Constructing an In-House Training Program

This article outlines some of the essential advantages, and the challenges, in constructing an effective in-house training program. It includes some practical suggestions for how to construct an in-house training program. The programs adopted at individual firms, of course, will require tailoring to individual needs and circumstances. This article is, at best, merely a starting point for constructing such a program.

Advantages of In-House Training

Continuing legal education providers appear in many forms. Many bar associations, law schools, private education institutes, and other groups offer training programs. The forms of programs, moreover, vary widely, from live lectures and demonstrations, to video programs and (increasingly) to Web-based individual programs that users can view at their individual computer screens. What is common about these programs, however, is that they “push“ information at participants. Like a movie or television program, the producers of the program determine the content. If participants need a particular kind of information or training, they must search for an appropriate program. If none exists, or none is conveniently available, they must do without, or accept a “best under the circumstances“ program.

In-house training, by contrast, offers several advantages:

Training can be tailored to specific, identified needs. The training needs of lawyers in a law firm are often obvious to the managers and senior lawyers in the firm. The fundamental skills required to succeed in the firm's practice areas, for example, will often readily appear. The need for understanding of new developments in the law, law-related technology and client initiatives, moreover, will become apparent to anyone who pays attention to training needs.

Appropriate training resources can be applied. Senior lawyers in a law firm are ready sources of training expertise, best positioned to meet the specific needs of lawyers in the firm. In essence, lawyers who complain, “our junior lawyers don't seem to know enough about X, Y or Z“ are the same lawyers who should have the skills and experience to provide effective training in the required areas. Many less senior (but still experienced and capable) lawyers, moreover, may be eager to share their knowledge with the junior lawyers who will make up the teams of subordinates that get their work done.

Adaptation to feedback may be enhanced. In-house programs offer great flexibility. The need for a training program on a subject of immediate importance can often be identified quickly and a program organized in relatively short order. A program that, in practice, turns out to be of relatively limited value, or not well-received and attended, moreover, may be omitted or presented on a less frequent basis.

Challenges of In-House Training

In-house training does not just happen. It requires real dedication and hard work by those who plan and coordinate training programs. Developing and implementing such programs may present several challenges:

The range of education needs in the lawyer population may be broad. Law firms (especially large law firms) often have a very wide range of lawyers (and paraprofessionals). Many junior lawyers, just starting in the profession, need training in the most fundamental aspects of practical lawyering. Mid-level and senior-level lawyers, by contrast, will not attend, and will get little value out of, introductory courses that show them little more than what they already know. Some method of providing step-wise, graduated programs appropriate to different levels, must be developed.

Attendance patterns may vary greatly. Busy lawyers in a law firm may find it difficult to spare significant amounts of time for training. Even conscientious, well-meaning lawyers, with every intention of taking advantage of such programs may find themselves overwhelmed with the crush of work on a particular project. As a result, the firm must make special efforts to support and encourage training programs (offering such programs at convenient times and stressing that lawyers should be freed, wherever possible, to attend such programs). No matter the amount of support, however, any successful training program must address the fact that attendance problems will occur for some people. Thus, programs often must be offered on more than one occasion, and some programs must be repeated periodically, year to year. Or, programs must be taped for later viewing and/or broadcast to various offices in the firm.

Bad programs are inevitable. No matter the amount of preparation, some training programs will fail. They will not meet the real needs of lawyers in the firm; they will be targeted to the wrong audience; they will present some useful material, but in a boring or disorganized manner; or they will fail in some other way. Whatever the cause, the organizers of training programs must be prepared to identify, and to modify or eliminate, programs that do not work. Some system of meaningful feedback and assessment is key. An attitude of “we put this program on last year, so we must do it again this year“ must not prevail.

Key Elements of an Effective Program

In light of the opportunities and challenges for in-house training, certain key elements for success readily appear. This list is necessarily incomplete, and requires adaptation to the circumstances of the individual firm. Presence of all these elements is no guarantee of success. In the end, it is the dedication and the insight of those who plan and coordinate training that will determine the firm's success. These elements are merely a starting point:

Someone must take responsibility for training. The first priority of most lawyers, in most law firms, is not training; it is client service and client development. Thus, unless the firm assigns responsibility for training to one or more lawyers (and, in many firms, one or more full-time training administrators), attention to the issue may suffer. Often, it is best to share the responsibility by forming a training committee. The members of the training committee will become familiar with the training needs, and teaching capabilities, of the firm's lawyers. The committee, moreover, will develop perspective on training issues, ensuring that training programs have long-term value and sustainability, rather than serving some petty personal whims of some lawyers in the firm, or following some trendy, but ungrounded, training technique. The committee and its administrative staff will also take care to ensure that CLE credit standards are achieved, and documented.

