HOW TO WRITE YOUR OWN MARKETING PLAN (PART ONE)
By Patricia Yevics
This article is going to assume that you know there is value in marketing and practice development to continue to expand your practice. This is especially true for solo and small firm practitioners. My goal is not to convince you about the necessity of marketing but rather the necessity of having a plan that you have written and that you can easily implement on a daily basis. The goal of this article is for you to have a written marketing plan that you can use effectively to develop your practice.
The article is going to be presented in two parts. The first part is going to focus on preparing to write the plan. It will give you questions you must answer about where you are now so that you can determine where you are and where you want to be in the next few years. The second part will be in next month's issue and it will focus on how to implement and monitor your marketing plan. It will also give specific activities that you can do to develop your practice.
Having a plan is the single most important factor in marketing success. . You can work with a marketing consultant (although this is not necessary) or you can do the plan yourself or with other members of the firm. However, if it is not in writing, it is not a plan. It is just wishful thinking. The key to success is to go through the planning process and put it on paper.
Success happens the same way in solo and small firms as it does in mid-sized and large firms. It is planned. Being a solo and small firm practitioner is not an excuse for not planning to succeed in every aspect of your practice and marketing is one of those areas.
Some tips about the plan:
It must have specific goals, such as "I am going to take one referral source to lunch every two weeks".
It can be as simple as a marketing to-do list that you have with you or in front of you at all times or it can be a document that is the result of working with a consultant.
Regardless of how it is written or who is involved in the process, the plan must be easy to follow and monitor.
It must be fluid and reviewed continuously.
You need to monitor your tasks on a regular basis.
The hardest part of writing the plan is deciding where to begin. As you start to go through the process of writing a marketing plan, remember 80% of your time should be spent on relationship building and 20% on reputation building. The objectives of marketing are 1) to achieve visibility, 2) create an image 3) obtain referrals 4) cross sell services to existing clients and 5) obtain new clients. Your plan may want to include activities for all or just some of these objectives.
Before deciding on what activities you want to do to develop new business, you need to know some information about where you have been and where you are now. Here is your assignment. In the next month spend time getting the answers to the questions listed. Put the answers on paper. This is an important part of the planning process. If you are not willing to do get this information, you need to question your commitment to creating a workable and successful plan to develop your practice.
QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ANSWER
You need to take an inventory of where you are now and where you have been. This is a generic list of questions and issues. Some of the items may not apply to all types of practice areas. A criminal lawyer may not answer the same questions as a transactional lawyer. However, with some modifications, this exercise can work for all solo and small firm practitioners in all types of practice areas.
Current Levels of Expertise
What type of practice or what type of firm do you have now?
What are your practice areas?
Do you have other areas of expertise and experience?
What are your strengths? What are your weaknesses?
In what legal areas have you been most and least successful?
Do you like the type of law that you practice?
Are their other areas of practice you would like to consider?
Are their areas of practice you would like to stop doing?
Are their areas of practice that are no longer as profitable as they once were?
Have some areas of your practice become too saturated with other practitioners?
What are Your Needs
What are your financial goals? How much additional revenue do you wish (or need ) to generate?
Will you be able to generate the additional work necessary to meet these financial goals and still maintain a high level or service?
Will bringing in more business create a need for additional staff?
What kind of practice would you like to have five years from now?
Do you want to work more or less hours within the next 5 years?
Who are Your Current Clients
What type of clients do you currently have? Classify them into groups such as practice area, age, location, occupation or other categories defined by your type of practice.
Is there a "type" of client that you serve most?
Which clients are most profitable?
Which clients are least profitable?
Which practice areas are the most and least profitable?
Which clients refer you business? Which clients have never referred you business and do you know why?
Unless you have a niche practice, which clients use you for a variety of services?
Do any of your clients come to you on a recurring basis? (This may not be appropriate for all practice areas.)
How did your current clients come to you?
Why did your clients choose you over other attorneys?
Which clients have you enjoyed working with most? Least? Why?
Have you recently lost clients? If yes, do you know why?
Other Questions and Issues
How are you viewed in the marketplace?
Who is your current competition? Is it local or statewide?
If you were to develop a new practice area, are there others in your area who also practice that type of law?
Can you expand your geographic boundaries to obtain clients in other parts of the state?
What type of firm do you want to be? What type of clients would you like to obtain? Either list the qualities of the clients your would like to have or specific clients you would like to represent.
What are your other business referrals? Who refers you the most business?
Who refers the most and least profitable business?
Have you ever referred business to other professionals who have never referred you business? If yes, why?
In which organizations are you currently active? From which organizations have you received any type of business? From which organizations have you received positive public relations?
List 12 activities that you have participated in within the past year that were for marketing purposes and which, if any, have resulted in some type of business.
You have one month to complete this assignment. You should be able to get much of the financial information from your time and billing package. You could have a staff person begin to gather the client information. Ideally in a small office you should have everyone participate in the process in some way. You could discuss some of the information at a brainstorming lunch.
Next month in Part 2, we will identify specific goals or outcomes for a period of time, what types of activities/tools/tasks must you use or engage in to make your plan work, help you budget your time and resources realistically. And determine a way to monitor your progress.
แสดงบทความที่มีป้ายกำกับ Law Firm แสดงบทความทั้งหมด
แสดงบทความที่มีป้ายกำกับ Law Firm แสดงบทความทั้งหมด
วันพฤหัสบดีที่ 16 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553
Dealing With the "Leadership Vacuum" in Law Firm Management
Dealing With the "Leadership Vacuum" in Law Firm Management
by Joel A. Rose
During this past year, a number of well established law firms of various sizes and specialties that reported "better than average" economic results experienced rapid and unanticipated reversals. These reversals occurred because partners who controlled significant amounts of client business departed to pursue "more lucrative long-term opportunities in other law firms" due to the real or perceived lack of appropriate leadership by lawyer management in their former firms.
Every law firm, regardless of size, needs leadership. Good law firm management cannot be achieved until all the partners agree to subordinate some degree of independence to a managing partner or an executive managing committee. The partners must strike a balance between their rights as owners and their responsibilities as citizens of the firm. They must relinquish some personal prerogatives in order to achieve the overall results that they would not be able to attain on their own.
In theory, all partners are created equal. By dint of partnership status they are accorded the same rights and privileges. As many firms discover, though, this is not the case in practice. Invariably, each partner has his or her own idea about how to perform the job, and partners exercise their authority accordingly.
If the firm is to establish a form of governace that will satisfy all of its members, the attorneys must first acknowledge the need for leadership. The designated leader, whether an individual or a management or executive committee, will not succeed until all attorneys in the firm recognize that the impetus for successful management is derived from the willingness of all firm members to be governed. The partners must also recognize that managing a firm, either as the managing partner or a member of a committee, is just as important and as difficult as performing client work.
In some firms, the leadership role is assumed easily and naturally, because the individual is either a founding partner or controls a significant client base. In firms in which the partners are relatively young and inexperienced, the process of "natural selection," as it were, may be somewhat more difficult, if not virtually impossible. In situations in which no partner surfaces as a natural leader or no one wants the job, the firm must take aggressive action if it wishes to grow and satisfy the professional, economic and personal objectives of its members.
Hard Decisions Needed
In any case, the firm must make some hard decisions about the kind of leadership that is required and what the members of willing to live with. Should the general partnership elect a managing partner? Should this individual be appointed by the management committee?
Sometimes the size of the firm will preclude this dilemma. The smaller firm is in a position to establish a democratic form of governance that includes all the partners in a leadership role. If this is not practical, the partners face a difficult choice. They risk setting up two power centers if the general partnership elects both the management committee and the managing partner. This will create great potential for dissension and divisiveness. To avoid this debacle, selection of the managing partner by the management committee is the preferable course of action.
What kind of person makes a good managing partner? Generally, lawyers are not recruited to a law firm on the basis of their interest or skills in management. They are rarely trained by the firm in management skills. Consequently, lawyers' skills and levels of interest in management are greatly varied.
Any management committee will include some attorneys who are good managers and some who are not. This should not be viewed as an obstacle. Management skills are not necessarily the only factors that qualify an attorney to serve on a management committee. It may be equally important to provide equitable representation on the committee to each of the groups of lawyers that constitute the law firm.
The requisites for leadership are, in this day and age, well known. The leader must garner respect and support, have clout and wield it when necessary. The leader's skills must combine judgment, timing and vision.
The managing partner must keep the objectives of the firm in proper perspective. The managing partner must be able to rise above the "self" and understand that the good of the firm must come first. The managing partner must be able to make decisions and have them stick. Perhaps most important, the managing partner must want to manage the firm.
Many partner want a great deal of "say"in firm operations, but stop short of following up on their advice or opinions with recognizable action. Such "management by debate" leads many management committees down a blind alley of endless discussions and meetings. It can be generally agreed that the members of the management committee and the managing partner, as lawyers, want primarily to practice law. The amount of time available for management is limited and must be used wisely.
Collaboration is the best way to generate ideas and options for managing the firm. In the most successful firms, much gets done by teams of partners pulling together. The firm, not the leader, becomes the star; the leader serves primarily as the one who articulates the firm's goals and plans for accomplishing its objectives.
There are some management functions, however, that should be performed by the management committee or the managing partner and should not be delegated. There are other tasks that may be performed by either the committee or the partner, but also may be performed by individual members of the management committee or other lawyers in the firm. The managing partner and the committee should be charged with those functions that require their specific talents and energy. In placing responsibility for other tasks, it is important to make certain that the management committee and the managing partner have the time to perform the functions that only they can perform.
Management Checklists
The following are some of the functions that the management committee should perform:
Monitoring the firm's economic performance.
Providing long-range planning and direction.
Making certain that systems are established and individuals are responsible for all the areas of the firm's management.
Making major decisions and recommendations to the firm in such areas as lawyer compensation, billing rates, opening of additional offices and entering new areas of specialization.
