Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >> of 66
Post #668 – Wednesday,
June 12, 2013
The Outgoing Firm Leader’s Script
In a recent discussion with a soon-to-retire managing
partner, I discussed a number of substantive issues he need to discuss with his
successor including how he needed to handle communications with his various
partners after he passed on the baton.
Here is the script he prepared for himself to communicate to his
“I’ll always be here to help you, but you should expect that
some of our beloved partners are probably going to go around you and come to me
whenever you make an unpopular decision.
And, if you are doing your job as our new firm leader, as I know you
will, this is guaranteed to happen. I
want you to be confident that I am not going to respond, in any way, to any
complaints, so don't let the prospect of my responding, impact your decision
making. Even if you choose to fire
someone who has worked closely with me for many years, you should proceed to
take that action. And rest assured that
if I don’t agree with some course of action or observe you doing something
contrary to the way I did it, I would not go to any partner to voice my
feelings. This is now your firm to lead
and you may call upon me should you ever feel the need for a sounding board.”
If you are facing a firm leadership transition
or even having a new office managing partner taking the reins of one of your
larger offices, please have a look at: www.first100daysmasterclass.com. The next program is scheduled for August 15th at the University of
Chicago and we are now accepting registrations. Have a look at the day’s
agenda, the distinguished faculty, the testimonials, the extensive course
materials, the follow-up support and your total satisfaction guarantee.
Post #667 –
Saturday, June 1, 2013
It’s Time For Law
Practice Management 2.0
Join me September 26
at the University of Chicago where I will be Chairing and Presenting at an
important Conference on how to reach the next level in practice group
Building and maintaining highly effective practice
management structures is perhaps the greatest challenge facing law firms today. Tasked with learning
how to adapt and embrace new economic realities, sophisticated and demanding
clients, constrained fee increases and a real need for practical efficiency -
practice and industry team leaders have an ever-increasingly critical role to
play in the future success and profitability of their firms. Ark Group’s Law Firm
Practice Management 2.0 is about taking practice management to the next
level and reengineering it for profitability - designed to help identify and
implement the structural necessities for effective practice management in
today's complex and competitive environment.
Stephen Pike, Firm Managing Partner, Gowling Lafleur
Kristin Sudholz, Chief Value Officer, Drinker Biddle
John Ferko, Director of Strategic Pricing & Practice
Management, Miles & Stockbridge
Frank LaManna, Chief Operating Officer, Thompson Hine
Patrick Johansen, Director of Business Development, Brinks
Hofer Gilson & Leone
Steven Petrie, Chief Strategy Officer, Faegre Baker
Susan Brelus, Chief Marketing Officer, Thompson Hine
Tea Hoffmann, Chief Strategy Officer, Parker Poe
for full details and registration
Post #665 – Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Efficiency is Not THE Competitive Advantage
My latest co-authored article (with good friend and colleague Ed Reeser)
appeared in last week’s San Francisco Daily Journal. In it we reported that . . .
Efficiency in any firm, in and
of itself, is not the competitive
advantage. There is a big difference
between being efficient and being effective.
It’s not that becoming more efficient
lacks importance, but far too many firms only seem to be investing significant
time and resources about being more efficient – at the expense of being
You may be interested in reading what we have to say about:
efficiency at producing commodity work; efficiency at pricing services;
efficiency in generating net operating income; and efficiency in satisfying
To download your copy – click here
In the final analysis . . . Are
you being efficient or being effective, or do you even know?
Is your efficiency directed to
the operation of the business and generating net revenue gains, or the
consumption of your human resources for redistribution of a stagnant income
pool, and thus hastening the demise of your firm? It isn’t enough to be efficient on the right
things, it is critical not to be efficient at doing the wrong things.
Rant #664 – Friday, May 10, 2013
Critiquing Your Strategic Plan
I recently had the opportunity to review and critique a law
firm’s strategic plan and present my findings to the firm’s management
committee. This was a plan that I had
not been involved in helping formulate and a plan that was about to be
presented to the partnership for approval.
The document I received was essentially four pages comprised of the
firm’s Mission, Vision statement, 5 big-picture Goals with 28 Action steps and
a number of concluding milestones identified to measure performance results.
