Walker Clark Worldview

This is the fourth of a series of posts about the compelling business case for quality assurance in law firms.

The third characteristic of successful quality assurance programs in law firms is that they focus on the greatest risks and attack the biggest quality problems.

We favor a practical approach.  The best methods do not seek to perfect each and ever task, function, and process in the firm.  Unlike methods such as ISO 9001, we do not recommend detailed documentation of each and every process.  However, we do recommend intense focus on the ones with the greatest risks. In law firms, most quality assurance issues can be isolated to one or two critical weaknesses. Our approach focuses on these “significant few” issues, rather than every possible one. In particular, we recommend that a firm start by improving the processes that are currently causing the greatest problems. Focus on problems that annoy the clients the most, such as missed deadlines, errors in documents, and untimely or inaccurate bills. In our experience, most of these problems can be mitigated substantially, and sometimes even solved entirely, with relatively simple, low-cost improvements.

Norman Clark

There are an interesting discussion and several related links in this morning’s National Law Journal posting “Spotlight on Laterals.”

The panel discussion focuses primarily on large law firms; and some of the comments and observations might not be entirely applicable to small and midsize firms. Also, as appears to be customary with the National Law Journal‘s American focus, none of the discussions take into account local market situations for law firms outside the United States. With those caveats in place, “Spotlight on Laterals” might be interesting and worthwhile reading for those of you who are NLJ subscribers.

Whether to bring in a lateral partner is one of the riskiest business decisions that most law firm partnerships will ever make. The opportunities can be very attractive, but like most things with the potential for great rewards, admitting a lateral partner also carries high risks, which much be identified, defined, and managed in advance.

I recommend to my firm’s clients that they use a methodology that is similar to that used to evaluate the business case for a law firm merger, and that they be satisfied that they have solid, factually supported answers to all of the questions.

We sometimes have to make business decisions based on a large component of faith and goodwill. Admitting a lateral partner into your law firm should not be one of them.

Norman Clark