail down on the balance sheet. 

With their particular personality traits, lawyer buy-in can be an extra challenge to obtain, and then to keep.  Perceptions in the ranks as to the new firm details, such as heirarchy-- Orrick appeared to be retaining management control over crucial matters, compensation--Orrick partners would end up funding Dewey's unfunded pension system, and culture can undo the best efforts of leadership.

It takes not only economic due diligence, but diligently assessing and closing the deal up and down each firm's ranks before a merger can successfully occur.  And then it takes a well-planned and well-executed integration to keep that success over time.  Shouldn't we know that by now?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The 100 Best Employers

From over 400 organizations surveyed, five law firms, down one from last year and with most of the survivors heading down the list, made Fortune magazine’s 2007 list of the best 100 employers to work for: Alston & Bird, Arnold & Porter, Nixon Peabody, Perkins Coie and Bingham McCutchen, with Morrison & Foerster having dropped off.

The list is based on two criteria: an evaluation of the policies and culture of each organization, and the opinions of the employees, which is given more weight. Two-thirds of the total score comes from responses to a 57-question survey, on attitudes towards management, job satisfaction, and camaraderie, sent to at least 400 employees from each company. The remaining one-third of the score is based on demographic makeup, pay and benefits programs, and culture.

It's a tough competition, with No. 1-rated Google providing employees free gourmet meals, a swimming spa and free doctors on site.

But apart from offering outsized bennies, there are some lessons Google may be able to offer us legals.

Hiring for the Right Reasons

Google has doubled the number of employees in each of the last three years, and now with 10,000 employees, expects to double in size again this year, resulting in about 200 hires a week. It also enjoys an attrition rate of 4%, low by Silicon Valley standards. Historically, much like law firms, Google has relied on grade requirements and interviews to make hiring decisions. The challenge is to continue to find valuable employees at such an astounding rate of growth.

A recent review of over 2 million data points made it clear that Google's hiring criteria were not necessarily correlated with success at the company. So Google has revamped its hiring process, using assessments of existing personnel to produce a more quantitative measurement of success in terms of skills, intelligence, personality and integrity. All incoming applicants will now take a personal survey, which Google is already finding produces better matches for its work and culture.

Lessons for Law Firms

Law firms with spiraling growth requirements are competing to hire from the same number of law graduates with good grades from the same number of top-rung law schools as 20 years ago. The lesson from Google, the best company to work for and possibly the hiringest company as well, is that grades and an interview don't do it anymore. Now is the time to identify your real indicators of success and hire candidates with those.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a study conducted last fall of managing partners, general counsel, and other legal leaders, Altman Weil identified five key market trends and critical concerns.  It noted that people management was one of the highest priorities on everyone's list, with one partner saying that he goes to sleep "never knowing who might be leaving tomorrow."  The limited pool of quality law graduates, the "free-agent mentality" of lawyers from new associates to rainmakers, Gen-Xers emphasizing work-life balance and achieving diversity were all cited as challenges to people management by this august group. 

To my mind, the other four critical areas identified-- growth, competition, client service and even pricing-- are also each dependent on achieving effective people management.  Growth requires wrestling with "cultural, office and practice integration," competition is felt most dramatically in the "war for talent," with quality people, superior client service skills and strong training and development programs giving firms the competitive edge.   Client service requires superior communication and relationship, among other, skills, and "improved project staffing." (See our entry today on KPMG's success with their staffing model.)  Even pricing is acknowledged as a function of the quality of a firm's work and service-- which general counsel have consistently linked to people skills.  (See our entries Do You Know Why You Were Fired? dated November 8, 2005 and Companies Unhappy with Their Law Firms dated December 20, 2006.)

So why do law firms and law departments not take advantage of the extensive body of expertise available on hiring, retaining, developing and motivating people?  Maybe, as David Maister has suggested, it is the herd instinct that keeps them from going for the glory-- rather go down as a group than risk a "new-fangled" approach.  Interestingly enough, that is what our psychological profiles of lawyers tell us-- that they are risk-averse, often low in resilience, optimism, and emotional intelligence, all of which has helped mire them in an 18th-century business model. 

Here's the question-- which firms will be the real leaders, the ones who actually take the out-of-the-legal-box steps toward addressing these critical people management areas?  Because there seems to be a consensus that that is the only effective way forward.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Accounting firms have long been ahead of law firms in innovative management strategies for personal service firms-- and as law firms head toward numbering thousands instead of hundreds of lawyers, there is much we can learn from how accounting firms manage people.

