Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices

Is your “winning streak” about to become a “losing streak”?  I believe it is likely unless you prepare for the test you didn’t ask for but are about to take.  Let's be honest, most law firms have had a pretty good run and your partners are well accustomed to it.  Will your partners understand what a decrease is? Will your firm maintain the winning attitude that brought you this far?  If you don’t think the next few miles of road are bumpier than you're used to then the following may be of little interest (except perhaps for the reference to “denying the facts”).

I Irecommend that you visit (or revisit) Confidence - How Winning Streaks and Losing Streaks Begin and End by Harvard’s Rosabeth Moss Kanter. 

Rosabeth Moss Kanter's biography for those interested

Confidence is a road map that helps you react more constructively than you might otherwise have to the challenges you will face (like this deteriorating economy).  The losing streak is fraught with a disease whose symptoms will infect your people - they include::

• Stop communicating
• Criticize and blame
• Disrespect others
• Become isolated
• Focus inward
• Let inequalities develop and persist
• Lose initiative
• Forget goals and aspirations
• Spread negativity
• Deny Facts

• Accountability
• Collaboration
• Initiative

Check out Soundview Summaries and getAbstract.  If there are others, let me know.

PUNCHLINE:  Put Rosabeth Moss Kanter on your informal advisory team by buying the book or subscribing to one of the summary services above.  You cannot prevent the legal profession from having a losing streak here – but you can prevent your firm from having one.

The worst market crisis in 60 years: "recession or worse"?  Says who? The 80th richest man in the world, George Soros, (estimated net worth of 8.5 Billion according to Forbes).  Is Mr. Soros toying with the "D" word: "Depression" when he says "recession or worse"?

I recommend that you read the entire Financial Times (FT) article dated January 22, 2008: The worst market crisis in 60 years.

This is not a new subject for me - see my August 3, 2007 post Doom and Gloom for the legal profession - it's coming with respect to which Valorem Law founder, Patrick Lamb, kindly called me "an awfully good soothsayer" in his January 19, 2008 post Will The Perfect Storm Fundamentally Alter The Foundation Of The Profession?

Citibank’s Law Group Head and friend, Dan DiPietro, seems to be singing in harmony with Mr. Soros.  Dan believes that US law firms may soon be battling unprecedented economic pressures.

As a law firm leader,  you need to ask yourself some hard questions.  My Edge International partner, Rob Millard, and I believe you need to: Recession-Proof your Law Firm and that Law firms must immediately prepare by reassessing their strategies in order to:

• minimize the potentially firm-threatening impact and
• capitalize on competitive opportunities

1. Strong Leadership 

  In ancient times, the Cherokee Nation had one chief who would rule during times of peace; another during war. The need for hard, courageous decisions, even sacrifice, is common to both recessions and wars. In both, strong leadership is critical if hard decisions are to be taken and actually executed.
2. Ramp Up the Frequency of Financial Data Reporting   

Things can change fast in a recession. Clients, under financial pressure themselves, terminate engagements. Revenues may contract. Debtor payment periods and write offs may deteriorate, putting pressure on liquidity. The firm’s key financial metrics must be monitored far more frequently than in boom times.
3. Make the Hard Decisions Humanely and Fast  

Layoffs, if required, must be quick and humane not only to preserve capital, but also to get the firm past this trauma quickly and focused on working forward again. Continued employment of underperformers must be carefully assessed. Where the market is no longer buying specific services there are two choices: retool (quickly) or separate. (Do not misinterpret this as a suggestion to rush to lay off people though. Long-term considerations suggest this is a last resort option for all personnel except those who ought to have been asked to leave years ago.)
4. Get Practice Leaders and Client Team Leaders focused on short-term action plans  

Actions must be executed more quickly than in “good times” and therefore designed for rapid implementation. Plans must be focused, systematic and disciplined. Those that will actually drive plans must be integrally involved in crafting them and managing their execution. Feedback and accountability measures are critical to ensure that the plans are executed, especially when they relate to the hard, courageous decisions (point 1.) Non-billable time becomes a valuable asset and must be actively managed to ensure that key tasks receive priority.
5. Involve Your Clients  