A mix of programs is often best. There is no one-size-fits-all training program for lawyers. Each lawyer represents a unique combination of skills and experience, practice focus, and training needs and interests. A training program cannot teach only to the most junior lawyers, or the litigators, or the lawyers with interest in high-technology issues. Trainers must offer a variety of programs, with the goal of maximizing the opportunity each lawyer has to find the right personal combination of program.

Fundamentals are forever. The population of most law firms is ever-changing. The rhythm of the recruiting season generally brings a crop of new lawyers, fresh out of law school, every fall. These new associates require training in the fundamentals of practice (basic skills of litigation or corporate practice, basic professional habits, and an introduction to the firm and its lawyers and clients). Many firms dedicate specific resources and time to this orientation process. It is a fundamental building block on which to base further training and development.

Do not try to make what you can buy more effectively. The idea of bringing all training in-house, in most cases, is probably wrong-headed. There are some really tremendous training resources available from outside sources.

Pay attention to local needs. The idea of creating and implementing all training programs by dictate of some central committee is, in most instances, folly. In a firm with multiple offices, the training needs and teaching capabilities in various offices will necessarily differ. As a result, it is often essential to have training coordinators in each office, who can take responsibility for implementing programs chosen by the firm-wide committee.

Consider training retreats. Many firms offer their most important, most comprehensive, training programs by retreat to a location, away from work. The retreat is a serious commitment of time and effort to a training event. It is a symbolic statement by the firm that certain training is particularly important. Lawyers who attend a retreat set aside work to a large degree, in order to focus on training.

Final Thoughts

The benefits of in-house training include improved efficiency and better client service, but can also include the intangible. The message from firm management to the firm's lawyers, can be quite powerful: “We value you. We want you to be well-trained in order to succeed in the profession and at this firm in particular. We are willing to listen to you about your needs and interests.“ These basic messages are positive and inspiring, and can pay off in improved retention rates and greater cohesiveness.

Steven C. Bennett is a partner in the New York City offices of Jones Day, and a member of the firm's training committee. The views expressed are solely those of the author, and should not be attributed to the author's firm, or its clients.

This article outlines some of the essential advantages, and the challenges, in constructing an effective in-house training program. It includes some practical suggestions for how to construct an in-house training program. The programs adopted at individual firms, of course, will require tailoring to individual needs and circumstances. This article is, at best, merely a starting point for constructing such a program.

Advantages of In-House Training

Continuing legal education providers appear in many forms. Many bar associations, law schools, private education institutes, and other groups offer training programs. The forms of programs, moreover, vary widely, from live lectures and demonstrations, to video programs and (increasingly) to Web-based individual programs that users can view at their individual computer screens. What is common about these programs, however, is that they “push“ information at participants. Like a movie or television program, the producers of the program determine the content. If participants need a particular kind of information or training, they must search for an appropriate program. If none exists, or none is conveniently available, they must do without, or accept a “best under the circumstances“ program.

In-house training, by contrast, offers several advantages:

Training can be tailored to specific, identified needs. The training needs of lawyers in a law firm are often obvious to the managers and senior lawyers in the firm. The fundamental skills required to succeed in the firm's practice areas, for example, will often readily appear. The need for understanding of new developments in the law, law-related technology and client initiatives, moreover, will become apparent to anyone who pays attention to training needs.

Appropriate training resources can be applied. Senior lawyers in a law firm are ready sources of training expertise, best positioned to meet the specific needs of lawyers in the firm. In essence, lawyers who complain, “our junior lawyers don't seem to know enough about X, Y or Z“ are the same lawyers who should have the skills and experience to provide effective training in the required areas. Many less senior (but still experienced and capable) lawyers, moreover, may be eager to share their knowledge with the junior lawyers who will make up the teams of subordinates that get their work done.

Adaptation to feedback may be enhanced. In-house programs offer great flexibility. The need for a training program on a subject of immediate importance can often be identified quickly and a program organized in relatively short order. A program that, in practice, turns out to be of relatively limited value, or not well-received and attended, moreover, may be omitted or presented on a less frequent basis.