At a two-day ARK Group conference in December on Women in Professional Service Firms, Sandra Bushby, KPMG's national director of Women's Initiatives and other Workplace Solutions, recounted how KPMG uses workstyle assessments, particularly the "color-coded" Birkman Method, to put together successful client and project teams.  The firm-wide assessments were undertaken primarily as a risk management strategy-- to build teams that have the varied talents to insure that everything from technical details to interpersonal skills to long-term visionary considerations are fully dealt with.  But by balancing teams with accountants with red, green, yellow and blue workstyles, KPMG is finding that it is also achieving an unexpected bonus:solving the diversity puzzle-- creating culturally, gender and racially diverse teams.

Law firms, whether big or small, have a world of insight available to them from the use of assessments, which they often do not take advantage of.  Lawyers will contend that law is too "technical" or "expert' a service for personal or work styles to have any impact on success.  Yet accounting is no less technical, and accounting firms have had to become expert in drilling down to the most effective risk management tools available-- which style assessments unquestionably are.  To have the additional bonus of effectively producing diverse teams without resorting to "affirmative action" add-ons is ground-breaking-- a one-assessment-for-all-purposes bonanza.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Board of Law Examiners proposed increasing the passing score on the New York bar exam from 660 to 675 in 5-point intervals, the first of which was instituted in July 2005 with the next two increments scheduled for the following two summers.  Those have been delayed and the National Conference of Bar Examiners has issued a 155-page report on the diversity impact of that proposal.  If the full 15-point increase were instituted (which is significantly less than the 33 point increase initially considered), fully half of all African-Americans would fail the exam--up over 8% from the prior fail rate.  The impact on other races would also be significant--an additional 5% of Hispanics, 6% of Asians and 10% of Puerto Ricans would fail, but their total pass rates would in each case remain over 65%.  Only the African-American pass rate would fall below 50%. 

This data corresponds interestingly with the study conducted by Professor Sander at the University of California, Los Angeles, which has generated fierce debate.  Sander's provocative study concludes that a major reason blacks are not as well represented among law firm partners as they are among new associates is that they have much lower average grades than their cohorts.  Sander also indicts the law schools for admitting blacks who are not prepared enough to do well at law schools.  Very few blacks graduate from the top 30 law schools with high grades.  While blacks make up 1-2% of law students with grades in the top half of their class, they make up 8% of corporate law firm hires, yet they are one-fourth as likely to make partner, and they leave large firms at 2-3 times the rate of white associates.  An interesting fact is that blacks have a much better shot at partnership at smaller firms, which are less likely to hire associates with lower than standard grades.

Some commentators have questioned the importance of grades (women lawyers have higher grades than men but are also under-represented as partners), others have attributed the fallout to a lack of mentoring or training, or to the fierce competition for able blacks, who are often hired away by clients, while still others contend that the big firm hiring practice sets blacks up for failure, reinforcing stereotypes on the way.

The importance of the two studies converge, particularly for New York law firms, if raising the bar pass rate further reduces the number of eligible black associates that firms can choose from.  Will those reduced numbers make prestigious firms lower their grade standards even further, with the implication that retention rates may drop even lower?

There is no question that any firm solving the diversity puzzle reaps a hiring, marketing and productivity bonanza.  Successfully hiring and integrating blacks, as well as other minorities, including women, requires that a firm understand its own and its associates' cultural strengths and biases, have an active, long-term integration program that addresses each specific attorney and his/her goals, and honestly, consistently and regularly evaluate its own progress.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Between 1986 and 2005, the number of lawyers employed by the nation’s 100 largest law firms nearly tripled, from roughly 25,000 to more than 70,000, and the most recent report is that the Am Law 100 gained 4% in numbers of lawyers this past year. During this time the number of top students at top law schools has not increased measurably.

In the last two years, firm attrition rates have gone up dramatically. According to NALP reports, in 2003 53% of fifth-year associates had changed firms. In 2005, that percentage rose to 78%, more than three-fourths of associates, and 81% for women of color. According to The American Lawyer, in 2005 2,429 partners left their firms for other attorney jobs, compared with 2,081 in 2004, up more than 20%.

More and more law firms are trying to land a limited number of top-tier associates, who will, once bagged, nonetheless leave their firms—most while still associates, but others as partners. Therein lies the recruiting challenge.