Whenever I look at some firm’s strategic plan there are usually
three components that I examine:
• The “Process” for how the plan was developed;
• The specific “Content” of the plan – the ‘macro’ big
picture strokes and especially the ‘micro’ specific how-to action plans; and
• The implementation or execution schematic
Now I don’t think it’s fair or effective to simply be a
critic. I think one should offer some
thought provoking stimulation that has the firm assessing their own work to
determine whether it meets expectations. I’m reminded of something the legendary father
of modern management, Peter Drucker once said: “One does not begin with answers, one begins by asking,
‘What are our questions?’” The notion
that questions may at times be more valuable than answers is counterintuitive. But I find that our ability to reflect upon our answers to good questions is an
opportunity to reframe the challenges in front of us.
I therefore posed a number of questions to these management
committee members. Here are some which
you might find helpful for critiquing your own strategic plan.
• To what extent were
partners involved, such that they can see their individual fingerprint
somewhere on the final plan, and thereby enhance buy-in?
• How many clients
(and prospects) were interviewed such that some components of the plan reflect
the current thinking, views, and opinions of your clients?
• What aspects of
your Mission and Vision would stimulate your lawyers to get excited about the
• Where are the specific
growth niches that have been identified and are going to be pursued in each of
your conventional and industry practice areas?
• How does the firm
plan to effectively and profitably respond to clients continually wanting
‘more-for-less’ and transition from pricing differently to working differently?
• What aspects of
this plan are future-oriented in that they look to how the profession might
likely evolve by 2017 and propose specific steps to get to the future first?
• What are you doing
or contemplating that would meaningful differentiate you from your peer firms?
• What are your
non-negotiable standards of performance – what aspects of this plan are you
absolutely prepared to enforce?
• What are you
doing, or contemplating in this plan that you would regard as truly innovative?
• Do your people
really understand what is involved and how long it will take to implement some
of these specific action steps?
Rant #663 – Wednesday,
May 1, 2013
Does Your Practice Group Really Have A Strategy?
read with interest, a guest posting on the Harvard website authored by Freek
Vermeulen a noted business strategy professor at the London Business School
entitled, “Corporate Strategy Is a Fool’s Errand.” In it, Professor Vermeulen claims:
corporations (law firms in our context) consist of multiple divisions (read
that to mean practice or industry groups), which set their own strategy – what
we generally refer to as "business strategy." But more often than not, these divisions have
very little to do with one another. Take
Philips Electronics with its lighting, medical equipment, and consumer
electronics divisions; ThyssenKrupp with its steel, elevators, and engineering
services units; or smaller companies such as Trinity Mirror, which offers
newspapers, printing, and digital services. They may not be like the big
conglomerates of the 1960s — you can see how their portfolio of somewhat
related business came about — but, in reality, the various divisions and
business units do operate completely independently from one another. Yet corporate top management invariably tries
hard to force each unit into an overarching strategy. It endeavors to stimulate cooperation across
divisions, sets up corporate shared services, and gives a lot of lip service to
creating "cross-divisional synergies." I say, don't go there; don't even try.”
Now what is
striking about the professor’s observations is how closely they parallel the
real world of strategic planning as it occurs in most law firms. Few firms recognize that what they are really
managing is not one homogenous firm, but a portfolio of different businesses.
And it logically follows that what you need to do to nurture, market and grow
an employment and labor practice is very different from a commercial litigation
practice – or a health care practice from an energy and natural resources
is that too many law firms develop a firm strategic plan with little real
meaningful input from the various practice groups and then send the partnership
approved document to each of the practice leaders with a request that they
develop some kind of written plan of their own, specifically designed to
support implementation of the firm’s plan.
“Each practice group leader shall
prepare and be accountable to an annual group business plan that establishes
practice group goals and objectives consistent with the firm’s strategic plan.”
worse, in many instances I see the marketing department distribute their
“template” to all of the practice group leaders to help them develop their
plans. I saw another one of these
templates the other day. This one was
being distributed within a fairly sophisticated, 500+ lawyer firm, with offices
from coast to coast, and to be completed by each of their national industry
groups. It included questions like:
• what are the
key objectives for the group?