Communicating with the firm as a whole, so that the management committee has the benefit of the views of other lawyers and so that the other lawyers understand the decisions and programs that the management committee adopts.
The following are some of the functions that the managing partner should perform:
Maintaining the morale of the lawyers, as a group and individually.
Anticipating management needs and making recommendations for fulfilling them.
Supervising the administrator.
Making decisions concerning matters that do not warrant consideration by the management committee, such as implementation of personnel policy.
Implementing the management committee's decisions by informing the proper attorneys and by following up to see that the decisions have been implemented.
Coordinating all management activities.
Responsibility for the following functions may overlap, in that they can be performed by the managing partner, a member of the management committee or another lawyer:
Overseeing the firm's financial matters and reporting system, including preparation and monitoring of budgets, billing, collection, cash flow, analysis of management reporting for time and money and recommendations on investment of excess funds.
Overseeing lawyers' career development, including evaluation, training and general work assignments.
Overseeing legal assistants' career development, including evaluation, training and work assignments.
Investigating, evaluating and making recommendations to the management committee on special projects, such as acquiring senior lawyers, opening additional offices and specialization in new areas.
Overseeing firm facilities, particularly expansion or remodeling.
The following are suggested questions that a managing partner may use as a guide in determining whether his or her management practices and style of leadership effectively serve the firm.
Communication:
Are the firm's methods of internal communication functioning well?
Do all of the attorneys attend meetings, dinners or luncheons? Are they invited?
Does the firm use announcements or newsletters? Are the attorneys invited to contribute to committee reports?
Does the firm hold retreats to disseminate information or address special topics?
Does the firm provide the attorneys, particularly junior partners and associates, with adequate feedback?
Firm Policies:
Does the firm have an established policy concerning new clients?
Are the criteria for accepting or rejecting clients known to all the attorneys?
Does the firm have established criteria for hiring?
Does the firm conduct attorney evaluations on a regular basis? Are the evaluation criteria meaningful? Are attorneys informed of the results?
Are the criteria for becoming a partner or a member of the executive committee known? Are they reviewed on a periodic basis?
Has the firm established policies regarding nonbillable activities, such as pro bono work, client relations, community activity and firm administration?
Are the attorneys fully informed concerning the firm's billing policies?
Do the attorneys know the hourly rates of partners and associates, and the policy concerning expenses?
Have the attorneys been informed about the income-distribution structure for partners and associates?
Organization:
How are the departments organized? Are the areas of practice adequately staffed and supervised?
Are the attorneys aware of the functions of various committees?
Do any of the younger attorneys serve on committees? Does representation on committees reflect all firm matters?
How is committee membership determined? Who serves on the committees? How are they selected? What is their tenure?
Does the administrative staff support the attorneys' needs and requirements?
Is the firm's equipment and office technology up-to-date?
Decision-Making:
Do the attorneys participate in decision-making?
Are the attorneys involved in the billing process, particularly the individuals responsible for the client and for performing work on client matters?
Are the attorneys' views and input encouraged?
Are the attorneys informed about events and planning regarding the number of associates or paralegals to be hired? About department expansion or contraction? About major new matters?
In assessing his or her function, the managing partner should realize that attorneys' expectations regarding the practice of law may well be different from the expectations that attorneys held ten years ago. These expectations may have changed in regard to hours of work, specialization, income, risk, independence and ethics. Attorneys have a greater desire to know the reasons behind decisions and to participate in decision-making.
The managing partner might consider how the social, educational and economic backgrounds of the new crop of attorneys have changed, and how these changes may be reflected in their attitudes, needs and expectations. Ultimately, these changes will be reflected in the firm's recruiting activities, turnover, work product and fields of specialization.
In the final analysis, it is the work that binds and unifies the various components of the firm - that is, the attorneys. The prudent managing partner will recognize the need to chart a course that mediates between the requirements of the practice of law and the needs of those who perform the work.
by Joel A. Rose
During this past year, a number of well established law firms of various sizes and specialties that reported "better than average" economic results experienced rapid and unanticipated reversals. These reversals occurred because partners who controlled significant amounts of client business departed to pursue "more lucrative long-term opportunities in other law firms" due to the real or perceived lack of appropriate leadership by lawyer management in their former firms.
Every law firm, regardless of size, needs leadership. Good law firm management cannot be achieved until all the partners agree to subordinate some degree of independence to a managing partner or an executive managing committee. The partners must strike a balance between their rights as owners and their responsibilities as citizens of the firm. They must relinquish some personal prerogatives in order to achieve the overall results that they would not be able to attain on their own.
In theory, all partners are created equal. By dint of partnership status they are accorded the same rights and privileges. As many firms discover, though, this is not the case in practice. Invariably, each partner has his or her own idea about how to perform the job, and partners exercise their authority accordingly.
If the firm is to establish a form of governace that will satisfy all of its members, the attorneys must first acknowledge the need for leadership. The designated leader, whether an individual or a management or executive committee, will not succeed until all attorneys in the firm recognize that the impetus for successful management is derived from the willingness of all firm members to be governed. The partners must also recognize that managing a firm, either as the managing partner or a member of a committee, is just as important and as difficult as performing client work.
In some firms, the leadership role is assumed easily and naturally, because the individual is either a founding partner or controls a significant client base. In firms in which the partners are relatively young and inexperienced, the process of "natural selection," as it were, may be somewhat more difficult, if not virtually impossible. In situations in which no partner surfaces as a natural leader or no one wants the job, the firm must take aggressive action if it wishes to grow and satisfy the professional, economic and personal objectives of its members.
Hard Decisions Needed
In any case, the firm must make some hard decisions about the kind of leadership that is required and what the members of willing to live with. Should the general partnership elect a managing partner? Should this individual be appointed by the management committee?
Sometimes the size of the firm will preclude this dilemma. The smaller firm is in a position to establish a democratic form of governance that includes all the partners in a leadership role. If this is not practical, the partners face a difficult choice. They risk setting up two power centers if the general partnership elects both the management committee and the managing partner. This will create great potential for dissension and divisiveness. To avoid this debacle, selection of the managing partner by the management committee is the preferable course of action.
What kind of person makes a good managing partner? Generally, lawyers are not recruited to a law firm on the basis of their interest or skills in management. They are rarely trained by the firm in management skills. Consequently, lawyers' skills and levels of interest in management are greatly varied.
Any management committee will include some attorneys who are good managers and some who are not. This should not be viewed as an obstacle. Management skills are not necessarily the only factors that qualify an attorney to serve on a management committee. It may be equally important to provide equitable representation on the committee to each of the groups of lawyers that constitute the law firm.
The requisites for leadership are, in this day and age, well known. The leader must garner respect and support, have clout and wield it when necessary. The leader's skills must combine judgment, timing and vision.
The managing partner must keep the objectives of the firm in proper perspective. The managing partner must be able to rise above the "self" and understand that the good of the firm must come first. The managing partner must be able to make decisions and have them stick. Perhaps most important, the managing partner must want to manage the firm.
Many partner want a great deal of "say"in firm operations, but stop short of following up on their advice or opinions with recognizable action. Such "management by debate" leads many management committees down a blind alley of endless discussions and meetings. It can be generally agreed that the members of the management committee and the managing partner, as lawyers, want primarily to practice law. The amount of time available for management is limited and must be used wisely.
Collaboration is the best way to generate ideas and options for managing the firm. In the most successful firms, much gets done by teams of partners pulling together. The firm, not the leader, becomes the star; the leader serves primarily as the one who articulates the firm's goals and plans for accomplishing its objectives.
There are some management functions, however, that should be performed by the management committee or the managing partner and should not be delegated. There are other tasks that may be performed by either the committee or the partner, but also may be performed by individual members of the management committee or other lawyers in the firm. The managing partner and the committee should be charged with those functions that require their specific talents and energy. In placing responsibility for other tasks, it is important to make certain that the management committee and the managing partner have the time to perform the functions that only they can perform.
Management Checklists
The following are some of the functions that the management committee should perform:
Monitoring the firm's economic performance.
Providing long-range planning and direction.
Making certain that systems are established and individuals are responsible for all the areas of the firm's management.
Making major decisions and recommendations to the firm in such areas as lawyer compensation, billing rates, opening of additional offices and entering new areas of specialization.
Communicating with the firm as a whole, so that the management committee has the benefit of the views of other lawyers and so that the other lawyers understand the decisions and programs that the management committee adopts.
The following are some of the functions that the managing partner should perform:
Maintaining the morale of the lawyers, as a group and individually.
Anticipating management needs and making recommendations for fulfilling them.
Supervising the administrator.
Making decisions concerning matters that do not warrant consideration by the management committee, such as implementation of personnel policy.
Implementing the management committee's decisions by informing the proper attorneys and by following up to see that the decisions have been implemented.
Coordinating all management activities.
Responsibility for the following functions may overlap, in that they can be performed by the managing partner, a member of the management committee or another lawyer:
Overseeing the firm's financial matters and reporting system, including preparation and monitoring of budgets, billing, collection, cash flow, analysis of management reporting for time and money and recommendations on investment of excess funds.
Overseeing lawyers' career development, including evaluation, training and general work assignments.
Overseeing legal assistants' career development, including evaluation, training and work assignments.
Investigating, evaluating and making recommendations to the management committee on special projects, such as acquiring senior lawyers, opening additional offices and specialization in new areas.
Overseeing firm facilities, particularly expansion or remodeling.
The following are suggested questions that a managing partner may use as a guide in determining whether his or her management practices and style of leadership effectively serve the firm.
Communication:
Are the firm's methods of internal communication functioning well?
Do all of the attorneys attend meetings, dinners or luncheons? Are they invited?
Does the firm use announcements or newsletters? Are the attorneys invited to contribute to committee reports?
Does the firm hold retreats to disseminate information or address special topics?
Does the firm provide the attorneys, particularly junior partners and associates, with adequate feedback?