Some firms are looking to alums to fatten their recruiting pool. On October 16 2006, The National Law Journal highlighted how firms are working harder to maintain ties to alums, sometimes succeeding in bringing that talent back to the firm. Vinson & Elkins partner Veronica Lewis, who left to go in-house for more flexibility, was courted personally by V&E’s managing partner, and returned as a partner after 18 months. Gibson Dunn was cited as viewing rehires as a growing component of its recruiting program. 

The National Law Journal’s Sept 25, 2006 special section on the Business of Law included a lead article on the hunt for talent. It suggests that top students at less prestigious schools be carefully considered and that summer programs should more accurately reflect real legal practice, both to educate the associate and to test the students’ interest in and commitment to the practice of law. Third, it advocates that firms “integrate, integrate” to bolster retention generally and diversity specifically. However, the assertion that attorneys envision their law firm as not merely a job, but a professional home base that they return to after government or academic stints, is out of touch with the realities of modern legal practice. As ideal as that goal may be, given the turnover in attorney ranks, both associate and partner, loyalty to a firm looks fast to becoming an outdated concept. 

Another alternative is to make sweeping changes in the way you hire and care for your associates.  Assessments that corporations have used for decades more accurately pinpoint those candidates who are likely to flourish in the practice of law as you practice it and who can add a healthy mix to your current team.  Refining your culture by addressing the most important concerns of your hires will go much further towards raising retention rates than throwing another wad of money at them. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

BTI Consulting Group recently announced the results of its sixth annual client service survey, with the conclusion that corporate America is not very happy with their law firms.  Of the more than 250 corporate counsel and top executives interviewed over the past year, only 32% said that they would recommend a firm that worked for them.

Of those firms who were in the top 30 for client service, Sidley Austin topped the list.  In a separate list of the most arrogant law firms, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom took top honors.  It was notable that California and other West Coast firms were well-represented on the former list and New York and other East Coast  firms seemed to dominate the latter.  Several firms are clearly working their way up the service list, including Morrison & Foerster and Reed Smith.

While the survey provides useful data for most firms for understanding their public persona and marketing themselves to prospective clients, those who didn't do well or who figured prominently in the arrogant and other undesirable lists should do their own risk management review and come up with strategies to address their shortfalls.  Understanding the firm's values and how the culture reflects them, possibly reevaluating and redirecting either or both, educating both associates and partners in client service, raising the firm's emotional intelligence, and setting a timeline to confirm by marketplace and client surveys the effectiveness of the firm's new policies are possible strategies.  In a competitive marketplace where clients are king, doing nothing is not a reasonable course.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The National Law Journal has carried stories on several firms or regions where diversity has taken a front seat. On July 2, 2006, it reported that several Chicago firms had announced their intention to build their diversity numbers, responding to the Chicago Bar Association’s initiative, the “Alliance for Women.” So far, the firms involved are outperforming both their old diversity percentages and the national averages, climbing to as many as 27% female partners. The key, they report, is not in their hiring, which has long been attentive to females, but in creating better environments for female advancement. 

Similarly, the NLJ reported on July 10, 2006 that firms in Texas are making a concerted push to raise diversity levels, hiring internal diversity directors, moving women into leadership roles, and creating scholarship and other support programs. Their efforts have resulted in increased women and minority percentages.

California’s new law that requires managers in businesses with 50 or more employees to undergo two hours of training on sexually harassment each year has been applied to law firms, possibly both partners and associates. Connecticut and Maine also require mandatory harassment training. 

The California State Bar is also working to improve diversity by trying to set up a support network that would help guide poor kids of all races into a legal career, as well as crack down on not only harassment, but simply rude, uncivilized behavior from attorneys.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The last few months have seen five new studies relating to diversity and the practice of law:

1.  A new study by the ABA’s Commission on Women in the Professions entitled “Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms” found that few women of color are offered equal opportunity and most choose to leave their firms rather than stay and fight for equality.   One of the study’s promoters decried how similar the results are to the results in the studies her committee conducted on the same issues in the 1990s. While, largely in response to client demands, more law firms are attempting to hire for more racial diversity, few pay attention to what happens once these women actually start working at the firm. The attrition rate for these lawyers, according to NALP, reaches nearly 100 % within eight years. At least one reason for their lack of success is laid to the lack of like-situated mentors. While there is a tendency to believe we are past the overt discrimination, 49% of women and 34% of men of color reported harassment or discrimination, compared to 47% of white women and 2.5% of white men. However, the primary reason women of colored reported for leaving legal practice was to obtain greater work-life balance, which is also the most frequently reported reason for all other groups surveyed to leave.

