Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A New Philosophy for Managing Partners: Building Consensus Versus Managing As an Autocrat
Countless law firms, large and small, are questioning long-standing views about firm management and structure. Yet, the sources of their concern are not new. After years of analyzing the personal and professional styles of lawyer managers in successful (and not so successful) law firms, three inescapable conclusions are readily apparent:
- 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; management techniques that may be effective in one firm may be only marginally effective or even unsuccessful in another.
Why a Management Philosophy Is Needed
One of the most basic tenets of law firm practice is that joining together will achieve benefits for each partner, which would be less possible if he or she were to practice individually, i.e., income, workload, coverage, ultimate withdrawal benefits and similar considerations. To obtain the benefits of an organized practice, law firm leaders need to know that individual lawyers will subordinate their individual judgment to a select few, however chosen, in order to allow for a comprehensive and more holistic oversight approach to firm management. Absent that mindset, management will have a difficult, if not impossible, struggle to succeed.
Since philosophical cohesion is a prerequisite to effectuating a structure by which partners will agree to be bound, great care must be taken: 1) to determine what the partners want lawyer management to be/not to be, i.e., strong leadership, consensus builders, visionaries, functional managers, etc.; and 2) to engage in extensive discussion about the partners' respective expectations for individual involvement in decision-making in defined areas, paying particular attention to those areas likely to challenge the natural independence of lawyers who have already successfully achieved partnership.
Given partners' natural predilection for debate, the areas of firm decision-making in which partners expect to be involved must be defined and must be fairly identified. Some common areas of collective input and decision-making are:
- Admission to and termination from partnership;
- Establishment and implementation of firm policies, which, as to partners, must include compensation;
- Strategic initiatives; and
- Professional liability issues affecting partners and/or the firm.
When defining the partners' expectations about their involvement in decision-making, firm leaders need to discourage partners' desire to expand the number of items requiring partner approval before action is taken, because this has a tendency to render impotent the firm's management. Partners should make every effort to achieve unanimity or at least consensus on issues that affect the firm's ability to make management decisions quickly and efficiently. Although certain issues deserve to be carefully deliberated, not every management decision needs to be considered by all partners before implementation.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
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?