Firm Policies:
Does the firm have an established policy concerning new clients?
Are the criteria for accepting or rejecting clients known to all the attorneys?
Does the firm have established criteria for hiring?
Does the firm conduct attorney evaluations on a regular basis? Are the evaluation criteria meaningful? Are attorneys informed of the results?
Are the criteria for becoming a partner or a member of the executive committee known? Are they reviewed on a periodic basis?
Has the firm established policies regarding nonbillable activities, such as pro bono work, client relations, community activity and firm administration?
Are the attorneys fully informed concerning the firm's billing policies?
Do the attorneys know the hourly rates of partners and associates, and the policy concerning expenses?
Have the attorneys been informed about the income-distribution structure for partners and associates?
Organization:
How are the departments organized? Are the areas of practice adequately staffed and supervised?
Are the attorneys aware of the functions of various committees?
Do any of the younger attorneys serve on committees? Does representation on committees reflect all firm matters?
How is committee membership determined? Who serves on the committees? How are they selected? What is their tenure?
Does the administrative staff support the attorneys' needs and requirements?
Is the firm's equipment and office technology up-to-date?
Decision-Making:
Do the attorneys participate in decision-making?
Are the attorneys involved in the billing process, particularly the individuals responsible for the client and for performing work on client matters?
Are the attorneys' views and input encouraged?
Are the attorneys informed about events and planning regarding the number of associates or paralegals to be hired? About department expansion or contraction? About major new matters?
In assessing his or her function, the managing partner should realize that attorneys' expectations regarding the practice of law may well be different from the expectations that attorneys held ten years ago. These expectations may have changed in regard to hours of work, specialization, income, risk, independence and ethics. Attorneys have a greater desire to know the reasons behind decisions and to participate in decision-making.
The managing partner might consider how the social, educational and economic backgrounds of the new crop of attorneys have changed, and how these changes may be reflected in their attitudes, needs and expectations. Ultimately, these changes will be reflected in the firm's recruiting activities, turnover, work product and fields of specialization.
In the final analysis, it is the work that binds and unifies the various components of the firm - that is, the attorneys. The prudent managing partner will recognize the need to chart a course that mediates between the requirements of the practice of law and the needs of those who perform the work.
วันพุธที่ 15 ธันวาคม พ.ศ. 2553
Effectively Manage Law Firm Business Development
Effectively Manage Law Firm Business Development
By establishing credibility, building your brand, and
creating a buzz, your firm will effectively retain current
clients and attract new prospects.
By: Gina F. Rubel, Esq.
President
Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
Phone: 215-340-0480
www.FuriaRubel.com
Gina@furiarubelPR.com
In today’s legal market, most attorneys are fighting for the same piece of the
client pie. Whether you are a solo personal injury practitioner or a partner at a
multi-million dollar defense firm, client acquisition and retention is the key to
success. This article touches on some long-standing techniques for developing
your client portfolio without breaking the bank or crossing the line of the ABA
Model Code of Professional Conduct.
Know the Limits
Being mindful of ethical considerations in legal marketing and public relations
communications is important for every attorney. It is equally important for law
school curriculums to teach students the dos and don’ts for business marketing
communications. Once you know the limits, then you can execute productive
business development techniques without worry.
The ABA Model Rules
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are meant to serve as a
guide to legal marketing communications. Each state’s Bar has adopted
either the ABA Model Rules or its own version – oftentimes more
restrictive. All reflect the attitude that lawyer advertising must be tasteful,
honest, and objective, must not compare services with those of others
unless the comparison is substantiated, and may not express superiority.
Thus, never call yourself an expert!
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Since each state’s rules vary, you should become familiar with the rules
that apply to you. A good source is the American Bar Association’s Web
site that tracks state rules, updates and changes. The site URL is
www.abanet.org/adrules.
Establish Credibility
Much of today’s business comes from direct referrals by other attorneys or
clients. By positioning yourself as an expert (not calling yourself an “expert”) in a
particular area of the law, your peers and clients will identify you as an expert
and refer you business. Here are some tactics you can use to establish yourself
with both the legal and consumer markets.
Write articles and white papers. Writing articles and white papers is a
premier way to establish yourself and/or your firm as expert in a particular
practice area without calling yourself an “expert.” Such documents should
be sent to appropriate trade or consumer magazines and newspapers for
publication. Once published, you should obtain permission to post the
article or a link to it on your Web site. Then, purchase reprints to send to
targeted clients, prospects and referring counsel.
Speak at industry conferences / present continuing legal education.
From the American Bar Association to state bar associations, industry
conferences provide a forum for attorneys to showcase their expertise and
establish themselves among their peers. Few attorneys are well versed in
every area of the law. Attorneys often look to their colleagues for direction
and education when presented with potential claims in practice areas they
are unfamiliar with. By effectively presenting at conferences and teaching
continuing legal education courses, you not only establish credibility
among your peers, you open the door to many new sources of referrals.
Author Op-Eds. Opinion Editorial (Op-Ed) articles contribute significantly
to increasing visibility, name recognition and credibility. They are a cost-
effective and underutilized way to reach newspaper and Web site
readership, especially when responding to topics that are controversial,
legislatively motivated, or public policy-based. This will often lead to
telephone queries by the readership with potential cases and clients.
Create a series of tip sheets or newsletters for your target audience.
Create newsletters or tip sheets that are relevant to your client base. Send
the tip sheet to clients and prospects via mail, fax or e-mail (if your
clients/prospects opt-in) to keep your law firm’s name in their mind and to
build name recognition. Make the newsletters or tip sheets available on
your Web site and factor them into your Web site marketing. These
communications position you as knowledgeable in your field of practice
and will often generate calls from current and prospective clients.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Be an active member of industry associations and local
organizations. Active membership and participation in your local bar
association is extremely important. Members and leaders look for places
to refer business. They know who is considered the best in the industry.
Such participation builds credibility and name recognition in the legal
industry.
It is also important to participate in the activities of professional
associations that share a like interest with your line of practice. For
example, if your firm is handles criminal defense work, members of your
firm should be actively involved with community rehabilitation programs.
What better place to give something back to the community and to
establish yourself as caring about the issues. Inevitably, you will be
referred to a member of that community in need of counsel. Remember,
word-of-mouth is a key factor to the success of many law firms.
Build Your Brand
Your firm name is a brand just like Coca-Cola, Ford, Microsoft, and Disney.
Therefore, your firm name should send a message. Think to yourself for a
moment – if you have a client interested in pursuing a consumer class action
(assuming your firm does not handle these matters), where would you refer the
client? What firm is the first to pop into your mind? The firm that has branded
itself as a consumer class action law firm – of course – with a name that is easy
to recognize and remember.
Your name is your brand. Effective firm naming is likely the single most
important tactic to achieve effective corporate branding. From small
boutique shops to century-old organizations, law firms across the country
are changing their names to better brand their organizations and draw
greater name recognition to their services. These shorter names are more
memorable, catchy and distinctive and do not necessarily abandon the
long-standing professional codes and traditions of using partners’ names.
The company name, logo and tagline should all convey a consistent
message. That message should then follow through with a uniform look
and feel on your business cards, Web site, newsletters, marketing
materials, etc. In whatever area of the law you practice, you want
attorneys and consumers in your geographic area to say, “I know a firm
that can handle this matter. That’s their specialty.”
Create a great Web site. In today’s day and age, if a company does not
have a Web site, they are considered “small potatoes.” A great Web site
can give you the look and feel of a large company with contact information
at the fingertips of millions of people. The size and budget of your law firm
should determine the breadth and depth of your Web site. But regardless
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
of the budget, your Web site should convey your corporate brand and tell
viewers who you are, how you can be contacted, and that you specialize
in a particular area of the law.
It is equally important to employ an expert in Web site marketing (search
engine optimization). If your Web site is not listed in search engine
databases, you will likely never be found on the World Wide Web. Just like
a book has to be in the library to be in the index, your Web site must be
registered properly to be located when searching the Internet.
Identify on and off-line business listing opportunities. Update your
company’s business listings yearly. Make sure you are listed in your local
directory of lawyers, the White Pages and others. In addition, many on-line
listings are free and the more places your firm is listed, the more hits you
will get on your Web site.
Be cautious when paying for listing your business on Web sites that
guarantee hits. Ask for trend reports, references from other firms listed on
the Web site, Web site marketing tactics, return on investment (ROI)
analysis, etc. It is important for the listing Web site to get hits but it is
equally important for those hits to translate into targeted and appropriate
traffic for your firm’s Web site.
Advertise in the Yellow Pages. According to the Yellow Pages
Publishers Association’s estimates for 2000, lawyer-advertising
expenditures in domestic printed Yellow Pages were estimated at $809
million. The “attorneys” category is the highest revenue category for
Yellow Page directory publishers.
But to be successful, a firm’s Yellow Page ad must be well thought out,
command attention, convey a single focus, be eye-captivating,
differentiate itself, look professional and address the need of the audience.
Remember, if someone is searching for a lawyer in the Yellow Pages, he
already needs an attorney. It’s much different than trying to advertise
something a consumer might want but is not particularly in the market to
buy. An excellent guide to creating winning Yellow Page ads is, Effective
Yellow Pages Advertising for Lawyers, by Kerry Randall, published by the
Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association.
Create a Buzz
To create a buzz means to keep your firm name in the media positively and
consistently. The more consumers and industry peers hear your name, the more
likely they will remember you when searching for counsel or referring cases.
Creating a buzz requires constant attention to what is happening in your law firm.
Often, attorneys are so focused on client acquisition, retention, and satisfaction
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
that they forget to tell the world what’s happening internally. Today, many large
firms across the country employ a chief marketing officer or a director of
corporate communications. Small firms tend to outsource their communications
programs. Nonetheless, small and large firms hire these individuals to focus
solely on telling the world what is happening at the firm via strategically planned
marketing and communications programs. Here are some tactics used to create
a buzz.