• what are the
KM / CLE objectives for the coming year?
what are the marketing and business development plans for the coming year?
what resources can the firm provide to assist with these objectives?
what is the competitive environment for the group from a national perspective?
what are the opportunities and the threats that the group sees nationally?
what new ideas is the group considering for the coming year?
what are the longer term goals for the group over the next 3 years and should
anything be put in place now to reach those goals?
successful firms have each of their groups work on developing their own
strategic direction, separate and apart from the firm’s plan but included as
part of the overall firm direction. It may be just my view, but I
think that we have a very long way to go in many of our firms before we get to
anything that even resembles a sophisticated strategic plan . . . and that is
before we have even begun the sad discussion about how much of these plans ever
Post #662 – Wednesday, April 24, 2013
8 Things Consultants Will Never Say
I came across this article today, authored by Jeff Haden (columnist for INC magazine) and which should be required reading for every
managing partner and anyone holding themselves out to be a consultant:
Hiring the right consultant is
tough, especially since in most cases there is no physical “product” to
evaluate. You often have to decide
whether promises like “We can!” and “We will!” are likely to come true. Aside
from due diligence like checking credentials and references, your decision
largely rests on what a consultant says – and on what you believe. Here
are eight things you’ll almost never hear a consultant say, especially during
the wining and dining phase. If you find
one who does, consider it a great sign:
be more disruptive than you hope.” All projects are disruptive. In fact, the best projects are often hugely
disruptive, as well they should — you’re making changes. A consultant who downplays the disruption
factor is inexperienced or fibbing.
A consultant who doesn’t sugarcoat things up
front is much more likely to shoot straight during the rest of the engagement.
“I don’t know.” Consultants love
to know. Can you blame them? A consultant’s job is to provide answers,
especially answers you don’t have. A
consultant willing to say, “I don’t know, let’s figure it out,” is more likely
to take a collaborative approach than one who pretends to be omniscient.
“No solution is ever
are no turn-key solutions unless the consultant is providing very simple
equipment, hardware or applications. Even
then some amount of training and process modification is usually necessary. There will always
be more involved on your end than you expect, so the more you know ahead of
time, the better your plan, and the more likely you’ll end up on-budget and on
“I’m not sure I
understand the requirements.” Some consultants love fuzzy requirements because
“misunderstandings” or “gaps” create wiggle room later. Good consultants want
to know as much as possible since the better they understand your expectations
the easier it is to deliver those expectations. T
“You don’t need us to
do that.” (My Favorite!) Great consultants
are willing to point out ways clients can save money. Losing a little revenue is better than losing
clients who realize they purchased services they didn’t need. Great consultants operate just like you do;
they try to build long-term business relationships.
“Your team is telling
me something different — let’s sort things out.” What you want and
what your colleagues want, can be two very different things. Look for a consultant who tries to reconcile
various perspectives and needs so the project scope is clearly defined. A clearly defined project protects you.
“We’ll want to come
back a month or so later, at no charge, just to see how things turned out.” All consultants
focus on successful project completion. The
problem is some feel “successful completion” means “final payment.” Good consultants care about how the project
turned out for you. The best consultant
I hired stopped by or called every three months to check in. Great for us, but
something in it for him too: Identifying problems helped him improve his
“No.” Rarely can a
consultant provide everything you request for the price and schedule you need. “No” is disappointing but is often the answer
you most need to hear up front. Would
you rather create a plan based on reality or on empty promises?
Some consultants work on the
“agree now, modify later” principle. Find
one who doesn’t.
Rant #661 - Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Spring 2013 Issue of International Review Is Now Available
Here’s my newest issue of International Review – an issue that I hope contains a balanced blend of thoughtful insight and practical contributions on law firm strategy and leadership.
Today, I believe we face a time when doing things fundamentally differently will ultimately trump doing the same things more efficiently. To succeed firms will need to focus increasingly more attention on how they might differentiate themselves in ways that client value. My Six Elements of Meaningful Differentiation is intended to provoke your thinking on this important topic. And you may note that while this may not be the most comprehensive piece on this subject I have deliberately not identified costs as a significant differentiator. For those who engage in predatory pricing, you might win the fee-cutting race . . . right to the bottom - but the real strategic issue is whether you will have a sustainable practice after you get there.
I am delighted to include an article that American Lawyer magazine agreed to publish an excerpt from earlier this year. Malignant Leadership reflects upon some lessons from the Dewey catastrophe and has probably garnered more responses from readers than almost any other article that I’ve written over the years.
Be sure to have a look at the results of my latest research into the dynamics of being a managing partner as conveyed in Inside The Corridors of Firm Leadership. This expose represents the responses from firm leaders of AmLaw 100, AmLaw 200 and other firms on everything from their job descriptions and how they spend their time to their leadership priorities and intentions for when they leave office.
