Walker Clark Worldview

Perhaps the most difficult challenge for small law firms in small legal markets is to recruit and — sometimes even more difficult — retain high-quality associates. The assumption is that the small markets and the small law firms are at a substantial disadvantage. Our firm’s observations, advising smaller law firms, confirm that there is a lot of truth to this perception. However that disadvantage can be overcome.  Here’s how:

• Expand the scope of your recruiting in law schools. Many small law firms still allow their recruiting strategy to be shackled by the myth that the only the “best” law firms and only the “top quarter” of the law school class produce good lawyers. Research has not established such a correlation and, if anything, the it appears that lawyers who graduate in the second and third quartiles of their law firm classes actually are more successful as law firm partners.

• Remember that retention is seldom about money. Over the years, our firm has conducted focus groups of almost 1,000 law firms associates worldwide. When asked, “What makes you want to remain in this firm?” money is never one of the top factors mentioned. Instead, associates — especially in smaller firms — tell us that the more important factors include: opportunities to learn legal skills and gain experience; the opportunity to work with, and learn from, a successful partner; and to perform increasingly important responsibilities for clients.

• Invest in professional development and career management. The successful management of professional talent seldom does not require a lot of money.  It does require a serious investment of partner time and attention. It is no surprise, therefore, that the small firms that are the most successful in retaining legal talent have serious mentoring programs, in-depth performance evaluations, and a clear career path for each associate in the firm.

Norman Clark

Focus groups of more than 900 law firm associates, conducted by Walker Clark members worldwide, have consistently identified the availability of career planning as one of the most important factors that cause good associates to stay at their firm. Associates typically express this in terms such as:

I want to know what I need to do in order to become a partner in this firm someday.

I want to understand clearly what the firm expects of me in terms of performance.

On a parallel intellectual track, many law firm partners have never considered in depth the professional knowledge and business skills that every partner in the firm should display, nor how those requirements translate into observable and, in some cases, measurable behaviors. This is why, for some law firms, election of a new partner is more an act of faith, supported by hope and guesswork, rather than a well-informed business decision.

Many law firms have purchased “off-the-shelf” or slightly-tailored from “career management systems” from human resources consultants.  A few of the packages are reasonably good in terms of providing a basic structure by which to manage associate performance and development.  Most of them, however, appear to me to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the practice of law in a law firm.

As one law firm partner told me, “It was like the HR consultant just crossed out the word bank from his last project and wrote in law firm.“

Or as another one once remarked to me, “I don’t think the company that sold us our associate career plan ever even talked to one of our associates, much less any of the partners.”

These criticisms might have been exaggerated a little, but they point out the risks and disappointing results of purchasing an off-the-shelf HR package and calling it a career management program.

Nonetheless, any effort to provide structure, policies, and processes to career management in a law firm is a good step forward. However, even the best career management plan cannot implement itself. Even in detailed and well-documented career management systems, there is always a risk that weaknesses can sneak into the system.  These are usually the result of a half-hearted implementation by the firm or of diminishing partner attention and participation over time.

This is why so many law firms have very elegant-looking career management manuals gathering dust on managing partners’ bookshelves.

As you consider how you manage the careers of your firm’s associates, remain alert to these frequent flaws.  They can creep into even the best-managed law firms:

• Performance standards and evaluation criteria that focus on “knowledge” and “attitudes,” rather than observable professional and business behaviors
• Promotion criteria that are not linked to specific, defined achievement of skills and demonstrated business and professional performance
• “Competencies” that have not been tested to ensure that they skills that associates need to master in order to become productive partners
• A lack of ongoing coaching and feedback between the formal performance evaluations
• Performance evaluations that exist only on paper and fail to include any meaningful discussion of the associate’s performance
• Inconsistent or non-existent mentoring, regardless of the existence of a formal “mentoring program”
• Weak business skills development in areas such as marketing, sales, negotiations, law firm economics, and coaching and feedback of junior lawyers and staff

A weakness in any of these areas can dramatically affect associate retention and readinesses (on the part of those who remain) to assume the responsibilities of partnership in a modern law firm.

