Walker Clark Worldview

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

I think that it is very appropriate that South America will be the venue for three major international legal management events in the first half of 2010. During the past ten years, Latin American lawyers have emerged as global leaders of the legal profession; and some of  the best-managed, most progressive law firms in the world are based in the region.

Mark these three major events on your calendar, and click on the links for more information:

• Biannual IBA Latin American Forum Regional Conference , 17-19 March 2010, Santiago, Chile - This major international conference is produced by the Latin American Regional Forum of the International Bar Association. It  will include a showcase session on 19 March 2010 dedicated to law firm management issues, including interactive audience polling. I will be co-chairing this session with Jaime Carey, the managing partner of Carey & Companía, one of Chile’s leading law firms.
• Arbitration Practice Management, 12 June 2010, Asunción, Paraguay – This half-day program is produced by CEDEP, on of South America’s leading continuing legal education institutes in association with the Law Firm Management Committee of the International Bar Association. It is a special session of CEDEP’s annual Latin American Arbitration Conference, which attracts leading international lawyers worldwide. I will moderate this session, which will be a roundtable discussion focusing on the special issues in the management of an international arbitration and dispute resolution practice.
• Managing a Modern Law Firm, 14 June 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina – This one-day conference is produced by the IBA Law Firm Management Committee and the IBA Latin American Regional Forum. It will cover four contemporary challenges for modern law firms: writing and executing a marketing plan; a business approach to law firm strategy; career management of associates; and know-how and knowledge management in a small or midsize law firm. My Walker Clark colleague Fernando Moreno will be one of the panelists during the session on marketing plans; and I will chair the session on law firm strategy.

Although these programs are being held in South America, I recommend them to any lawyer anywhere who is responsible for the management of a law firm or practice group, but especially for those from small and midsize law firms. Each one is also an outstanding networking opportunity, especially for lawyers from North America and Europe who are interested in meeting top lawyers from some of the best law firms in Latin America (and the world).

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

My colleagues in Walker Clark, LLC, and I are often engaged by law firms to develop lawyer and staff compensation systems.

The big question always is “How can we motivate our people?”

The truthful answer is that you cannot.

Law firms are populated by people who, on average, are smarter, better educated, and more skeptical than those in almost any other industry. They are not easily fooled by a slick compensation formula and assurances that “All you have to do is work hard and you will get rich.”

This isn’t leadership.  This isn’t motivation.  This approach to motivation is essentially a “snake oil medicine show.”*

Read the next paragraph very carefully.

You cannot motivate professional people to do a good job.  That motivation comes from within. External factors, such as the compensation scheme, can contribute to building an “internal business case” for motivation for each person. But no single factor is enough.

For a professional person in a law firm to feel motivated, there are usually several things present:

• A fair and reasonable compensation system that rewards the behaviors that the firm needs for business success. Compensation is not enough by itself, but it is an essential ingredient.
• Management systems and support. You cannot expect lawyers to bill fees, take care of clients, and market the firm if you fail to provide the basic administrative and clerical support that they need.
• Skills and opportunities. If your compensation system heavily rewards origination of new clients, but you do not provide training in marketing and sales skills, you cannot expect a significant improvement. Few things are as demotivating as setting expectations that people cannot meet because they lack the basic skills. Likewise, you cannot expect associates magically to originate new instructions if you do not allow them opportunities to meet and work with clients directly.

This is why so many law firms — especially small ones — are frustrated by the performance of their compensations systems. You can have the most inspiring and most clever compensation scheme in the entire legal profession. But it will fail miserably if you fail to provide the support and skills development that people need to succeed.

Norman Clark

* Note:  In the American west in the 19th century, a “snake oil” was a term commonly applied to liquids with supposedly magic formulas (often claimed to be of Native American origins) that were nothing more than alcohol.  A “medicine show” was a traveling sales team that traveled from town to town, often only one or two steps ahead of the police, selling such magical cures to the uninformed and gullible.

Is law school still a good investment?

The National Law Journal raises that question in an interesting post at law.com this morning.

In the leader to their article, the authors comment:

A J.D. used to mean a first-class seat on the gravy train. Now? Not so much. Critics say law schools have a duty to warn.

(For readers who read this blog in translation, I am not sure how “gravy train” will translate. In American English, a gravy train refers to a strategy, plan, or series of events that, once achieved, takes one to great wealth without any further hard work.  Once you have purchased your “seat,” all that you must do is to sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.)

This excellent article leads to many interesting questions.

Does someone who enters law school expecting to board the gravy train after three years reside in a self-absorbed fantasy world?

Or is the continued demand for admission to U.S. law schools a sign of optimism about the economic future of the legal profession, notwithstanding recent bad news?

Is a law degree worth the investment? Do American law firms actually deliver value for money?

Or have they become an over-priced under-performing anachronism that are increasingly irrelevant to the practice of law in the 21st century?

For years I have heard a consistent set of criticisms of the quality and cost-effectiveness of law schools in the United States:

• Their instructional methods are archaic.
• High law school tuitions effectively exclude poor and working class people from the legal profession.
• Law schools do not give students the business skills they need to practice law in a law firm.
• American law school graduates are no better prepared to practice law than graduates of foreign law schools.
• American lawyers place too much importance on where a person went to law school and not enough on the practice skills and commercial awareness needed to be a good lawyer in a law firm.
• The traditional method in the United States of “reading law” to qualify for practice without a formal law degree, which has been abolished in most U.S. jurisdictions, actually produced better lawyers.

To be fair, one can hear most of these criticisms about legal education in other countries.

It is obvious that a law degree from a law school in the United States — whether one of the so-called “top” law schools or a relatively obscure one — was never a guarantee of a successful legal career.

It is also true that even the best American law schools do an incomplete job, at best, of preparing new lawyers for the challenges of legal practice today.

Perhaps it is time to rethink and reinvent the role of law schools in the whole system of legal education and professional development of lawyers in the United States.

Are American law schools willing to lead this effort? Or must they be dragged into it by law firms and law students that appear to be increasingly disappointed with the value that law firms deliver to the American legal profession.