Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How A Leader Adds Value To A Law Firm
After years of analyzing the personal and professional styles of lawyer managers who are perceived as leaders of professionally and financially successful law firms, three inescapable conclusions have become readily apparent to the author:
- The authority of lawyer management is derived from the willingness of partners to be managed;
- Partners in most law firms perceive themselves as being owners of the firm, having certain prerogatives and independence, not as employees to be “managed”; and
- Law firms have their own personalities and cultures; and management techniques that may be effective in one firm may be marginally or not successful in another.
It is the author's opinion that the greatest, and perhaps the most frustrating challenge with which effective leaders of law firms must deal is the approach to follow to provide leadership to their firms. Central to this conflict is whether to lead by consensus or decree. Astute leaders achieve the appropriate balance of building consensus among the partners versus managing as an autocrat.
In today's highly competitive environment, authority for managing a firm's administrative and substantive activities needs to be centralized in a managing partner and/or a management committee, to some extent. It is no longer feasible or desirable for attorneys to exercise their independence on virtually every issue. Partners must be willing to subordinate their prerogatives as owners of the firm for the “good” of the firm. This is frequently referred to as “being a good citizen of the firm.”
In determining and defining the leadership role of a law firm leader, it is important, as part of the process, to recognize those individuals who are not necessarily leaders simply by virtue of one attribute. While many firm leaders fit one or more of these descriptions, the below characteristics do not immediately signal leadership potential:
- Partner with high billable hours;
- The rainmaker who controls a substantial portion of business;
- The attorney who feels he is a leader simply by virtue of seniority; and
- The attorney who feels he is a leader simply by virtue of title.
Characteristics of a Firm Leader
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?