In recessions, client mobility increases. Client needs evolve more quickly as new threats and opportunities emerge. Firms need to go beyond simply expressing empathy and assuring continuing loyalty. They need to actively position themselves to meet emerging key client needs. This cannot be done without actively discussing business (not just legal) issues with clients. If you don’t have client teams in place for your key clients, now would be a good time to start!
6. Manage Internal Expectations   Business as Usual Could Be Lethal

Remember the tale of the two frogs? The first is dropped into a bowl of hot water. It jumps out. The second is dropped into a bowl of cold water and slowly heated up. It doesn’t jump out and eventually dies. Similar procrastination has been the death of too many good firms. You need to explain internally what is being done to weather the recession and the likely impact on the financial positions of your people. This knowledge will motivate your people to do what is expected of them rather than default to “business as usual.”
7. This Too Shall Pass   Keep a Balance With Your Long Term Strategy

Think strategically about whether and where to cut short-term resources. Retaining some temporarily unprofitable practice areas and individuals may be advisable if they are important to your long-term goals. On the other hand, a recession is an excellent time to re-engineer or sever areas that have become less profitable but have been tolerated to avoid conflict.

Thanks again to Robert Millard for his collaboration on this. 

As always I appreciate your feedback.

The New York Times Business section included an article yesterday called:  For Lawyers, Perks to Fit a Lifestyle.

The article alluded to a variety of perks including money, candied apples, milkshakes, car discounts, valet services, wine, office parties, in-office gourmet meals on silver platters, nap rooms, child care, emergency nanny services, sabbaticals and even an occasional masseuse.

Perhaps this was the most important perk mentioned:

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, a 600-lawyer firm based in New York, offers employees a service akin to a personal issues coach and psychotherapist through a deal with Corporate Counseling Associates of Manhattan. The consulting firm has a battery of staff psychologists and social workers to provide advice on issues including stress, anxiety, depression and divorce.

While many companies have offered employee assistance programs over the years, few have Ph.D. psychologists on staff.

A spokeswoman for Fried, Frank, Paula Zirinsky, said, “We want employees to be successful in their personal as well as their work lives.”

PUNCHLINE:  Some of my law-firm clients have very serious challenges dealing with individuals for whom "psychological intervention" should be mandatory.  In these severe cases, ostensibly productive members of the firm are causing harm to client relationships and firm personnel with long term costs that are hugely underestimated by their firms.  Perhaps offering such perks is a way to make it just a little easier to address these firm-threatening challenges.

Read the entire article...  perhaps your firm can offer many of the perks mentioned - most are not that expensive and I'll bet the return on investment would be healthy indeed (pun intended).

Recipe for disaster: secrecy, unfair competition, deteriorating culture and even a partnership agreement that did not foresee that it was too generous to departing partners if more than a handful left at a time…

Joanna Pachner of Canada’s highly respected publication,  Financial Post Business, writes in detail today about how and why the highly respected and profitable Canadian law firm of Goodman & Carr met its demise.

Punchline:  If you are on the senior management team of your law firm, this may be a beacon of what to avoid in your own firm’s future.  And, integrity drives me to day this, based on my own experience working with law firms globally, many firms have some of these destructive elements already in place.  Perhaps the question is: when the tipping point is reached (that leads to a firm’s ultimate demise).  If you care about your own firm, read this article: Driven to [Self-] Destruction Financial Post Business, October 2, 2007.

The September 2007 McKinsey Quarterly has an interesting article called: The Evolving Role of the CMO by David Court who discusses four areas of change for the CMO:

• Changing to reflect new consumer [client?] buying behavior
• Shaping the Company's [Firm's?] public profile
• Managing Complexity
• Building new Marketing Capabilities

• Take time to understand what's really happening with customers [clients?]
• Foster the right connection between the CMO's efforts and those other parts of the organization
• Be a "thought partner" for the CMO as he or she transforms the marketing organization.