Norman Clark

The Law Firm Management Committee of the International Bar Association will participate in two outstanding legal management conferences in South America in June.

• Contemporary Management Issues in International Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Practices – Saturday, 12 June 2010, in Asunción, Paraguay.  This is a half-day roundtable conference aimed at the special challenges in the management of international arbitration and dispute resolution practices in law firms.  It is presented in association with CEDEP (Center for Studies in Law, Economics, and Politics), one of South America’s premier continuing professional education organizations.  It is part of the annual multi-day conference on international arbitration, which organizers expect to draw approximately 1,000 lawyers from Latin America and abroad.
• Managing a Modern Law Firm - Monday, 14 June 2010, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  This one-day conference, co-sponsored by the IBA Latin American Forum, will investigate four key challenges for law firms in the decades of the 2010s:  (1) a business approach to strategic development of the firm; (2) marketing; (3) associate career management; and (4) management of knowledge and know-how.

For more information, please click on the two links above.

Norman Clark

Save the date!

The Law Firm Management Committee of the International Bar Association, in association with the IBA Latin American Regional Forum, will present a one-day conference on contemporary issues in law firm management in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 14 June 2010.

The conference will focus on four timely subjects, each of which has a profound influence on the business performance and profitability of law firms everywhere:

• How to write, implement and measure results of a marketing plan
• Applying a business approach to strategic and tactical development of a law firm
• Career management:  What do associates need?
• Know-how management in a small or medium law firm

My Walker Clark colleague, Fernando Moreno — one of the top experts on law firm marketing strategy and tactics worldwide — will be speaking during the session on writing, implementing, and measuring the results of marketing plans.  I will participate in the session on a business approach to strategy and tactics. Other participants will include highly successful law firm leaders and managers.

This conference is designed for managing partners, practice group leaders, and law firm managers and their advisors.  For more information go to the IBA website. It also will be one of the premier networking opportunities to meet and become better known among the leaders of leading law firms throughout the Americas.

Norman Clark

In its Knowledge@Wharton site yesterday, the Wharton Business School, University of Pennsylvania, posted an interesting abstract about motivating employees: “Putting a Face to a Name: The Art of Motivating Employees.” This should be a quick, but worthwhile, entry on your personal “to read” list.

University of Pennsylvania professor Adam Grant draws several interesting conclusions from his research.  I believe that, although not drawn from observations in the legal profession, they have direct applicability to law firms.

People are motivated by an understanding of the positive impact that their activities have on others.  Here are summaries to two of their studies:

Grant and a team of researchers — Elizabeth Campbell, Grace Chen, David Lapedis and Keenan Cottone from the University of Michigan — arranged for one group of call center workers to interact with scholarship students who were the recipients of the school’s fundraising largess. It wasn’t a long meeting — just a five-minute session where the workers were able to ask the student about his or her studies. But over the next month, that little chat made a big difference. The call center was able to monitor both the amount of time its employees spent on the phone and the amount of donation dollars they brought in. A month later, callers who had interacted with the scholarship student spent more than two times as many minutes on the phone, and brought in vastly more money: a weekly average of $503.22, up from $185.94.

Even reading about the benefits that one’s work produces for other people can produce apparent increases in motivation .

In a follow up study to the one he published in 2007, he focused on lifeguards at a community recreation center. Some of them were given stories to read about cases in which lifeguards had saved lives. A second group was given a different kind of reading material: testimonies from lifeguards about how they had personally benefitted from their work. The results: Those who had been reading about their ability to avert fatalities saw their measure of hours worked shoot up by more than 40%, whereas those who had merely learned that a lifeguard gig could be personally enriching kept working at the same clip.

The Knowledge@Wharton post has links to the papers that Grant and his teams produced.

Some law firms try to minimize face-to-face contact with clients by junior associates and support staff.  Grant’s research suggests that this is a mistake.