2.  The Inside Counsel/Dickstein Shapiro Diversity Survey, published October, 2006, focused on the diversity progress in corporate law departments based on 377 in-house counsel responses, including 19% participation from general counsel, with respondents being 70% white,14% black; 7% Hispanic and 7% Asian. 

The primary findings of that study are consistent with the ABA report above that looked at law firms, including: 

§         Legal departments lack racial diversity.  "The average legal department that responded had 46 attorneys of which 3.5% are non-Caucasian;  the median department employs 11 attorneys of which 1 is non-white."

§         Less than 9% of legal departments are headed by non-Caucasian general counsel

§         Senior leadership fails to set goals--only 32% of companies surveyed had formal diversity polices.

§         Commitment from the GC and CEO is essential, although often leadership compensation is not tied to meeting diversity goals.

3.  “Presumed Equal: What America’s Top Women Lawyers Really Think About Their Firms” surveyed 16,000 lawyers to report on what women attorneys experience in law firms, updating a 1993 report and its 1998 followup. The report found that many women believe their firms don’t provide opportunities to make partner or foster an environment that values diversity and family.  The survey looks to general trends in disparate treatment that women experience at various law firms and highlights specific weaknesses of 105 individual firms ("most prestigious law firms in the US"). It scores the firms based on responses and ranks them nationally and by geographic location.

Since it was initially created to assist law students in their consideration of job opportunities, this survey attempts to provide a discourse about what it is like to be a woman at a top law US law firm and evaluates environment for women to achieve personal goals such as (i) making partner, (ii) finding a mentor, and (iii) life balance.

The report concludes, "Objective indicators still show a disparity between the relative power held by men and women in the legal field and indicate that gender is still relevant to women's success." 

The report also finds "that long-term professional satisfaction for women is not based on the quality of a woman's work. At present, the reluctance of male dominated partnerships to mentor female attorneys, the persistance of gender biases regarding women's roles, and the tacit penalties that women endure for taking advantage of maternity leave, to name only a few dynamics at play, still profoundly shape women's experience within the legal profession."

4.  "Creating Pathways to Success: Advancing and Retaining Women in Today's Law Firms, " issued by the Women's Bar of DC in May 2006, examined better ways to stem the departure of women from law practice.  While the report includes many specific actions, the findings generally are that there are more stumbling blocks to the success of women in law practice than are currently being addressed by the commonly used methods of supporting and promoting women.  The most common current practices focus on specific programs in specific business areas in a silo-like approach.  The stumbling blocks, however, cross broad issues and fields but unite on the key issues of  how women can achieve the level of business success they expect of themselves consistent with societal demands and personal creativity.  

5.  In October 2006, the National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) reported on its survey of the American Lawyer Media's 200 largest firms, measuring the comparative role of female lawyers at different levels of seniority, types of partnership opportunities, where women stand in relation to men in firm governance and comparative compensation at the same levels of seniority.  According to NAWL, the survey findings reflect the situation at law deparatments as well.

With responses from 103 of the 200 firms (and against the background that women have been 50% of law school graduates for each of the past 15 years), women constitute:

§         16% percent of equity partners

§         26% of non-equity partners

§         28% of "of counsel" or other special counsel positions

§         45% of associates

Looking at the 16% representation among equity partners, in an era when partnerships are made within 7-10 years, many of us would have expected greater gender parity at all but the most senior levels of law firm partnership. 

The statistics also reveal that of the 16% percent of all equity partners, women are more heavily represented among the more junior classes of equity partners, constituting 21% of equity partners who graduated law school between 1990 and 1995, and 24% of those who graduated in 1996 or later.

But NAWL warned that the trend emerging from such figures is unclear, noting that women who have recently become equity partners could yet leave the profession, and that even at 24 percent of equity partners, women are substantially under-represented relative to their 45 percent of the total number of associates.  

In terms of leadership positions:

§         16% of the members of law firm governance committees are women. 

§         15% of the firms reported that up to 25% of the members of the highest governing committee were women

§         10% of responding firms reported that there were no women on the highest governing committee

§         5% of managing partners are women.

