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."
Baby-boomers are making their mark on the demographic frontier again--this time valiantly fending off the mandatory retirement that generations of law firm partners before them submitted to.
The Sidley Austin age-discrimination case, which arose when 32 partners lost their full partner status, ended last fall after two-and-a-half years and seven court decisions (all lost by Sidley Austin) without a decision on the merits. It did end with a large payment of cash, $27.5 million to be precise, to the aged-50-something+ lawyers, and an uneasy feeling in the pit of many legal bellies. Left unanswered was the question of whether and when law partners are employers or employees for purposes of the EEOC, a determination which may be even thornier with the proliferating partner tiers in partnerships.
Even if they don't sue, baby boomers don't have to take being put out to pasture lying down--they can usually find a firm that will appreciate their talents. Barry Bryer left Wachtell, Lipton for Latham & Watlkins in 2005 to escape a mandatory retirement policy, and antitrust specialist A. Paul Victor left Weil, Gotshal for Dewey & LeBoeuf for the same reason.
So what's the right tact for law firms to take today? Over half of law firms have age-mandated retirement policies on the books, with a majority of those requiring retirement at 70. An Altman Weil study found that only 38% of lawyers in management roles agree with having age-mandated retirement policies, although given that nearly 60% of law partners are now over 55 years of age, there's a good possibility that the disapproving 62% may have their own self-interest in mind.
Many firms argue that these policies are necessary for the transitioning of client relationships, firm leadership and firm profits to more productive, younger partners. The policies also, of course, automatically trigger firm action, avoiding the firm having to find the will and the muscle to individually evaluate older partners and confront those who are not productive.
Advocates for dropping these age-driven policies point out that, at a time when firms have been bemoaning recruitment and retention challenges, 80% of the growth in the U.S. workforce over the next 15 years will be in the "over 50" age bracket. And nearly 80% of all baby boomers, according to the US Census Bureau, want to continue to work during retirement. Why isn't retaining lawyers who are healthier at their ages than earlier generations, who have proven capable and dedicated, and whose experience makes them highly valuable in a global market, a win-win solution for all involved?
But even without the impetus of a court declaring such a retirement policy illegal, the trend toward dropping aged-mandated policies is clear. The American Bar Association House of Delegates passed a resolution in August 2007 calling for law firms to end age-based retirement policies. A special committee of the New York State Bar Association concluded that mandatory retirement within law firms at an arbitrary age is not an accepted practice and sent a letter to major law firms in New York asking them to pledge to end those plans, which a number of firms have signed.
Last year Pillsbury Winthrop announced the abandonment of its mandatory retirement policy and instead supports partners in developing an individual approach to transition. Senior partners build three-to-five year career transition plans, receive financial planning services to make sure financials don't drive the decisions and consult professional career consultants for additional support and advice.
According to Holland & Knight, "We do not have a mandatory retirement policy, although our partnership agreement now requires a conversion from equity or nonequity partner to senior partner status at age 70. We have many active senior partners in their 70s and 80s and greatly value their contributions."
So are we ever going to get rid of them?
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/.
"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...'"
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.
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...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 21st 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...A recent study conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership found that effective leadership has changed over the last five years. Eighty-four percent (84%) of those polled said leaders today are valued for collaboration skills, such as building and mending relationships, rather than solitary heroics, the standard five years ago. Specifically important is being able to "enhance co-worker relationships." This change is due, according to those surveyed, to the more far-flung demands of leadership, which often go beyond an individual's capability, creating a need to work interdependently with others across boundaries—geographic, language, cultural, and expertise.
Law firm and law departments would do well to take note of this study-- "leader" is often a designation born out of unrelated circumstances-- a lawyer has extra time, was good at revenue production so will maybe be good at this too, or is simply senior, none of which relates to his or her ability to build a collaborative organization that supports individuals and teams.
In a recent interview, Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More than IQ and more recently Social Intelligence, commented on the error many make in choosing leadership: "Too many organizations are rather naive about the ingredients of leadership and make the classic mistake of assuming that someone who is an outstanding individual contributor would therefore be an outstanding leader. If they're an outstanding individual contributor, keep them as an individual contributor. Give them a raise," he says emphatically.
This study brings that point home in spades.
Enter keywords:
Muir Conducts Associate Compensation Audioconference
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.