Announce new business wins. Oftentimes, local newspapers, business
journals and industry publications print articles about new business wins. It
is as simple as sending a press release to the target audience. This
should especially be used in the case of class actions, public interest
cases, union representation, large corporation representation, etc. Make it
part of your practice to get the permission of the client first. Often the client
will request anonymity but many will permit your firm to announce
representation.
Announce substantial verdicts, non-confidential settlements and
precedent setting cases. There are many local, regional, national and
trade publications that report substantial verdicts, non-confidential
settlements and precedent setting cases. The area of practice should
determine if a verdict or settlement is substantial. In addition, if a case has
helped to establish precedent, let the legal world know. This not only
creates a buzz about your firm, it also establishes your credibility among
your peers. Some national publications/publishers that you should target
are National Law Journal, Lawyers Weekly USA, Mealeys Publications
and American Lawyer (American Lawyer Media), among others.
Announce new hires, promotions, appointments and successful
election outcomes. Local newspapers, business journals and industry
publications will print stories about new hires, promotions, appointments
and successful election outcomes. When writing the press release, focus
on something exciting about the person (awards, accomplishments, civic
involvement, etc.). Send the press release via mail with a 5” x 7” black and
white photo or via e-mail with the photo attached. (Be sure that the editor
will accept photo attachments first.) This type of press release keeps your
company name in the media and has the added benefit of creating good
will among your employees.
Sponsor events and programs. No matter what your law firm practice
area or interest, sponsorship opportunities abound. From sporting events
to ethnic festivals, bar foundation functions to nonprofit needs,
sponsorships generate quality direct exposure with your target audience.
Your firm should pursue sponsorship opportunities as a marketing
expenditure. Look at opportunities presented to the firm and create
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
potential sponsorships on your own. For example, if there is a local
nonprofit organization whose membership and audience are the type of
clients that you want to reach, offer to sponsor an educational page on
their Web site or an educational brochure. Be sure to include non-biased,
educational messages in the content with your firm’s name and contact
information should the reader have questions.
Sponsorships can be extremely rewarding to your firm. They need to be
strategically planned and creatively executed to be successful.
Taking Your Piece of the Pie
There are many tactics you can employ to create credibility for yourself as a legal
practitioner and for your law firm in general. Be creative and think about how you
can effectively reach your target audience without spending exorbitant amounts
of money on broadcast advertising.
Think about where your customers eat, what they read, how they process
information, and where they go for advice or help. Once you can answer these
questions, execute tactics designed to increase awareness, build your brand,
create an ongoing buzz, and position your leadership as “experts” in your
industry. Test new ways to reach your target audience without being offensive or
violating the Model Rules of professional conduct that apply to you.
But always remember, by consistently and effectively executing the tactics
outlined here, you can increase your bottom line for years to come.
Author Biography: Founder and president of Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
(www.furiarubel.com), Gina Furia Rubel, Esq., is a Philadelphia lawyer with more
than a decade of integrated communications experience in the legal industry.
After practicing law for several years, Gina focused on her passion for proactive,
integrated communication for the legal, healthcare, and nonprofit industries. Gina
has developed and executed integrated strategic communications plans for large
and small firms; supervised crisis communications, risk management and media
relations for internationally publicized death penalty trials, planned events for
major corporate, nonprofit, and philanthropic gatherings; and implemented
programs that include corporate branding, publicity, special events, Web site
development, and association relations.
Gina is an active member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Justinian
Society, the Philadelphia Public Relations Association, the Public Relations
Society of America, justCommunity, Inc., and the American Heart Association,
among others. She served on a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary
Board Hearing Committee for six years, acting as the chairperson for three years.
She has published articles in Lawyers Weekly USA, The Legal Intelligencer,
Philadelphia Lawyers Magazine and MediaMap.com and is a frequent lecturer at
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
area universities and high schools. She is a 1991 graduate of Drexel University
and a 1994 graduate of Widener University School of Law. Her current clients
include Sheller Ludwig & Badey, Anapol Schwartz, DeMarco & DeMarco, Furia &
Turner, and Kenneth Kitay & Associates, among others.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights
By establishing credibility, building your brand, and
creating a buzz, your firm will effectively retain current
clients and attract new prospects.
By: Gina F. Rubel, Esq.
President
Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
Phone: 215-340-0480
www.FuriaRubel.com
Gina@furiarubelPR.com
In today’s legal market, most attorneys are fighting for the same piece of the
client pie. Whether you are a solo personal injury practitioner or a partner at a
multi-million dollar defense firm, client acquisition and retention is the key to
success. This article touches on some long-standing techniques for developing
your client portfolio without breaking the bank or crossing the line of the ABA
Model Code of Professional Conduct.
Know the Limits
Being mindful of ethical considerations in legal marketing and public relations
communications is important for every attorney. It is equally important for law
school curriculums to teach students the dos and don’ts for business marketing
communications. Once you know the limits, then you can execute productive
business development techniques without worry.
The ABA Model Rules
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct are meant to serve as a
guide to legal marketing communications. Each state’s Bar has adopted
either the ABA Model Rules or its own version – oftentimes more
restrictive. All reflect the attitude that lawyer advertising must be tasteful,
honest, and objective, must not compare services with those of others
unless the comparison is substantiated, and may not express superiority.
Thus, never call yourself an expert!
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Since each state’s rules vary, you should become familiar with the rules
that apply to you. A good source is the American Bar Association’s Web
site that tracks state rules, updates and changes. The site URL is
www.abanet.org/adrules.
Establish Credibility
Much of today’s business comes from direct referrals by other attorneys or
clients. By positioning yourself as an expert (not calling yourself an “expert”) in a
particular area of the law, your peers and clients will identify you as an expert
and refer you business. Here are some tactics you can use to establish yourself
with both the legal and consumer markets.
Write articles and white papers. Writing articles and white papers is a
premier way to establish yourself and/or your firm as expert in a particular
practice area without calling yourself an “expert.” Such documents should
be sent to appropriate trade or consumer magazines and newspapers for
publication. Once published, you should obtain permission to post the
article or a link to it on your Web site. Then, purchase reprints to send to
targeted clients, prospects and referring counsel.
Speak at industry conferences / present continuing legal education.
From the American Bar Association to state bar associations, industry
conferences provide a forum for attorneys to showcase their expertise and
establish themselves among their peers. Few attorneys are well versed in
every area of the law. Attorneys often look to their colleagues for direction
and education when presented with potential claims in practice areas they
are unfamiliar with. By effectively presenting at conferences and teaching
continuing legal education courses, you not only establish credibility
among your peers, you open the door to many new sources of referrals.
Author Op-Eds. Opinion Editorial (Op-Ed) articles contribute significantly
to increasing visibility, name recognition and credibility. They are a cost-
effective and underutilized way to reach newspaper and Web site
readership, especially when responding to topics that are controversial,
legislatively motivated, or public policy-based. This will often lead to
telephone queries by the readership with potential cases and clients.
Create a series of tip sheets or newsletters for your target audience.
Create newsletters or tip sheets that are relevant to your client base. Send
the tip sheet to clients and prospects via mail, fax or e-mail (if your
clients/prospects opt-in) to keep your law firm’s name in their mind and to
build name recognition. Make the newsletters or tip sheets available on
your Web site and factor them into your Web site marketing. These
communications position you as knowledgeable in your field of practice
and will often generate calls from current and prospective clients.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Be an active member of industry associations and local
organizations. Active membership and participation in your local bar
association is extremely important. Members and leaders look for places
to refer business. They know who is considered the best in the industry.
Such participation builds credibility and name recognition in the legal
industry.
It is also important to participate in the activities of professional
associations that share a like interest with your line of practice. For
example, if your firm is handles criminal defense work, members of your
firm should be actively involved with community rehabilitation programs.
What better place to give something back to the community and to
establish yourself as caring about the issues. Inevitably, you will be
referred to a member of that community in need of counsel. Remember,
word-of-mouth is a key factor to the success of many law firms.
Build Your Brand
Your firm name is a brand just like Coca-Cola, Ford, Microsoft, and Disney.
Therefore, your firm name should send a message. Think to yourself for a
moment – if you have a client interested in pursuing a consumer class action
(assuming your firm does not handle these matters), where would you refer the
client? What firm is the first to pop into your mind? The firm that has branded
itself as a consumer class action law firm – of course – with a name that is easy
to recognize and remember.
Your name is your brand. Effective firm naming is likely the single most
important tactic to achieve effective corporate branding. From small
boutique shops to century-old organizations, law firms across the country
are changing their names to better brand their organizations and draw
greater name recognition to their services. These shorter names are more
memorable, catchy and distinctive and do not necessarily abandon the
long-standing professional codes and traditions of using partners’ names.
The company name, logo and tagline should all convey a consistent
message. That message should then follow through with a uniform look
and feel on your business cards, Web site, newsletters, marketing
materials, etc. In whatever area of the law you practice, you want
attorneys and consumers in your geographic area to say, “I know a firm
that can handle this matter. That’s their specialty.”
Create a great Web site. In today’s day and age, if a company does not
have a Web site, they are considered “small potatoes.” A great Web site
can give you the look and feel of a large company with contact information
at the fingertips of millions of people. The size and budget of your law firm
should determine the breadth and depth of your Web site. But regardless
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
of the budget, your Web site should convey your corporate brand and tell
viewers who you are, how you can be contacted, and that you specialize
in a particular area of the law.
It is equally important to employ an expert in Web site marketing (search
engine optimization). If your Web site is not listed in search engine
databases, you will likely never be found on the World Wide Web. Just like
a book has to be in the library to be in the index, your Web site must be
registered properly to be located when searching the Internet.
Identify on and off-line business listing opportunities. Update your
company’s business listings yearly. Make sure you are listed in your local
directory of lawyers, the White Pages and others. In addition, many on-line
listings are free and the more places your firm is listed, the more hits you
will get on your Web site.