As to compensation, of 62 firms responding, 92% said that the highest paid lawyer was male.  Of the 35 firms that provided compensation breakdowns, male equity partners were paid an average of $510,000 whereas female equity partners averaged compensation was $429,000.  The survey recognized that the higher number of men at senior partnership levels could account for the significant difference in compensation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sexual harassment came to the legal profession in 1994, when a secretary at Baker & McKenzie filed a discrimination case against the firm and a partner. In 1998, a California Superior Court jury awarded her $7 million and the landscape of law firm conduct was trumpeted as being in the midst of a major change.  Last spring the news broke that a male partner at Holland & Knight’s Tampa office had been given the job of chief operating partner, prompting a number of complaints about his history of sexual harassment, which had, interestingly enough, not been brought to the attention of the firm’s administrators earlier. After extensive local and national news coverage, he resigned from his management position. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mayer, Brown’s New York office opened in 1978, was one of the most profitable in the Mayer, Brown orbit over many years, and from 1995 to 2003 grew by more than 100 lawyers.

Since January 1, at least eight partners have left for other firms - including litigator Dennis Orr, one of Mayer, Brown's top rainmakers. Reports are that revenue in the New York office is flat this year, and the relationship with the home office in Chicago is tense.

So what happened?

The New Yorkers contend they have little say in the firm's decision-making process and that the financial reporting system that breaks down profits and losses by location has created an office-versus-office dynamic, inciting Mayer lawyers from Chicago to fly to New York to meet with Morgan Stanley's general counsel without inviting anyone in the New York office.

Firm managers lay the blame on the compensation system, where origination was everything. Under a new regime, they promise less emphasis on the performance of a partner's practice group or office and more on a partner's potential contributions.

Compensation is a powerful motivator, and lawyers shrewdly respond to explicit and implicit incentives in the system. But it is almost impossible to eliminate gamesmanship from compensation. The only chance of elevating firm dynamics above the compensation games is to raise the level of trust among the partners, a daunting challenge, but one that pays off enormous effort with firm harmony and productivity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Harvard Law School’s goal in its revised curriculum this year is to teach young lawyers how to “resolve client dilemmas.” How exactly is that done successfully in the modern practice of law? By calculating dollars won in the final judgment, for example? By assessing the investment of time and energy versus the payoff? 

Everyone has by now heard of the prevailing sentiment that no one wins in litigation any more. If that statement is even somewhat true, what is the course to resolving a client’s dilemma in a way that will be viewed as successful? 

The mediation industry has arisen almost entirely as a reaction to the mistrust of lawyers and what is perceived as their conflict-escalating processes. Even arbitration is becoming viewed as saddled with some of the time-consuming, rigid aspects of litigation, and in-house counsel are moving towards mediation, or at least including mediation in their bag of tools. Paul Adams, Associate General Counsel at the Gap, finds mediation “a very, very powerful process with a strong emotional component. It’s informal and the plaintiff feels like he’s controlling what’s happening.” He also notes that it allows for more creative resolutions.

Thane Rosenbaum argues in his book The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right (HarperCollins) that what clients want most is an emotional relief--to feel that their position has been understood and acknowledged. "Clients of all stripes walk out of the courtroom saying 'That’s it? I didn’t even get to say what I think?'" Lawyers, he argues, are limited by their legal vision—rather than just channeling their clients’ anger through a legal claim, such as breach of contract, which may not really address the client’s underlying grievance, lawyers should be listening to and acknowledging the hurt, and be able to offer nontraditional ways for that hurt to be addressed. While Rosenbaum’s claim that our current system of justice is morally deficient does not seem to have been challenged, his suggestions as to how to change it have been met with charges of being naive and impractical.

Web.com’s Corporate Counsel Jonathan B. Wilson’s book Out of Balance: Prescriptions for Reforming the American Litigation System takes a less radical approach to reforming how we address our clients’ dilemmas, including advocating for arbitration, mediation and a number of other alternatives.

Thomas Barton, who teaches creative problem solving and preventive law at The Center for Creative Problem Solving at California Western School of Law in San Diego, extols creative legal problem solving not only for the satisfaction it gives the client, but also for the effect it has on the lawyer involved: it feels great to do creative work that really resolves the dilemma. See www.cwsl.edu/cps According to Barton, there are two major steps involved: expanding the context of the problem so that all the dimensions are exposed, and building a larger repertoire for resolution, which includes being open to whatever constitutes “success” in the client’s mind.