Everyone in the firm needs to see the face of the client. In some cases this can be a simple face-to-face encounter, such as a partner taking time to introduce a client to associates and support staff who work on the client’s matter. Even when employees cannot literally see the face of the client, partners should make sure that each member of the team — from senior associates to the crew in the mail room — understands how their efforts ultimately benefit the client.

Norman Clark

How do you and your partners typically refer to clients:  ”my client” or “our clients?”

The difference is very important. There are variations among individual law firms, of course; but there are also patterns that my colleagues and I have observed in law firms worldwide.

For example, “my client” firms typically:

• Rely disproportionately on a small number “rainmakers” to generate most of the new clients and new business.
• Prefer “eat what you kill” compensation systems.
• Have high levels of internal competitiveness among partners.
• Rely more on individual performance than group collaboration for the overall business success of the firm.
• Measure lawyer performance primarily in financial terms, such as billings and value of originated work.
• Do not make cross-marketing a priority.
• Must overcome internal resistance in making major shifts in the firm’s business priorities and marketing strategy.

“Our client” firms usually:

• Expect all partners, as well as experienced associates, to participate in marketing and business development.
• Have a more collegial partnership culture.
• Prefer compensation systems that reward professional development and mentoring of junior lawyers, as well as financial contributions.
• Emphasize teamwork and group effort as being of equal importance to individual performance.
• Make cross-marketing an important priority and are usually successful at it.
• Adapt to changing market conditions with agility.

The next time you are discussing clients with one of your partners — or even more importantly with one of your associates — listen closely to the pronouns. They will tell you a lot about your own firm,

Norman Clark

In almost any discussion about law firm associates, the topic of mentoring eventually appears. Everybody agrees that mentoring is a good thing to do, but very few law firms do it well. Based on the observations of my colleagues in Walker Clark, LLC, here are the five most common reasons.

1. Failure to link mentoring to the skills that an associate needs to advance in the firm. To produce a worthwhile return on the investment of partner time, mentoring needs to be relevant.
2. Failure to make mentoring a basic responsibility of every partner. By contrast, some law firms even make mentoring an element of their partner compensation systems.
3. Failure to agree a basic level of attention and effort required of all mentors, so that all associates have an equal opportunity to benefit from mentoring. Perhaps the most frequent criticism that we hear from associates about their law firms’ mentoring programs are that associates have highly inconsistent experiences with mentoring and derive unequal value from the process.
4. Failure to reinforce to associates the importance of participation in mentoring. Mentoring requires two-way communication, not just passive listening to a partner telling professional “war stories.”
5. Failure of partners to share experiences and ideas about mentoring with each other in a structured manner. By contrast, law firms that do mentoring well usually devote part of a partners meeting, once or twice each year, to what works well and what needs to be improved in their mentoring programs.

Does your firm need help with mentoring? Walker Clark, LLC, can conduct a quick, low-cost diagnostic review of your mentoring program and recommend practical improvements to improve your return on investment. For more information, send me an email.

Norman Clark

January is typically a time for law firms to plan their professional development and training program for the year. Unfortunately, many law firms will waste most of their training and development funds on seminars, workshops, conferences, and retreats that provide almost no long-term value.

As my colleagues and I have worked with law firms worldwide to develop custom-tailored professional development programs for them, we have heard persistent complaints about the hundreds of more-or-less generic training programs that are currently being sold to law firms. As one managing partner told me recently:

Last year we spent almost $2,000 per person on a weekend “leadership retreat.”  It was a mix of academic theory and some fun exercises. But it had no relevance to our law firm and what we need to do to achieve our goals. We kept asking ourselves “What are we doing here?” On Monday morning my partners’ leadership abilities were unchanged — except for the worse in a couple of cases.

There are certain things that law firms should look for, and also avoid, when considering a proposal from an external provider of training programs for lawyers. Most of these can be summarized into 8 questions.