Be cautious when paying for listing your business on Web sites that
guarantee hits. Ask for trend reports, references from other firms listed on
the Web site, Web site marketing tactics, return on investment (ROI)
analysis, etc. It is important for the listing Web site to get hits but it is
equally important for those hits to translate into targeted and appropriate
traffic for your firm’s Web site.
Advertise in the Yellow Pages. According to the Yellow Pages
Publishers Association’s estimates for 2000, lawyer-advertising
expenditures in domestic printed Yellow Pages were estimated at $809
million. The “attorneys” category is the highest revenue category for
Yellow Page directory publishers.
But to be successful, a firm’s Yellow Page ad must be well thought out,
command attention, convey a single focus, be eye-captivating,
differentiate itself, look professional and address the need of the audience.
Remember, if someone is searching for a lawyer in the Yellow Pages, he
already needs an attorney. It’s much different than trying to advertise
something a consumer might want but is not particularly in the market to
buy. An excellent guide to creating winning Yellow Page ads is, Effective
Yellow Pages Advertising for Lawyers, by Kerry Randall, published by the
Law Practice Management Section of the American Bar Association.
Create a Buzz
To create a buzz means to keep your firm name in the media positively and
consistently. The more consumers and industry peers hear your name, the more
likely they will remember you when searching for counsel or referring cases.
Creating a buzz requires constant attention to what is happening in your law firm.
Often, attorneys are so focused on client acquisition, retention, and satisfaction
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
that they forget to tell the world what’s happening internally. Today, many large
firms across the country employ a chief marketing officer or a director of
corporate communications. Small firms tend to outsource their communications
programs. Nonetheless, small and large firms hire these individuals to focus
solely on telling the world what is happening at the firm via strategically planned
marketing and communications programs. Here are some tactics used to create
a buzz.
Announce new business wins. Oftentimes, local newspapers, business
journals and industry publications print articles about new business wins. It
is as simple as sending a press release to the target audience. This
should especially be used in the case of class actions, public interest
cases, union representation, large corporation representation, etc. Make it
part of your practice to get the permission of the client first. Often the client
will request anonymity but many will permit your firm to announce
representation.
Announce substantial verdicts, non-confidential settlements and
precedent setting cases. There are many local, regional, national and
trade publications that report substantial verdicts, non-confidential
settlements and precedent setting cases. The area of practice should
determine if a verdict or settlement is substantial. In addition, if a case has
helped to establish precedent, let the legal world know. This not only
creates a buzz about your firm, it also establishes your credibility among
your peers. Some national publications/publishers that you should target
are National Law Journal, Lawyers Weekly USA, Mealeys Publications
and American Lawyer (American Lawyer Media), among others.
Announce new hires, promotions, appointments and successful
election outcomes. Local newspapers, business journals and industry
publications will print stories about new hires, promotions, appointments
and successful election outcomes. When writing the press release, focus
on something exciting about the person (awards, accomplishments, civic
involvement, etc.). Send the press release via mail with a 5” x 7” black and
white photo or via e-mail with the photo attached. (Be sure that the editor
will accept photo attachments first.) This type of press release keeps your
company name in the media and has the added benefit of creating good
will among your employees.
Sponsor events and programs. No matter what your law firm practice
area or interest, sponsorship opportunities abound. From sporting events
to ethnic festivals, bar foundation functions to nonprofit needs,
sponsorships generate quality direct exposure with your target audience.
Your firm should pursue sponsorship opportunities as a marketing
expenditure. Look at opportunities presented to the firm and create
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
potential sponsorships on your own. For example, if there is a local
nonprofit organization whose membership and audience are the type of
clients that you want to reach, offer to sponsor an educational page on
their Web site or an educational brochure. Be sure to include non-biased,
educational messages in the content with your firm’s name and contact
information should the reader have questions.
Sponsorships can be extremely rewarding to your firm. They need to be
strategically planned and creatively executed to be successful.
Taking Your Piece of the Pie
There are many tactics you can employ to create credibility for yourself as a legal
practitioner and for your law firm in general. Be creative and think about how you
can effectively reach your target audience without spending exorbitant amounts
of money on broadcast advertising.
Think about where your customers eat, what they read, how they process
information, and where they go for advice or help. Once you can answer these
questions, execute tactics designed to increase awareness, build your brand,
create an ongoing buzz, and position your leadership as “experts” in your
industry. Test new ways to reach your target audience without being offensive or
violating the Model Rules of professional conduct that apply to you.
But always remember, by consistently and effectively executing the tactics
outlined here, you can increase your bottom line for years to come.
Author Biography: Founder and president of Furia Rubel Communications, Inc.
(www.furiarubel.com), Gina Furia Rubel, Esq., is a Philadelphia lawyer with more
than a decade of integrated communications experience in the legal industry.
After practicing law for several years, Gina focused on her passion for proactive,
integrated communication for the legal, healthcare, and nonprofit industries. Gina
has developed and executed integrated strategic communications plans for large
and small firms; supervised crisis communications, risk management and media
relations for internationally publicized death penalty trials, planned events for
major corporate, nonprofit, and philanthropic gatherings; and implemented
programs that include corporate branding, publicity, special events, Web site
development, and association relations.
Gina is an active member of the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Justinian
Society, the Philadelphia Public Relations Association, the Public Relations
Society of America, justCommunity, Inc., and the American Heart Association,
among others. She served on a Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Disciplinary
Board Hearing Committee for six years, acting as the chairperson for three years.
She has published articles in Lawyers Weekly USA, The Legal Intelligencer,
Philadelphia Lawyers Magazine and MediaMap.com and is a frequent lecturer at
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
area universities and high schools. She is a 1991 graduate of Drexel University
and a 1994 graduate of Widener University School of Law. Her current clients
include Sheller Ludwig & Badey, Anapol Schwartz, DeMarco & DeMarco, Furia &
Turner, and Kenneth Kitay & Associates, among others.
Copyright © 2003 Furia Rubel Communications, Inc. All rights
Are Law Firms Manageable?
After spending 25 years saying that all professions are similar and can learn from each other, I’m now ready to make a concession: Law firms are different.
The ways of thinking and behaving that help lawyers excel in their profession may be the very things that limit what they can achieve as firms. Management challenges occur not in spite of lawyers’ intelligence and training, but because of them.
Among the ways that legal training and practice keep lawyers from effectively functioning in groups are
“Most partners were recognized and rewarded for being the smartest person in the class or the most accomplished. They have rarely experienced or understood the power of succeeding as part of a larger group or team. Their focus tends to be selfish and self-serving, even narcissistic. The result is that the firm resources are squandered and poorly used, clients don’t get the best lawyers assigned to their files, and firms are less profitable. This selfishness also leads to a shortsighted approach to decision making that inhibits long-range success because investments of time or money that don’t yield immediate results are rarely made.”
It is important to note that commercial benefits do not come simply from believing in or encouraging these principles but from actually achieving an organization where partner behavior is always consistent with them. When this is the case, less time is wasted in internal negotiations and posturing, strategies are implemented, and true teamwork results. Partners allow others to make decisions on their behalf or refer work to each other across the boundaries of practice groups and location because they can be confident that the other person will make decisions using the same values and principles that they would themselves use.
Law firms appear unable to achieve this level of ideological consistency. They will buy into principles—firms can have very high ideals as long as they remain ideals—but they have difficulty with the concept of enforcement. Firms are seemingly willing to adopt strategies and statements of values and mission, but are usually unwilling to specify what the penalty would be for noncompliance. Not surprisingly, that rarely results in effective implementation.
There is a reason for this. As a partner in an eminent U.S. firm points out, “Lawyers raised in the common-law tradition are trained to have a deep suspicion of overarching principles. The essence of the common-law approach is that decisions are made incrementally, always leaving open the possibility that the next case could be treated completely differently.”
In my consulting work I have repeatedly advocated a system of help and coaching for partners who fail to meet the firm’s standards. If coaching fails to bring a partner up to the firm’s standards after a fair and reasonable amount of time, the partner is asked to leave. This is, in fact, close to the system that firms employ with respect to partners who fail to hit financial targets such as billable hours.
However, the point I keep trying to make is that if a firm wishes to excel in other areas, such as client service, collaboration, or associate supervision, the same process should apply. The response is predictable. Most law firms say that the idea of tackling a rainmaker on these “soft” issues is unrealistic, idealistic, uncommercial, and suicidal. In vain I point out that these standards are what firms already preach in their client and recruiting brochures and claim as their values.
While a majority of firms will vote to proclaim standards, they will usually not vote to enforce them. Indeed, the signs are that they vigorously prefer the opposite: Law firms have a proliferating plethora of rules, not functioning principles, because they don’t or won’t trust that their partners will adhere to the values, standards, and principles that they agreed upon. So firms end up with a mishmash of bureaucratic red tape in the hope that mandatory processes will achieve compliance when adherence to common values does not.
As many researchers have shown, lawyers score very low in the areas of intimacy skills and sociability. They tend to prefer role-to-role interactions with people, inside and outside the firm, rather than eagerly seeking out person-to-person connections. This doesn’t mean they don’t like people. It just means that, statistically speaking, lawyers prefer focusing on the job at hand rather than investing in relationships with those they are working with (other partners or associates) or for (clients).
This can have unfortunate, if unintended, consequences. Consider this e-mail, which I recently received from Marein Smits, a Dutch lawyer:
“At your recent seminar you made fun of me because I laughed at the idea of being genuinely interested in the industry and business of the people who are my clients. Rightly so: My laughing was cynical… The first thing you learn when you become a lawyer is not to care. The legally sound judgment, the intellectual sparkle, that is what counts. The personal, the emotional, what is right: Throw it away, because it will taint your professionalism. ‘Do not get involved’ is the credo.”