Challenges of In-House Training

In-house training does not just happen. It requires real dedication and hard work by those who plan and coordinate training programs. Developing and implementing such programs may present several challenges:

The range of education needs in the lawyer population may be broad. Law firms (especially large law firms) often have a very wide range of lawyers (and paraprofessionals). Many junior lawyers, just starting in the profession, need training in the most fundamental aspects of practical lawyering. Mid-level and senior-level lawyers, by contrast, will not attend, and will get little value out of, introductory courses that show them little more than what they already know. Some method of providing step-wise, graduated programs appropriate to different levels, must be developed.

Attendance patterns may vary greatly. Busy lawyers in a law firm may find it difficult to spare significant amounts of time for training. Even conscientious, well-meaning lawyers, with every intention of taking advantage of such programs may find themselves overwhelmed with the crush of work on a particular project. As a result, the firm must make special efforts to support and encourage training programs (offering such programs at convenient times and stressing that lawyers should be freed, wherever possible, to attend such programs). No matter the amount of support, however, any successful training program must address the fact that attendance problems will occur for some people. Thus, programs often must be offered on more than one occasion, and some programs must be repeated periodically, year to year. Or, programs must be taped for later viewing and/or broadcast to various offices in the firm.

Bad programs are inevitable. No matter the amount of preparation, some training programs will fail. They will not meet the real needs of lawyers in the firm; they will be targeted to the wrong audience; they will present some useful material, but in a boring or disorganized manner; or they will fail in some other way. Whatever the cause, the organizers of training programs must be prepared to identify, and to modify or eliminate, programs that do not work. Some system of meaningful feedback and assessment is key. An attitude of “we put this program on last year, so we must do it again this year“ must not prevail.

Key Elements of an Effective Program

In light of the opportunities and challenges for in-house training, certain key elements for success readily appear. This list is necessarily incomplete, and requires adaptation to the circumstances of the individual firm. Presence of all these elements is no guarantee of success. In the end, it is the dedication and the insight of those who plan and coordinate training that will determine the firm's success. These elements are merely a starting point:

Someone must take responsibility for training. The first priority of most lawyers, in most law firms, is not training; it is client service and client development. Thus, unless the firm assigns responsibility for training to one or more lawyers (and, in many firms, one or more full-time training administrators), attention to the issue may suffer. Often, it is best to share the responsibility by forming a training committee. The members of the training committee will become familiar with the training needs, and teaching capabilities, of the firm's lawyers. The committee, moreover, will develop perspective on training issues, ensuring that training programs have long-term value and sustainability, rather than serving some petty personal whims of some lawyers in the firm, or following some trendy, but ungrounded, training technique. The committee and its administrative staff will also take care to ensure that CLE credit standards are achieved, and documented.

A mix of programs is often best. There is no one-size-fits-all training program for lawyers. Each lawyer represents a unique combination of skills and experience, practice focus, and training needs and interests. A training program cannot teach only to the most junior lawyers, or the litigators, or the lawyers with interest in high-technology issues. Trainers must offer a variety of programs, with the goal of maximizing the opportunity each lawyer has to find the right personal combination of program.

Fundamentals are forever. The population of most law firms is ever-changing. The rhythm of the recruiting season generally brings a crop of new lawyers, fresh out of law school, every fall. These new associates require training in the fundamentals of practice (basic skills of litigation or corporate practice, basic professional habits, and an introduction to the firm and its lawyers and clients). Many firms dedicate specific resources and time to this orientation process. It is a fundamental building block on which to base further training and development.

Do not try to make what you can buy more effectively. The idea of bringing all training in-house, in most cases, is probably wrong-headed. There are some really tremendous training resources available from outside sources.

Pay attention to local needs. The idea of creating and implementing all training programs by dictate of some central committee is, in most instances, folly. In a firm with multiple offices, the training needs and teaching capabilities in various offices will necessarily differ. As a result, it is often essential to have training coordinators in each office, who can take responsibility for implementing programs chosen by the firm-wide committee.

Consider training retreats. Many firms offer their most important, most comprehensive, training programs by retreat to a location, away from work. The retreat is a serious commitment of time and effort to a training event. It is a symbolic statement by the firm that certain training is particularly important. Lawyers who attend a retreat set aside work to a large degree, in order to focus on training.

Final Thoughts

The benefits of in-house training include improved efficiency and better client service, but can also include the intangible. The message from firm management to the firm's lawyers, can be quite powerful: “We value you. We want you to be well-trained in order to succeed in the profession and at this firm in particular. We are willing to listen to you about your needs and interests.“ These basic messages are positive and inspiring, and can pay off in improved retention rates and greater cohesiveness.

Steven C. Bennett is a partner in the New York City offices of Jones Day, and a member of the firm's training committee. The views expressed are solely those of the author, and should not be attributed to the author's firm, or its clients.