NOTE:  General access to McKinsey Quarterly is free but requires registration and log-in - for recommended article, premium (paid) subscription is required.

Two notes of optimism today for the legal profession:

“Forget the old stereotypes of law firms as inhospitable to women,” said Suzanne Riss, Editor in Chief, Working Mother magazine.  “As Working Mother examined the practices of many of the nation’s law firms, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that a number have been quietly changing their policies in recent years to reflect changes that are afoot in society as a whole.  The 2007 Working Mother & Flex-Time Lawyers Best Law Firms for Women are making women’s issues a priority, and the success of their policies will hopefully become reflected in the number of women, from associates all the way up to partners.”

See the full press release including the 50 Best Law firms for Women  (Note - this is a PDF)

More than three-quarters of the UK's top 50 law firms have introduced flexible working… Regional-based firm Mills & Reeves tops the table in terms of numbers of fee-earners taking up flexible working in the last year, according to a poll conducted by The Lawyer. Of the firm’s 407 fee-earners, 153 are no longer working traditional nine to five hours. This is the equivalent of 38 per cent of the workforce.

See the full story: Top UK firms embrace flexible working   (UK's: The Lawyer.com)

Punchline:  It's refreshing to read about some significant progress in this area - I grow weary of those who suffer from "hardening of the attitudes".

The despised business of videoconferencing is about to get a new lease on life.

This weeks Economist has an article on Telepresence.  The full title is “Behold, telepresence - Far away yet strangely personal”.  (Requires subscription).  Image above is from the article.

Here are a few excerpts to whet your appetite for the story – the headings are mine:

The Problem:

Videoconferencing was supposed to put an end to corporate travel. But positioning people in front of a camera, fiddling endlessly with controls and then either giving up or proceeding to stare at a tiny picture of a blurry face often seems less satisfactory than the humble telephone.

The Solution:

Designers want people in telepresence meetings to appear life-sized, and the tables and rooms at the two ends to blend together seamlessly. (Rooms, furniture and even wallpaper are often identical, to aid the illusion.) People must also feel that they are making eye contact, which involves multiple cameras and enormous computing power. The delays in sight and sound must be negligible (ie, below 250 milliseconds, the threshold at which the human brain starts to notice), so that people can interrupt each other naturally. Sound must be perceived to come from the direction of the person speaking. And getting things started must be simple—ideally involving a single button or none at all.

Saving Money and Time (law firm example driven by client):

In addition to saving money, Cisco argues that telepresence saves time. The firm recently completed a takeover in eight days (as opposed to the usual weeks or months) by putting the lawyers in telepresence rooms instead of on aeroplanes.

More examples:

Lee Scott, the boss of Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer, is said to see great scope for improving his supply chain. DreamWorks, a Hollywood studio that helped HP develop its telepresence system, says the technology will help it make movies cheaper and faster, by allowing creative types to collaborate without travelling.

My Punchline:

Managing Partners – don’t think about this opportunity from the law firm’s perspective but rather your client’s.  You may have some clients who will acquire this technology and will want you to participate – I welcome this as I believe that most law firm technology comes because the clients want us to have it (sometimes, “insist”).   If top corporations in your markets populate your client list, perhaps you should become familiar enough with this technology to initiate the discussion with your major clients.  After all, wouldn’t it be refreshing for your client to believe of you that your firm is progressive enough to be at the forefront?

Footnote (Greetings from Uruguay):  Speaking of technology and the world becoming more virtual, I posted this blog entry from my hotel room in Montevideo, Uruguay following an assignment with an MDP (accounting and law) firm here.  The Economist arrived promptly on my desk top this morning and I was able to effortlessly post this story.  Perhaps before too long I will be able to conduct the kind of assignment I traveled here for by video conference.

About The Economist: You can of course buy the hard copy or subscribe on line. This story is marked: Aug 23rd 2007 | SAN FRANCISCO
 From The Economist print edition

It is with personal sadness that I post this news. In September, one of Canada's most respected law firms will close its doors forever according to a story by lawyer/journalist Jim Middlemiss in today's Financial Post: “Lawyer exodus shutters Desjardins”.

Jim starts his story:

An era will end for the 100-lawyer law firm Desjardins Ducharme LLP in September. The once-esteemed law firm will close after more than 50 years in business.

For those unfamiliar with Desjardins Ducharme, Kip Cobbett's comment in the story sums it up:

Kip Cobbett, [Managing Partner and COO of] Stikeman Elliott LLP in Montreal, said it is "very sad" to see Desjardins' demise. "It was a wonderful firm. It will certainly change the landscape."

The inevitable autopsy will point to a plethora of possible causes.  In my view the imperative for firm leaders who read this is not an analysis of Desjardins Ducharme in particular but rather the realization that complacency, even in the blue chip firms, can be lethal.

Punchline:  The relentless tsunami of change in the legal market place will not spare a firm unable to maneuver out of its path - no matter that firm's historic financial success, no matter that firm's pedigree, no matter that firm's history, no matter that firm's exemplary reputation.  In my view the harsh lesson here is simple: manage or prepare to perish!

Many of my friends and clients know me as a very optimistic person so this post may surprise them.  I feel like I am about to watch the next dot com crash only I am not talking about the internet or high tech.

I have held this belief for many months and I believe that the economic indicators that can hurt the legal profession are gaining momentum.  How much longer can the legal profession remain insulated from the market realities?  I say not long at all.

Our legal profession is in for very rough times. My message to Managing Partners is not to become pessimistic but simply to have a contingency plan in place.

Most firms will:

a) continue to be hourly billers (for the most part)
b) plan for extensions of the historic linear revenue and profit per partner growth
c) perhaps fine tune by de-equitizing or closing an unprofitable office or two

but few will create a contingency plan for:

a) dramatic drops in demand for many traditionally hot practice areas
b) over-staffing (at all levels and in most practice areas)
c) the cancer of internally competitive behavior as the pie shrinks

Those inclined to tell me I am crazy I ask to wait six months following the next US election – then I will eat this post if I was wrong.

I love our profession and want only the best for it so I hope the smart Managing Partners out there will prove that great firms can thrive through adversity – especially when your competitors are not capable of doing so.

My heart hopes I am wrong – but my mind tells me otherwise.  I decided that down the road it would be no good to say “I knew it” if I lacked the courage to post it now.

Your comments are most welcome, as always.

Addendum:

Patrick Lamb posted the following comment both here and on his own popular blog: In Search of Perfect Client Service in his post: Gerry Riskin's Forecast: Stormy Times Ahead.

I think he deserves a response:

Patrick’s comment/question:    Gerry--very powerful post.  Not one that I disagree with at all, but can you share with us the signs you see that lead you to this conclusion?  And are the elections tied to result or simply a benchmark for the time by which you think the changes will be apparent?  Ciao.

My response:  The US election is a process that sees powerful interest groups exercising their discretion in a manner which will increase the probability of their preferred candidate(s) being elected.  As a result, a temporary and indeed unsustainable economic climate may be manifested.   I think things get very real about six months after US presidential elections.  With outcomes certain, interest groups lose their motivation in a hurry – at least for a while.   As for the indicators themselves, I am afraid to start because where do I finish?  However, here are some things to examine:

    Currency fluctuations
    Price of oil
    Price of precious metals
    Increase and decrease in “real” jobs
    Geographic location of those jobs
    Political stability of job locations
    Foreign relations as they affect business
    Balance of Trade between countries and regions
    Housing markets (not just prices – but demand)
    Auto market (demand)
    Credit levels (or should I say “debt levels”)
    Interest rates (they are not falling, in fact, get ready…)
    The advent of the largely unregulated Hedge Fund industry
    The establishment pensions that invest in Hedge Funds
    The Domino effect – how one indicator impacts many others

And specific to the legal profession:
   
    The disparity between views of General Counsel and Outside Law Firms
    Associate starting salaries (and consequential impact on all salaries)
    “De-equitization of partners” trend
    “Law firms going public” (anticipated) trend
    The obsession by partners on remuneration
    The expectation of continued increasing revenues, PPP and PPL
    The surrealism of the financial expectations of new lawyers
    Comments from Citigroup’s law firm market specialists

Disclaimer:  Yes, I obtained a business degree before law and yes I studied economics and yes I subscribe to reliable publications like The Economist but I do not profess to be able to predict the stock market or future currency fluctuations.  In fact, I will admit that my post is based to a large extent on a hunch – intuition (I read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell so maybe this is OK).

Punchline:  If there were a fund that invested in the legal profession worldwide (at least in the western world) I am not a buyer – I might even summon the courage to put some money at risk by “selling short”.

In closing, perhaps not you, Patrick but there are many who will think I am completely wrong – I not only respect their right to hold that view, I hope that their view prevails.  I post this because if there I seven a significant possibility I am right, as stated in my original post:  “My message to Managing Partners is not to become pessimistic but simply to have a contingency plan in place.”

Addendum #2:  In light of the stock market tumble today, I thought I should clarify that this post was not a reaction to it but rather done before today and scheduled to auto post after midnight this AM - here is an image from my aggregator to verify:

-30-

Ahhhh yes… seduction! 

Many great firms that I serve have a common enemy ”complacency” which Is indeed the result of decades of success.  Managing Partners complain that they are unable to get their partners to pay attention to their future.

Read Jim Hassett’s blogpost, Have lawyers been seduced by success? In his fantastic blog: Legal Business Development.

Here’s a teaser quote: 

If you like money, it's a great time to be a lawyer. In Citigroup's Law Watch survey of "153 US law firms broadly representative of the industry," law firm revenue has gone up 9.8% per year since 2001. But as Bill Gates put it: "Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose." We know lawyers are smart people. Do some think they can't lose?

Read why Jim argues that you ought to read:

*According to the largest-ever research program in the UK legal profession, it appears that as the Beatles sang “money can’t buy you love”

I am not certain that the numbers would be different elsewhere in the world but at least are informed by recent and credible statistics.

The Lawyer.com article: Twenty four per cent of lawyers want to quit said in part:

 "Although the City [London] has seen a series of hefty salary rises and increases in partner profits, the rise in earnings has not contributed to overall happiness."

I speculate that there are three reasons for the responses of the Managing Partners (whom I believe have one of the toughest jobs on the planet):

1)  they are frequently under-trained and undereducated in management;

2)  they lead people who too often have little desire to follow

3) they have tasted a life that is a departure from the grind of finding work, recording hours and billing clients and they seek an environment that will value their learned managerial and leadership skills. 

Your thoughts?

Check out the full article

The Wall Street Journal posts: Slater & Gordon: The World’s First Publicly Traded Law Firm

Managing Partners and other members of law firm C suites had better look at Slater & Gordon’s prospectus – it’s a gold mine, (pun intended).

Have a look at how risks are described – the Wall Street Journal post quotes the passage balancing professional responsibility and shareholder profits.

"Lawyers have a primary duty to the courts and a secondary duty to their clients. These duties are paramount given the nature of the Company’s business as an Incorporated Legal Practice. There could be circumstances in which the lawyers of Slater & Gordon are required to act in accordance with these duties and contrary to other corporate responsibilities and against the interests of Shareholders or the short-term profitability of the Company."

I adored the "Key Risks" page (click on it to download pdf of this page):

PUNCHLINE:  If this does not fascinate you, you should resign from your leadership position.  I am not saying you should follow suit – I want you to know what your options are and what your competitors might be up to way sooner than you would like to think.

Science fiction movies adore time travel and ripples in the primordial fabric.  We are witnessing a collision - the future has just exploded into the present.  With Clemente in the UK just over the horizon, please fasten your seatbelts - this is a pivotal moment for the legal profession and for the Managing Partners within it.  Like Dennis Hopper's famous line in the movie Speed, "what are you going to do, Jack"

You may want to reference my earlier post:  The end of the legal profession as you knew it...