A major rainmaker once pointed out to me, “I can’t convince my partners that this is all about human beings, that you market most successfully by showing an interest in the client as a person. My partners really don’t want to express that level of intimacy with anyone at work.” This lack of intimacy affects not only marketing and client relations, but also the way in which partners deal with each other and how firms are managed.
Rather than describing a highly interpersonal approach to coaching and helping each other succeed, the term “management” has come in many firms to mean a cold, detached, analytical approach to business. Financial scorecards are put in place, and everyone is told (implicitly or explicitly), “Here’s what you will be measured on; see you at the end of the year!” They are not helped to achieve, merely rewarded if they do, and they live in fear of what might happen if they do not. This can achieve the goal of getting everyone to work harder, but it comes at a significant price in terms of partner morale and cohesion. Help, teamwork, and mutual support are often absent, since they depend on personal interactions. Instead, there is a system of measures and rewards.
While this approach is the one preferred by many partners (and many firms) it inherently limits creation of a strategically responsive organization. In these days of ever-accelerating partner and associate mobility, a firm tied together only by measures and rewards will be inherently unstable.
There are signs that a few firms are recognizing the importance of this issue. Says one managing partner: “The idea has slowly taken hold in our firm that one should deal with people as people, show warmth and empathy, and build personal relationships with others in the firm … My leadership style has evolved over the years from trying to be comprehensive and logical to relying more on developing personal rapport and trying to motivate people.” This insight might be gaining ground. But the behavior inside many law firms has yet to catch up.
In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.
Frequently, this leads managing partners, committee chairs, and practice group leaders to substantially overinvest in decision making. They want to be armed in advance with a lengthy memo about every decision so they can dump it in the lap of the complainer as part of fending off the attack.
Another common management strategy is to keep all proposals ambiguous, so that there is nothing specific to be attacked. As a result, law firms have a remarkable propensity for half measures, launching poorly specified programs with minimal chances of success. A common law firm dialogue is as follows: Let’s have client service teams! (All agree.) What do we mean by such teams? (We don’t want to say yet.) What shall their responsibilities be? (That’s to be worked out.) What are the obligations of team members to each other? (We’ll let them figure it out.) Combine all this with the obligation to resolve issues through committees, and you have a recipe for business constipation.
This is not necessarily a problem for lawyers. My own attorney pointed out, “You are taught in law school that there are no right answers. We are actively trained to be nondecisive and are comfortable with a lack of closure.”
When lawyers reason with each other, the primary objectives are not necessarily logic, consistency, reasonableness, or fairness. In their professional practice, whether in trial or deal-making, many lawyers are more frequently rewarded for persuasiveness, rhetoric, verbal agility, and point scoring. These habits of a professional lifetime readily spill over into internal firm discussions.
Lawyers also have a strange view of the concept of risk. In any other business, an idea that was likely to work much of the time would be eagerly explored. This is not necessarily the case with lawyers. If one partner says, “This works in the vast majority of cases,” you can be sure that another will say, “Maybe, but I can construct a hypothetical scenario where it will fail to work. That makes it risky.” Probabilities do not seem to influence the discussion, only possibilities. There is no greater condemnation in legal discourse than to describe something as risky. Contracts, deals, and court cases must be bulletproof, not risky.
In other businesses, innovative thinking and action are considered a primary requirement for success. Companies eagerly search for strategic ideas and initiatives that their competitors have not discovered.
Lawyers are usually different. Presented with a new business idea, the first thing they ask is, “Which other law firms are doing this?” Unless it can be shown that the idea has been implemented by other law firms, lawyers are skeptical about whether the idea applies to their world. If everyone has these problems, they can’t be so bad, the thinking goes. As long as we are no worse than anyone else, we don’t need to change! It’s hardly a recipe for a strategic advantage.
A persuasive case can be made that lawyers will not change, because times are good and partners (and associates, for that matter) earn a lot of money. However, the question always arises as to how the money is being made. Many law firms have discovered that you can truly make a lot of money if you work everybody very, very hard and really slash your costs and don’t care about how people—partners, associates, or staff—feel about their work lives.
While that’s one approach to riches, it can be shown (as in my book Practice What You Preach) that it is not the best or most sustainable approach to riches. “Let’s succeed by working more hours with ever-decreasing amounts of support” is not the most sophisticated piece of business thinking I have ever heard. The answer, for firms that choose to pursue it, lies not in ever-more-sophisticated (and tough) business management tools, but in a head-on confrontation with the issues of trust, values, interpersonal behavior, and decision-making logic that I have explored here.
If firms are to deliver on the visions they have set for themselves, they must address such issues as what behavior partners have a right to expect from each other, what the real minimum standards and values are, and how common values and standards can actually be attained, not just preached.
I have written about these topics extensively before and will not repeat either the arguments or the advice here. (My past writings are available on my website, davidmaister.com.) Suffice it to say that unless law firms undergo a cultural revolution, not just minor changes, most will not be able to achieve their ambitions. Dysfunctional behavior by partners, currently not only tolerated but vigorously celebrated, will prevent firms from functioning as they desire.
There is some hope, because what has been reported here are common tendencies, not ironclad laws. There are firms that are exceptional, singular counterexamples to the propositions explored here, and they are tackling head-on the core issues of culture, trust, and partner behavior. On the other hand, many other firms are doing the very things that will prevent them from creating the truly collaborative organizations their lawyers say that they want.
One of the central things we know about trust and collaboration is that they come mostly from repeated interactions between people who have not only a history together, but also the certainty of a future together. Trust comes from relationships and the expectation of continuing relationships. Over time, as they interact with each other, they as partners, practice groups, and offices may actually come to trust each other.
Unfortunately, in many of today’s firms that have been cobbled together from lateral hires and newly merged practices, the personal history that forms the basis of trust is often missing, as is the confidence that everyone will be practicing together for a long time. In many firms, even solidly successful partners live in fear that they will be among the next group of partners to be “let go.”
In such an environment, the natural evolution of trust may be difficult, if not impossible. Instead, what firms need, literally, is a constitutional convention where their lawyers draft the explicit, basic law that is going to govern their firms—the precise behaviors, rules, and principles that will determine what partners have a right to expect from each other.
When thought of as aspirations (which is usually the case), firms’ values are usually explicitly articulated and remarkably similar. However, if a value is seen as a minimum standard of behavior that all members agree to live by, then the true values remain ambiguous in most firms and vary immensely among firms.
Firms have historically flourished without constitutions that spell out minimum partner behaviors. For many, profits and revenues keep rising. What then will be the force that might create the need for change? Most likely, it will be client pressure on firms to act as firms—delivering seamless service, practice areas that have depth (and not just a collection of individualistic stars), and true, cross-boundary teamwork.
Many firms have collections of great lawyers. The time may be coming when clients will expect them to go beyond this and become effective organizations. Without a prior, explicit agreement on minimum standards, and the resolve to enforce them, many law firms will not function well as firms but will remain what they are today: bands of warlords, each with his or her followers, ruling over a group of cowed citizens and acting in temporary alliance—until a better opportunity comes along.
The ways of thinking and behaving that help lawyers excel in their profession may be the very things that limit what they can achieve as firms. Management challenges occur not in spite of lawyers’ intelligence and training, but because of them.
Among the ways that legal training and practice keep lawyers from effectively functioning in groups are
- problems with trust;
- difficulties with ideology, values, and principles;
- professional detachment;
- and unusual approaches to decision making. If firms cannot overcome these inherent tendencies, they may not be able to deliver on the goals and strategies they say they pursue.
The problem of trust
Much current practice in firm governance, organization, and (not least) compensation comes from the fact that partners vigorously defend their rights to autonomy and individualism, well beyond what is common in other professions. There is nothing inherently wrong with that.
However, as major corporations consolidate their work among a smaller number of firms, domestically and internationally, they expect that firms will serve them with effective cross-office and cross-disciplinary teams. Firms are vigorously responding to this with a stampede of lateral hires, mergers, and acquisitions. Their goal is to create big organizations offering many disciplines, locations, and cultures.
The unanswered—actually, barely asked—question is whether these firms can shift from a managerial approach, based on partner autonomy, to new approaches that can create a well-coordinated set of team players. Is the tradition of autonomy at the heart of a partner’s identity, or can it change?
In addition to fighting vigorously to preserve their autonomy, lawyers are professional skeptics: They are selected, trained, and hired to be pessimistic and to spot flaws. To protect their clients, they place the worst possible construction on the outcome of any idea or proposal, and on the motives, intentions, and likely behaviors of those they are dealing with. As Tony Sacker, my kind and gentle brother-in-law and a solicitor in the United Kingdom, says: “I am paid to have a nasty, suspicious mind.”
Lawyers carry this view into their dealings with their own partners. It is hard to unbundle which is the cause and which is the effect, but the combination of a desire for autonomy and high levels of skepticism make most law firms low-trust environments.
Recently, I was advising a firm on its compensation system. They didn’t like my recommendations. Finally, one of the partners said, “David, all your recommendations are based on the assumption that we trust each other and trust our executive or compensation committees. We don’t. Give us a system that doesn’t require us to trust each other!”
A former managing partner with whom I have discussed this says, “It’s not that I don’t trust my partners. They’re good people, mostly. It’s that I don’t want to have to trust them. Why give up any degree of control over your own affairs if you don’t have to?”
Actually, a low-trust environment has plenty of unfortunate consequences—and they are readily observable in many law firms: - Initiatives that depend on teamwork and joint efforts will rarely be implemented well, if at all. People may show up to a practice group meeting and help develop a joint plan, but they rarely feel mutually committed to or accountable for the group’s decisions. When lawyers cannot depend on their colleagues to live up to commitments made in these meetings, they give themselves permission to have a similar attitude, and the situation spirals downward.
- When a firm’s prevailing atmosphere is one of competition, not collaboration, partners rarely make sacrifices for the good of the firm. For example, they will be reluctant to take on managerial roles that might require them to limit their full-time practices, for fear that their partners will not treat them equitably when the time comes for them to reenter full-time practice.
- There is low tolerance for ceding power or influence to practice group or firm leadership. The result is that even in the largest firms, executive authority can be so severely limited as to be meaningless. Decisions are made slowly, if not avoided altogether.
- Committees proliferate to address all topics, large and small. They are designed not only to ensure extensive participation, but also to put in place checks and balances intended to circumscribe the ability of any individual (or group) to decide anything on behalf of the firm. This may have the virtue of being democratic, but it is a primitive form of democracy that requires everyone to be involved in every decision. It both slows down decision making and unnecessarily distracts from other, more productive tasks.
- There is a drive to seemingly objective formula-based compensation systems. These serve only to entice partners into gaming the system through hoarding work and bickering over origination credits in order to look good in the official statistics. Partners constantly ask, “What’s in the compensation formula?” and they do only those things that are. As a result, many behaviors necessary for the firm’s success cannot be enforced, because they are not in the formula. Firm leaders have bemoaned this situation for decades, but few have found a way to solve it.
“Most partners were recognized and rewarded for being the smartest person in the class or the most accomplished. They have rarely experienced or understood the power of succeeding as part of a larger group or team. Their focus tends to be selfish and self-serving, even narcissistic. The result is that the firm resources are squandered and poorly used, clients don’t get the best lawyers assigned to their files, and firms are less profitable. This selfishness also leads to a shortsighted approach to decision making that inhibits long-range success because investments of time or money that don’t yield immediate results are rarely made.”
Skepticism about ideology, values, and principles
The single biggest source of trust in an organization occurs when everyone can be depended upon to act in accordance with a commonly held, strictly observed set of principles. Examples of such principles are “Our clients’ interests always come first; if we serve our clients well, our own success will follow” and “We have no room for those who put their personal interests ahead of the interests of the firm and its clients.” (Both of these, by the way, are from Goldman Sachs.)It is important to note that commercial benefits do not come simply from believing in or encouraging these principles but from actually achieving an organization where partner behavior is always consistent with them. When this is the case, less time is wasted in internal negotiations and posturing, strategies are implemented, and true teamwork results. Partners allow others to make decisions on their behalf or refer work to each other across the boundaries of practice groups and location because they can be confident that the other person will make decisions using the same values and principles that they would themselves use.
Law firms appear unable to achieve this level of ideological consistency. They will buy into principles—firms can have very high ideals as long as they remain ideals—but they have difficulty with the concept of enforcement. Firms are seemingly willing to adopt strategies and statements of values and mission, but are usually unwilling to specify what the penalty would be for noncompliance. Not surprisingly, that rarely results in effective implementation.
There is a reason for this. As a partner in an eminent U.S. firm points out, “Lawyers raised in the common-law tradition are trained to have a deep suspicion of overarching principles. The essence of the common-law approach is that decisions are made incrementally, always leaving open the possibility that the next case could be treated completely differently.”
In my consulting work I have repeatedly advocated a system of help and coaching for partners who fail to meet the firm’s standards. If coaching fails to bring a partner up to the firm’s standards after a fair and reasonable amount of time, the partner is asked to leave. This is, in fact, close to the system that firms employ with respect to partners who fail to hit financial targets such as billable hours.
However, the point I keep trying to make is that if a firm wishes to excel in other areas, such as client service, collaboration, or associate supervision, the same process should apply. The response is predictable. Most law firms say that the idea of tackling a rainmaker on these “soft” issues is unrealistic, idealistic, uncommercial, and suicidal. In vain I point out that these standards are what firms already preach in their client and recruiting brochures and claim as their values.
While a majority of firms will vote to proclaim standards, they will usually not vote to enforce them. Indeed, the signs are that they vigorously prefer the opposite: Law firms have a proliferating plethora of rules, not functioning principles, because they don’t or won’t trust that their partners will adhere to the values, standards, and principles that they agreed upon. So firms end up with a mishmash of bureaucratic red tape in the hope that mandatory processes will achieve compliance when adherence to common values does not.
Professional detachment
In their legal training, lawyers are encouraged to be dispassionate. They have been schooled to leave their personal feelings at home. One lawyer told a consultant friend of mine that when he hung up his jacket on the back of his door in the morning, with it went his personality, both of which he put on at the end of the day as he left the office.As many researchers have shown, lawyers score very low in the areas of intimacy skills and sociability. They tend to prefer role-to-role interactions with people, inside and outside the firm, rather than eagerly seeking out person-to-person connections. This doesn’t mean they don’t like people. It just means that, statistically speaking, lawyers prefer focusing on the job at hand rather than investing in relationships with those they are working with (other partners or associates) or for (clients).
This can have unfortunate, if unintended, consequences. Consider this e-mail, which I recently received from Marein Smits, a Dutch lawyer:
“At your recent seminar you made fun of me because I laughed at the idea of being genuinely interested in the industry and business of the people who are my clients. Rightly so: My laughing was cynical… The first thing you learn when you become a lawyer is not to care. The legally sound judgment, the intellectual sparkle, that is what counts. The personal, the emotional, what is right: Throw it away, because it will taint your professionalism. ‘Do not get involved’ is the credo.”
A major rainmaker once pointed out to me, “I can’t convince my partners that this is all about human beings, that you market most successfully by showing an interest in the client as a person. My partners really don’t want to express that level of intimacy with anyone at work.” This lack of intimacy affects not only marketing and client relations, but also the way in which partners deal with each other and how firms are managed.
Rather than describing a highly interpersonal approach to coaching and helping each other succeed, the term “management” has come in many firms to mean a cold, detached, analytical approach to business. Financial scorecards are put in place, and everyone is told (implicitly or explicitly), “Here’s what you will be measured on; see you at the end of the year!” They are not helped to achieve, merely rewarded if they do, and they live in fear of what might happen if they do not. This can achieve the goal of getting everyone to work harder, but it comes at a significant price in terms of partner morale and cohesion. Help, teamwork, and mutual support are often absent, since they depend on personal interactions. Instead, there is a system of measures and rewards.
While this approach is the one preferred by many partners (and many firms) it inherently limits creation of a strategically responsive organization. In these days of ever-accelerating partner and associate mobility, a firm tied together only by measures and rewards will be inherently unstable.
There are signs that a few firms are recognizing the importance of this issue. Says one managing partner: “The idea has slowly taken hold in our firm that one should deal with people as people, show warmth and empathy, and build personal relationships with others in the firm … My leadership style has evolved over the years from trying to be comprehensive and logical to relying more on developing personal rapport and trying to motivate people.” This insight might be gaining ground. But the behavior inside many law firms has yet to catch up.
Approaches to decision making
When it comes to discussing their firms’ affairs, lawyers have peculiar ways of conducting discussions and arriving (or not arriving) at decisions. The essence of lawyers’ training and daily practice is to contest with other lawyers. While winning arguments against nonlawyers (such as consultants like me) is mere sport, winning them against other lawyers is a deadly serious business—a challenge to their core ability.In a room full of lawyers, any idea, no matter how brilliant, will be instantly attacked. Lawyers are expert loophole finders, trained to find counterexamples of or exceptions to any proposition. Accordingly, within a short time, most ideas, no matter who initiates them, will be destroyed, dismissed, or postponed for future examination.
Frequently, this leads managing partners, committee chairs, and practice group leaders to substantially overinvest in decision making. They want to be armed in advance with a lengthy memo about every decision so they can dump it in the lap of the complainer as part of fending off the attack.
Another common management strategy is to keep all proposals ambiguous, so that there is nothing specific to be attacked. As a result, law firms have a remarkable propensity for half measures, launching poorly specified programs with minimal chances of success. A common law firm dialogue is as follows: Let’s have client service teams! (All agree.) What do we mean by such teams? (We don’t want to say yet.) What shall their responsibilities be? (That’s to be worked out.) What are the obligations of team members to each other? (We’ll let them figure it out.) Combine all this with the obligation to resolve issues through committees, and you have a recipe for business constipation.
This is not necessarily a problem for lawyers. My own attorney pointed out, “You are taught in law school that there are no right answers. We are actively trained to be nondecisive and are comfortable with a lack of closure.”
When lawyers reason with each other, the primary objectives are not necessarily logic, consistency, reasonableness, or fairness. In their professional practice, whether in trial or deal-making, many lawyers are more frequently rewarded for persuasiveness, rhetoric, verbal agility, and point scoring. These habits of a professional lifetime readily spill over into internal firm discussions.
Lawyers also have a strange view of the concept of risk. In any other business, an idea that was likely to work much of the time would be eagerly explored. This is not necessarily the case with lawyers. If one partner says, “This works in the vast majority of cases,” you can be sure that another will say, “Maybe, but I can construct a hypothetical scenario where it will fail to work. That makes it risky.” Probabilities do not seem to influence the discussion, only possibilities. There is no greater condemnation in legal discourse than to describe something as risky. Contracts, deals, and court cases must be bulletproof, not risky.
In other businesses, innovative thinking and action are considered a primary requirement for success. Companies eagerly search for strategic ideas and initiatives that their competitors have not discovered.
Lawyers are usually different. Presented with a new business idea, the first thing they ask is, “Which other law firms are doing this?” Unless it can be shown that the idea has been implemented by other law firms, lawyers are skeptical about whether the idea applies to their world. If everyone has these problems, they can’t be so bad, the thinking goes. As long as we are no worse than anyone else, we don’t need to change! It’s hardly a recipe for a strategic advantage.
What can be done?
If lawyers deal with each other so poorly, why do they do so well financially? My answer is only partly humorous: The greatest advantage lawyers have is that they compete only with other lawyers. If everyone else does things equally poorly, and clients and recruits find little variation between firms, even the most egregious behavior will not lead to a competitive disadvantage.A persuasive case can be made that lawyers will not change, because times are good and partners (and associates, for that matter) earn a lot of money. However, the question always arises as to how the money is being made. Many law firms have discovered that you can truly make a lot of money if you work everybody very, very hard and really slash your costs and don’t care about how people—partners, associates, or staff—feel about their work lives.