1. Is the program designed specifically for law firms? How does it demonstrate that it takes into account the special characteristics and demands of the practice of law? Many programs in the areas of marketing, sales, and leadership present mostly generic principles and academic theories that do not always work in law firms.
2. Will the program include materials that were customized for our firm, our practice specialties, and our client base?  How will the program facilitators do this? This can be particularly challenging in an international multi-cultural law firm.
3. Does the program deliver tools and methods that participants can apply their very next day in the office?
4. Does the program include case studies or exercises that are relevant to our firm and the responsibilities of the participants? They should be based on realistic issues in the firm, its practice areas, and its client base.
5. To what extent is the program tailored to the individual participant to address each person’s background, needs, and roles in the firm. “One size” seldom “fits all” in a law firm.
6. Do the facilitators have experience in law firms and in the actual practice of law? Will our colleagues perceive them as credible experts or clueless academics?
7. What will be the follow up? Will there be ongoing advice, consultation, or support for individuals and groups after the program? Will there be a follow-up session later?
8. How will this program improve business performance? How will we be able to measure the business results? What return on investment can we reasonably expect, and over what period of time?

Leadership development poses some special issues, and will be the subject of a future posting in this blog.

Norman Clark

National Law Journal has a short, interesting post on-line this morning: “Slight boost seen in number of part-time attorneys.” To quote the pertinent facts:

The percentage of attorneys working part time ticked up slightly in 2009, despite fears that the unstable economy would prompt fewer people to seek reduced-hours schedules.

According to the latest statistics from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP), the percentage of part-time attorneys at law firms grew from 5.6% in 2008 to 5.9% in 2009.

What surprises me is that the numbers are not higher — especially in the United States, where the “true” unemployment rate (“official” unemployment + unemployed people whose benefits have expired + people who are “underemployed” in part-time jobs that are insufficient to keep them out of poverty) is approaching 50% in some metropolitan areas. Many young lawyers are desperate to find any work that they can get, preferably in their profession.

What also surprises me is how many law firms appear to have completely overlooked part-time lawyers as a readily available, low-cost, high-yield resource, particularly in practice areas that are currently producing uncertain flows of new legal work.

Having a group of part-time attorneys with well-rounded professional knowledge and backgrounds, who are also available on relatively short notice, could make a big difference  in measurable financial terms and competitiveness for new work. Part-time staff can also ensure that the firm has the basic service-delivery resources that will be needed when the economy enters a sustained recovery.

Walker Clark, LLC, advises our clients to consider using  part-time lawyers and paralegals. We also help our clients to set up flexible plans and systems to recruit, manage, and incorporate these valuable “just in time” resources into their business plans and legal staffing. For more information about how we can help, contact me by email by clicking on this link or via our website.

Norman Clark

Has the current economic crisis changed the economics of legal practice for the next ten to twenty years?

Some of the clients of Walker Clark, LLC, tell me that they have not noticed a significant reduction in the volume of legal work, except in a few areas, such as real estate and mergers and acquisitions, which traditionally are particularly sensitive to business cycles.  In some practice areas, such as restructuring, litigation, and bankruptcy, the volume of instructions has actually increased.

What is different, however, is that clients now expect lower fees and more responsive service than before.  They are challenging fees and demanding better value.

These are not just short-term responses to cash flow issues in the clients’ businesses.  It is becoming clear that many clients regard these adjustments in fee structures and rates as a permanent change in the relationship with their legal service providers.  As one partner in a firm in New York told me recently:

We don’t like to admit this, but we know that our “discounts” are really permanent price cuts.

This poses several interesting — but by no means academic — questions:

• Has the traditional partner-managed law firm become obsolete?
• Can law firms continue to expect multi-million dollar profits per partner?
• Will law firms need to change fundamentally the way in which they deliver legal services?
• Can the global mega-firms survive a legal market of lowered financial expectations?
• Can small speciality law firms survive a legal market of  higher service-delivery expectations?
• Will we see a surge in the size and scope of practice of in-house corporate law departments?
• Can today’s law school graduates expect the same highly-paid lifetime professional prospects that their parents’ generation have enjoyed?

What questions would you add to this list?

Norman Clark