Finally, I am observing a trend wherein more firms are starting to hit the Reset Button on their practice group management efforts and trying to start fresh. Practice Group Leadership 2.0 is my attempt to prescribe some fundamental structural recommendations for what firms absolutely must do to make their practice management efforts successful.
I sincerely hope that you find some practical ideas, tips and techniques here that you can put to use immediately. To obtain your complimentary PDF copy simply click on the cover of the magazine. Please send me your observations, critiques, comments and suggestions with respect to any of these articles.
Rant #660 – Monday,
April 1, 2013
Once More On Cross-Selling
The other day on the Managing Partner discussion site (LinkedIn) I
came across a posting wherein some
member was informing us all
that “cross-selling within law firms is broken” and lecturing the
readers that “If a firm is
truly serious, an organizational system should be put in place, driven
by the management board, to facilitate the process straight from the top.”
contain myself . . . I was compelled to rant:
I could easily wallpaper my offices with all of the articles that
have been written over the past twenty years on cross-selling, and yet the
behavior doesn’t ever seem to change. And firm leadership taking control or
issuing ultimatums hasn’t worked in the past and is unlikely to work going
Here are two observations worth exploring.
One is that I rarely see cross-selling being quite such an issue
within industry groups. Industry groups, by their nature, tend to focus much
deeper into all of the various legal issues that clients face, such that it
never feel like you are “selling” anything; but rather endeavoring to prevent
or solve the client’s problems. But unfortunately, we still tend to structure
our firms based on what we studied at law school rather than what the client
wants – us to really know their business.
The second may lie in understanding how to motivate competent and
conscientious lawyers. The process that is most often used in cross “selling”
is that firm management asks the members of some practice group to go to the
other groups and “tell them what you do” because instinctively we know that
product knowledge (knowing what the other lawyers in our firm actually do for
our clients) is pathetic!
The only shortcoming to this approach is that I do not, frankly,
have the patience to listen to you ramble on about all of the various services
that your group provides. And I don’t really understand most of it either. What
would get my attention though, is if you could:
(1) succinctly identify only
ONE hot, topical legal issue that my clients might be facing now or in the very
(2) identify the type of client (perhaps by number of employees)
that this issue is most likely to impact;
(3) tell me in a very brief manner why and how this issue is going
to impact my client;
(4) tell me what the downside or consequences might be if
my client does not take some remedial or proactive action; and
(5) give me a written cheat-sheet/script on what I should say to my
client to make them aware of this issue (because frankly, I didn’t go to law
school for all those years to now come across like some used-car salesman and I
don’t know what to say to my client so as not to embarrass myself).
In other words, give me the tools to look competent in serving the
best interests of my clients and I “might” be more interested in engaging in
your cross-selling crap!
Rant #657 – Monday,
March 25, 2013
How You Present Your
Distinctiveness Makes a Difference
interview with a prospective client you are asked to briefly describe what
differentiates you or your firm from your other competitors. At that
moment your overwhelming goal is to present some distinctive factors that
impress this prospect; so you begin to list some accomplishments. You tell this prospect about how Chambers has
ranked your firm among the first tier providers in Health Care, about how your
practice group has more bio-science PhDs than any other in the region; and how
you currently serve four of the largest five regional hospitals. And then,
almost as an after-thought you mention that you have also just recruited a
leading lawyer in the area of IP and expect to be growing that practice. Not yet an impressive accomplishment, but
since this company is likely to have intellectual property issues, you figure
mentioning that you are moving ahead in this area is better than saying nothing
Or is it?
According to the
work of Dr. Heidi
Grant Halvorson, a social psychologist who researches, writes, and speaks about
the science of motivation – it
isn’t. You’ve just fallen victim to a phenomenon that she says psychologists
have recently discovered, called the “Presenter’s Paradox.” It’s a fascinating example of how our
instincts about presenting – ourselves, our firms, or our service offerings –
can be surprisingly bad.
In essence, our
erroneous assumption is this: when we present a prospect with a list of our
accomplishments (or with a bundle of services), that they will see what we’re
offering additively. If our Chambers rating, our PhDs and our
hospital clients are all a “10” on the scale of impressiveness, and our
burgeoning commitment to IP is a “2,” then we reason that added together, this
is a 10 + 10 + 10 + 2, or a “32” in impressiveness. So it makes sense to
mention your minimal IP experience to the overall picture. We just assume
that more is better.