Malcolm Gladwell’s book Blink cites research that shows that doctors who are viewed as a valued resource and are able to build a trusted relationship with their patients are not sued –even if they have committed malpractice. While admittedly a subjective standard, shouldn’t lawyers be aiming for that same type of relationship with their clients? The one that makes them “right” no matter what their advice is?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Another message that the increase in associate departures may be sending is that our attempts at mentoring are failing. Mentoring has become a favored buzzword recently that many law firms at least pay lip service to.  Most of these programs tend to fairly arbitrarily assign new associates to mentors, dictate a certain number of meetings annually, and require reams of paperwork. They are, in short, more a product of lawyers’ natural tendency to be “thinkers” (78% of lawyers) instead of “feelers” (22%), using the Myers-Briggs personality trait descriptions. Mentoring is business shorthand for “someone to watch over me,” a skill that does not come naturally to attorneys. 

Sullivan & Cromwell has recently announced a revamping of its mentoring program for its general practice group in New York and Washington. There are separate programs for junior associates—paired with mid-level associates who focus on acclimation and socializing—and more senior associates, who are paired with two partners to help develop skills. 

Why are law firms and law departments providing this “soft” support for young attorneys? There is, of course, always the “herd mentality” argument, that if other firms are doing it in this competitive talent market, so must we. But that begs the bigger issue. Why, after generations of no such official “coddling,” have associates begun to need this sort of assistance, and, more astonishingly, firms have been providing it? 

Why firms provide mentoring is partly in response to what firms view as ill-prepared and poorly motivated young associates, coupled with the exodus of those associates when they are throw in to sink or swim.  Add to this the growing bigness of law firms, with more extensive policies, rules and procedures, and mentoring becomes a formalized, lengthy orientation process. 

But I would wager that an even bigger reason behind the need for mentoring originates in the personal lives of the Gen Xers, Yers and Zers themselves. These young people are more likely to have been supported financially and academically up to and through college and law school, so they expect continued support. They have also grown up in a more generally “therapized” culture, where identifying needs and asking for them to be met is a sign of mental health. Finally, the continued breakdown of the nuclear American family and its broad geographical dispersion may mean that, as their careers progress, these young adults need to replace or supplement lagging or distant family support with relationships at work.   If they're not getting that support from your firm or department, they will go elsewhere.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In-House Counsel recently reported on the results of the Managing Outside Counsel Survey Report prepared by the Association of Corporate Counsel and Serengeti Law of Bellevue, Washington.  The study revealed, among other things, the four reasons that companies are firing outside counsel. In 2005, 55.6% of the General Counsel surveyed reported that they terminated the relationship with at least some of their outside firms, up almost ten percent (50.7%) from 2004. The reasons most cited for firing outside counsel were:

1.       poor quality of work

2.       lack of responsiveness

3.       high fees

4.       personality issues 

Note that, after the threshold issue of competent work, two of the three main reasons for firing an outside firm were for deficiencies in what some lawyers refer to as “soft” skills—lack of responsiveness and personality issues. 

How responsive are your lawyers?   Do they have well-developed client relationship skills?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Fifth International Positive Psychology Summit 2006 was held October 5-7 in Washington DC.  Dr. Martin Seligman, the Fox Leadership Professor of Psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, founded the school of Positive Psychology, which focuses on factors that make for professional and personal success, rather than following the traditional diagnostic model of addressing weaknesses.  There were a number of presentations of interest to lawyers.

Richard Florida, an economist, Hirst Professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, author of the bestseller The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, 2002) and The Flight of the Creative Class (HarperCollins, 2005), was the keynote speaker.  The dramatic results of his research found that highly talented people will overcome financial disincentives to join communities and businesses that promote subjective well-being, such as supporting diversity and encouraging tolerance.  His astonishing findings are that it is the people, the "soul of the city," that drives the production of jobs and financial success, rather than the other way around, as classic economics theory maintained.

These findings fit nicely with the results of David Maister's survey on the factors that drive financial success in personal services businesses.  Maister asked simply "Are employee attitudes correlated with financial success?"  In his book Practice What You Preach:  What Managers Must Do To Create A High-Achievement Culture, he expands on the results of that survey.  Not only is the answer "yes", but, more importantly, Maister found that it is attitudes that drive financial results and not the other way around.

The message for law firms and law departments is that, in a world of escalating pay raises but ever-increasing movement, the soul of the firm-- and how it influences employee attitudes and their sense of well-being-- cana be the key to achieving financial success.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks