Resolving the Enigma of Law Firm Leadership

An old proverb states that “Trees begin to die at the top.” When a firm finds itself in the midst of a management crisis, the place to begin to search for the source of the problem is at the top of the management hierarchy. This may not be a popular notion or an easy task. The purpose is not to find fault. The point is that an organization does not simply evolve. It must be built in an orderly manner. The values that are important to a firm have to be defined and centrally organized. The responsibility for these goals must be keyed to an organizational factor, whether this is a committee or an individual. If the attorneys have the necessary energy, talent and drive, and there is enough work for the firm, then the structure must be thoroughly examined for the values that have been attributed to each part.

The style and method that differentiates one form of management from another depends upon factors that include the firm's history, the availability of partners with requisite management skills and desire to become involved in the process. Equally important is the firm's economic success, size, location of office(s), type of practice, client base and difference in the personal and professional objectives of partners.

Leadership

Any partnership, no matter the size, needs leadership. Good law firm management cannot be achieved until all the partners agree to subordinate some independence to a management partner or an executive/managing committee. The partners must strike a balance between their rights as owners and their responsibilities as citizens of the firm. They must relinquish some personal prerogatives to achieve results that they would not be able to attain on their own. In theory, partnership status accords all parties the same rights and privileges. However, as many firms quickly discover, this is simply not the case in practice. Invariably, partners have their own ideas about how to perform their jobs, and they exercise their authority accordingly.

If the firm is to establish a form of governance that will satisfy all of its members, the attorneys must first acknowledge the need for leadership. The partners must also recognize that managing a firm, either as the managing partner or a member of a committee, is as important and as difficult as performing client work, if not more so.

In some firms, the leadership role is assumed easily and quite naturally, either because the individual is a founding partner or controls a significant client base. Where the partners are relatively young and inexperienced, the process of “natural selection” may be more difficult, if not virtually impossible. Where there is no natural leader or no one wants the job, the firm must take aggressive action if it wishes to grow and satisfy its objectives.

The smaller firm can establish a democratic form of governance that includes all the partners in leadership. Where this is not practical, the partners face a difficult choice and risk setting up two power centers if the general partnership elects both the management committee and the managing partner. This creates great potential for dissension and divisiveness since the camp will inevitably follow its choice of leadership when given the opportunity. To avoid this, it is preferable to select the managing partner by the management committee.

Generally, lawyers are not recruited to a law firm on the basis of their interest or skills in management. And usually they are not trained for it by the firm. Consequently, skill and interest in management varies greatly. As a result, any management committee will consist of both good and bad managers. This should not be viewed as an obstacle. For, as relevant as these skills are when selecting an attorney to serve on the management committee, they are not necessarily the only factors that should be considered. It may be as important, or more so, to provide equitable representation on the committee to the different groups of lawyers in the firm.

Next month, we discuss qualities needed in a manager.

An old proverb states that “Trees begin to die at the top.” When a firm finds itself in the midst of a management crisis, the place to begin to search for the source of the problem is at the top of the management hierarchy. This may not be a popular notion or an easy task. The purpose is not to find fault. The point is that an organization does not simply evolve. It must be built in an orderly manner. The values that are important to a firm have to be defined and centrally organized. The responsibility for these goals must be keyed to an organizational factor, whether this is a committee or an individual. If the attorneys have the necessary energy, talent and drive, and there is enough work for the firm, then the structure must be thoroughly examined for the values that have been attributed to each part.

The style and method that differentiates one form of management from another depends upon factors that include the firm's history, the availability of partners with requisite management skills and desire to become involved in the process. Equally important is the firm's economic success, size, location of office(s), type of practice, client base and difference in the personal and professional objectives of partners.

Leadership

Any partnership, no matter the size, needs leadership. Good law firm management cannot be achieved until all the partners agree to subordinate some independence to a management partner or an executive/managing committee. The partners must strike a balance between their rights as owners and their responsibilities as citizens of the firm. They must relinquish some personal prerogatives to achieve results that they would not be able to attain on their own. In theory, partnership status accords all parties the same rights and privileges. However, as many firms quickly discover, this is simply not the case in practice. Invariably, partners have their own ideas about how to perform their jobs, and they exercise their authority accordingly.

If the firm is to establish a form of governance that will satisfy all of its members, the attorneys must first acknowledge the need for leadership. The partners must also recognize that managing a firm, either as the managing partner or a member of a committee, is as important and as difficult as performing client work, if not more so.

In some firms, the leadership role is assumed easily and quite naturally, either because the individual is a founding partner or controls a significant client base. Where the partners are relatively young and inexperienced, the process of “natural selection” may be more difficult, if not virtually impossible. Where there is no natural leader or no one wants the job, the firm must take aggressive action if it wishes to grow and satisfy its objectives.

The smaller firm can establish a democratic form of governance that includes all the partners in leadership. Where this is not practical, the partners face a difficult choice and risk setting up two power centers if the general partnership elects both the management committee and the managing partner. This creates great potential for dissension and divisiveness since the camp will inevitably follow its choice of leadership when given the opportunity. To avoid this, it is preferable to select the managing partner by the management committee.

Generally, lawyers are not recruited to a law firm on the basis of their interest or skills in management. And usually they are not trained for it by the firm. Consequently, skill and interest in management varies greatly. As a result, any management committee will consist of both good and bad managers. This should not be viewed as an obstacle. For, as relevant as these skills are when selecting an attorney to serve on the management committee, they are not necessarily the only factors that should be considered. It may be as important, or more so, to provide equitable representation on the committee to the different groups of lawyers in the firm.

Next month, we discuss qualities needed in a manager.