While that’s one approach to riches, it can be shown (as in my book Practice What You Preach) that it is not the best or most sustainable approach to riches. “Let’s succeed by working more hours with ever-decreasing amounts of support” is not the most sophisticated piece of business thinking I have ever heard. The answer, for firms that choose to pursue it, lies not in ever-more-sophisticated (and tough) business management tools, but in a head-on confrontation with the issues of trust, values, interpersonal behavior, and decision-making logic that I have explored here.
If firms are to deliver on the visions they have set for themselves, they must address such issues as what behavior partners have a right to expect from each other, what the real minimum standards and values are, and how common values and standards can actually be attained, not just preached.
I have written about these topics extensively before and will not repeat either the arguments or the advice here. (My past writings are available on my website, davidmaister.com.) Suffice it to say that unless law firms undergo a cultural revolution, not just minor changes, most will not be able to achieve their ambitions. Dysfunctional behavior by partners, currently not only tolerated but vigorously celebrated, will prevent firms from functioning as they desire.
There is some hope, because what has been reported here are common tendencies, not ironclad laws. There are firms that are exceptional, singular counterexamples to the propositions explored here, and they are tackling head-on the core issues of culture, trust, and partner behavior. On the other hand, many other firms are doing the very things that will prevent them from creating the truly collaborative organizations their lawyers say that they want.
One of the central things we know about trust and collaboration is that they come mostly from repeated interactions between people who have not only a history together, but also the certainty of a future together. Trust comes from relationships and the expectation of continuing relationships. Over time, as they interact with each other, they as partners, practice groups, and offices may actually come to trust each other.
Unfortunately, in many of today’s firms that have been cobbled together from lateral hires and newly merged practices, the personal history that forms the basis of trust is often missing, as is the confidence that everyone will be practicing together for a long time. In many firms, even solidly successful partners live in fear that they will be among the next group of partners to be “let go.”
In such an environment, the natural evolution of trust may be difficult, if not impossible. Instead, what firms need, literally, is a constitutional convention where their lawyers draft the explicit, basic law that is going to govern their firms—the precise behaviors, rules, and principles that will determine what partners have a right to expect from each other.
When thought of as aspirations (which is usually the case), firms’ values are usually explicitly articulated and remarkably similar. However, if a value is seen as a minimum standard of behavior that all members agree to live by, then the true values remain ambiguous in most firms and vary immensely among firms.
Firms have historically flourished without constitutions that spell out minimum partner behaviors. For many, profits and revenues keep rising. What then will be the force that might create the need for change? Most likely, it will be client pressure on firms to act as firms—delivering seamless service, practice areas that have depth (and not just a collection of individualistic stars), and true, cross-boundary teamwork.
Many firms have collections of great lawyers. The time may be coming when clients will expect them to go beyond this and become effective organizations. Without a prior, explicit agreement on minimum standards, and the resolve to enforce them, many law firms will not function well as firms but will remain what they are today: bands of warlords, each with his or her followers, ruling over a group of cowed citizens and acting in temporary alliance—until a better opportunity comes along.
Managing a Law Firm
Running a law firm successfully is often a matter of clever management. The author tells you how to look for your cheese.
James Dallas, Chairman of the firm Denton Wilde Sapte, in the publication Managing Partner in July 2001 highlighted four key elements for a law firm’s success:
Having technically competent and motivated lawyers is important but it is no longer sufficient to guarantee success.
Success today has a lot to do with the way a firm is run and structured, where the markets it serves are going, and where the firm is positioned in all these developments.
Take, for example, the dedicated niche conveyancing practices of the 1980s and 1990s now facing low turnover and the abolition of scale fees in the 21st century. The lawyers may be very technically competent conveyancers but that alone will not guarantee them success in the current environment.
Equally important is the way your firm is structured and run, as well as the ability to lead and motivate fellow partners.
The truth is, lawyers generally have not had the training to manage people and many lawyers find this difficult. Good management, however, is not complicated. Most of us can often learn the necessary skills and learn to recognise our own limitations to better appreciate the strength and abilities of others.
Management therefore should be as uncomplicated as possible, and the structure should be to deliver a solution that is: (a) simple; (b) appropriate to the firm; and (c) able to draw on the strengths and talents of the partners and staff. It is important not to loose sight of what the staff can contribute. Equity partners are not the only ones with ideas.
Time is one thing most partners lack and it must be used carefully. Partners should be more concerned with strategic issues and with driving the business forward. The starting point will be the management structure and the role of the partner in that management structure. The problem is, because of pressures on time, partners simply undertake their fee earning work and pay lip service to management.
It is important in the management of the firm to:
Similarly, management should not be difficult in very small, two or three-partner firms.
The problem is in mid size firms of between, say, five to 15 partners, where management is typically undertaken by partners who have high workloads. The areas where they have difficulty include:
The overall aim and purpose of your firm’s management structure should be to:
Often, when partners consider the issues of management and leadership, they begin by visualising military or political role models. However, the style of leadership characterised by people like Margaret Thatcher is rarely successful with a law firm. It is seldom an effective way of motivating professional people — especially partners. Many partners, particularly in larger firms, will tell you of the demotivating effect this style of leadership can have. There are more appropriate styles that I will discuss at a later date.
In summary, here are some of the key elements in managing a law firm:
James Dallas, Chairman of the firm Denton Wilde Sapte, in the publication Managing Partner in July 2001 highlighted four key elements for a law firm’s success:
- being clear about your chosen area of business;
- finding and keeping good people;
- delivering an excellent service to clients; and
- securing a financial return that enables the firm to reward its people and invest in the continuing development of the business.
Having technically competent and motivated lawyers is important but it is no longer sufficient to guarantee success.
Success today has a lot to do with the way a firm is run and structured, where the markets it serves are going, and where the firm is positioned in all these developments.
Take, for example, the dedicated niche conveyancing practices of the 1980s and 1990s now facing low turnover and the abolition of scale fees in the 21st century. The lawyers may be very technically competent conveyancers but that alone will not guarantee them success in the current environment.
Equally important is the way your firm is structured and run, as well as the ability to lead and motivate fellow partners.
The truth is, lawyers generally have not had the training to manage people and many lawyers find this difficult. Good management, however, is not complicated. Most of us can often learn the necessary skills and learn to recognise our own limitations to better appreciate the strength and abilities of others.
Management therefore should be as uncomplicated as possible, and the structure should be to deliver a solution that is: (a) simple; (b) appropriate to the firm; and (c) able to draw on the strengths and talents of the partners and staff. It is important not to loose sight of what the staff can contribute. Equity partners are not the only ones with ideas.
Management not Administration
There is often a confusion about what we actually mean by ‘management’ and the distribution between management and administration. Partners can easily confuse administration with management and get involved with things that need to be done, but not necessarily by them. For example, being the person that secretaries go to when their printer is not working, changing the paper in the photocopier, fixing minor staff problems. While a partner may need to take overall responsibility for the administration, they rarely need to do it themselves. If you assume a partner charge out rate of $500 per hour, then two hours used in unnecessary administration a day amounts to $240,000 of lost revenue annually!Time is one thing most partners lack and it must be used carefully. Partners should be more concerned with strategic issues and with driving the business forward. The starting point will be the management structure and the role of the partner in that management structure. The problem is, because of pressures on time, partners simply undertake their fee earning work and pay lip service to management.
It is important in the management of the firm to:
- assess the operational structure of the firm;
- define the roles appropriate to the operational structure and to identify the best people to fill these roles;
- prepare business and marketing plans and budgets for each team or business unit;
- translate team plans into individual objectives and an action plan for each fee earner and member of the staff; and
- ensure effective financial management controls and establish a simple reporting system, so that progress can be monitored and the plans reviewed and modified on an on-going basis.
The Problem
When a law firm is of a size where it is obvious that one of the partners needs to do the managing with little or no fee earning work and/or employ professional managers, which is usually the case where there are at least 20 or 30 equity partners, there isn’t too much of a problem.Similarly, management should not be difficult in very small, two or three-partner firms.
The problem is in mid size firms of between, say, five to 15 partners, where management is typically undertaken by partners who have high workloads. The areas where they have difficulty include:
- lack of time;
- structuring a balance between management and fee earning;
- getting their partners to accept innovation and change;
- communication; and
- achieving a reasonable level of profitability.
Management Structure
It is important that firms have an effective management structure and an appropriate form of leadership. The challenge is to find a style and structure that is appropriate to your firm and that suits its culture.The overall aim and purpose of your firm’s management structure should be to:
- help the partners realise their aspirations for the firm, in particular with regard to profitability, both in the short term and also in the longer term;
- enable the partners to concentrate on the important issues facing the firm rather than on day-to-day matters;
- provide leadership and a sense of direction;
- use partner time effectively; and
- get things done.
- to ensure the smooth running of the firm; and
- to enable the firm to move forward and develop.
Often, when partners consider the issues of management and leadership, they begin by visualising military or political role models. However, the style of leadership characterised by people like Margaret Thatcher is rarely successful with a law firm. It is seldom an effective way of motivating professional people — especially partners. Many partners, particularly in larger firms, will tell you of the demotivating effect this style of leadership can have. There are more appropriate styles that I will discuss at a later date.
In summary, here are some of the key elements in managing a law firm:
- The key factors for success are: (a) a sense of focus on the markets you serve; (b) recruiting and retaining good people; (c) providing excellent client services; and (d) generating sufficient profit.
- Constantly reminding the partners that they should be engaged in management, not administration.
- Reviewing your operational and management structure every three to five years to ensure that they are appropriate for the future and are innovative.
- Defining the roles and ensuring that the right people are running your firm.
สมัครสมาชิก:
บทความ (Atom)