Only more is not
in fact better to the prospective client.
that this is not how other people see what we’re offering. They don’t add
up the impressiveness, they average it. They look at the package
as a whole, rather than focusing on the individual parts. To them, this is a (10+ 10+ 10+ 2)/4 package,
or an “8” in impressiveness. And if you had left off the bit about your
IP initiative, you would have had a (10 + 10+ 10)/3, or a “10” in
impressiveness. So even though logically it seems like a little IP
is better than none, mentioning it makes you a less attractive candidate than
if you’d said nothing at all.
The challenge here is to recognize that more is actually not
better, IF what you are adding is of lesser quality than the rest of your
offerings. So if you are an employment
lawyer practicing in the firm with the accomplishments I just mentioned, but
your particular group has little to mention by way of first tier achievements,
you are better off presenting the firm’s big picture accomplishments then
trying to finesse something of lesser status.
In other words, your highly favorable or positive attributes are
diminished and diluted in the eye of the beholder (the prospective client) when
they are presented amongst only moderately favorable achievements.
If this bias in how we present ourselves is so pervasive,
how can we stop ourselves from making this kind of mistake? According to Dr. Halvorson, we need to constantly
remind ourselves when making any kind of presentation to think holistically.
How distinctive is the
package I’m presenting, taken as a whole, and are there any elements that take
away from or dilute the impressiveness and overall value?
Three 10’s and a 2 is not better than three
Rant #658 – Tuesday, March
How Confident Are You That We’re
Seeing An Improved Picture?
to the latest Law Watch Managing Partner Confidence Index survey, released this
week by Citi Private Bank's Law Firm Group those surveyed (only 77 firm leaders)
are feeling more confident. In a
subsequent discussion with my fellow co-author and favorite law firm finances
analyst, Ed Reeser, I obtained this insightful analysis:
As we recall, the
first quarter of 2012 started off with some vigor, and then things went into
the tank in the second quarter and continued rather poorly into the third. Only
an unexpected and marvelously active fourth quarter, both in terms of work and
collections, appears to have saved the 2012 calendar year. Specifics on how,
when and from where this rebound came are to this point anecdotal and a bit
vague, as the information has come from preliminary reports. Greater details are eagerly awaited, as
through the end of November the impressions were not positive for the fourth
quarter of 2012.
There are some
seriously inconsistent responses within this survey. Heavy discounting (100%) and expectations of
increased costs (72%) are in the same report as increased profits expectations
(75%). How can one reconcile those contrasting
there is revenue growth . . . and indeed 85% of the respondents have
expectations of revenue growth. How are
they going to get it in a market that Citibank says is characterized by
"not enough legal work to go around"?
There is organic
growth from within, which has been lacking for most firms, but perhaps with a
recovering economy that could go up and help much larger numbers of firms. Obviously that would be great, and indeed 93%
are looking to conditions that are the same or better than last year. That is pretty optimistic considering that Q4
was perhaps the biggest unexpected miracle result since the US defeated the
Russians in hockey at the 1980 Olympic Games, and without it the year was
pointing towards a serious disappointment.
buying growth through lateral hires . . . a strategy that recent reports
from Professor Henderson and Chris Zorn at Lawyer Metrics on the US side of the
Atlantic, and Mark Brandon on the UK side of the Atlantic . . . have shown to be
a failing one most of the time.
there is removal of participants in the profits pool and
increase leverage, This approach is evident in the FTE chart on
non-equity partner growth expectations. Of
the three tactics, only this last one of self-consumption is absolutely
available and consistent with proven past behaviors and results. Not for all firms. But for a very large number it has
characterized their performance in 2012, and more of the same should be
This report is like
a finger, pointing to the moon. The
finger has strongly optimistic expectations of greater demand, overall
confidence, stronger economy, stronger business conditions for the law, rock
and roll profits, and increased revenues.
But the focus should
not be upon the finger – it is about where the finger is pointing. Strip away
the aspirational and 'hoped for' expectations, and lift the gaze to where the
substantiated components of the report based on past performance lead your
vision . . . stagnant demand, heavy discounting, increased costs, reduced
What do you see?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >> of 66