Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

« Earlier

Sep 18, 2018


Law Firm Shareholder Admission Criteria

Question:

Our firm is a small firm of two shareholders and two associates based in Bakersfield, California. The firm was formed fifteen years ago by the two existing shareholders. We have never made any additional shareholders but we believe that we owe it to our associates to have some guidelines as to what we are looking for in future shareholders. A partner track program/document if you will. Do you have any suggestions?

Response:

I believe you should have at least a general set of guidelines laid out in writing. For example:

Associates that have been seven years in practice and two years or longer employment with the firm as an attorney and consistently performing as outlined below are eligible for Equity Shareholder level review based upon equity shareholder level openings, competencies attained, performance, and behavior.

  1. Seven Years in Practice and Two Years or Longer Employment with the Firm as an attorney.
  2. Individual Production Requirement
    1. Annual Billable Hour Expectation
      1. The firm has an annual billable expectation of 1800 billable hours.
    2. Origination Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $100,000 or more per year for a minimum of three consecutive years.
    3. Generated (Working Attorney) Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $300,000 or more per year for a minimum of three consecutive years.
    4. Responsible (Managed Revenue) Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $400,000 or more per year for a minimum of three  consecutive years.
  3. Competency Level Attainment at Shareholder Level
    1. Knowledge
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
    2. Skills & Abilities
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
    3. Work Management
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
  4. Character and Commitment 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to have the commitment and character that the firm expects of shareholders. This includes a “firm-first” and teamwork attitude and behavior. Lone wolfs and mavericks will not be considered for equity shareholder status.
  5. Professionalism 
    1. The firm expect professionalism in the firm of dress, appearance, and behavior in dealing with personal in the firm, clients, prospective clients, referral sources, and colleagues and other professionals outside the firm.
  6. Client Service and Business Development 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
  7. Supervision and Mentoring 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to be supervising and mentoring junior associates, paralegals, and staff.
  8. Client Satisfaction 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to have a client satisfaction rating average over the last three years of 4.0 (maximum rating is 5.0) or higher as measured by the firm’s client satisfaction questionnaires that clients complete at the conclusion of a matter.
  9. Other Factors Considered – Associates should: 
    1. Be willing to share in the risk and reward of ownership and invest time and capital in the firm.
    2. Have a firm-first orientation and share the vision and core values of other equity owners in the firm.
    3. Add value to the firm and pay for themselves, cover their costs and share of the firm overhead, and generate enough work to keep other attorneys busy.
    4. Act like owners of small businesses.
    5. Contribute to the management and marketing of the firm.
    6. Mentor younger attorneys.
    7. Follow firm policies systems and procedures.
    8. Contribute capital, sign for the office lease, firm credit line, and share in other financial obligations of the firm.
    9. Be good marriage partners considering the other equity members in the firm.
    10. Exhibited the ability to supervise junior associate attorneys, paralegals, and staff.
    11. Successfully tried cases (litigation attorneys).
    12. Demonstrated the ability to either originate new client business or developed such a relationship with existing clients or referral sources that clients have sent business to the firm as a result of the relationship.

Associates selected for admission should be notified by the Executive Committee/Managing Shareholder and a meeting will be scheduled to discuss whether the Associate has a tentative interest in taking this step. If the Associate is interested in taking this step and after executing a non-disclosure agreement, the Executive Committee/managing shareholder should then prepare a detailed proposal outlining the mechanics and details required for admission. The proposal will include firm financial information, the buy-in or capital contribution requirement, and a copy of the firm’s shareholder agreement and equity shareholder compensation plan.

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Sep 12, 2018


Lawyer Retention Incentives

Question: 

I am the administrator of a sixteen lawyer firm in South Florida. There are six equity partners, two non-equity partners, and eight associates. The firm was formed nine years ago and we have lost no attorneys during this period of time. We believe that we have a positive culture and have great lawyer retention. However, we would like to do more to ensure that lawyers stay with the firm and implement more incentives for them to stay. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Response: 

Interviews with associates and partners in law firms conducted by our firm as well as other consulting firms suggests the following key factors and best practices concerning attorney retention:

  1. Compensation. The firm must have a compensation system that is competitive, pays lawyers the market rate, and has the potential to pay above market rate.
  2. Benefits. The firm must offer competitive benefits especially medical insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, and a 401k plan.
  3. Work life balance. This involves flexibility and control over one’s practice, work hours, workplace – whether at the office or working remotely.
  4. Culture. Lawyers want to work in a culture that is supporting and encouraging. They want to work with peers and clients they respect. They want meaningful work.
  5. Individual marketing plan for lawyers. Lawyers need help focusing their time on business development. Firms need to help lawyers market their services in ways that benefit the firm and the lawyer alike but use non-billable time efficiently and effectively.
  6. Growth Opportunities. Lawyers need to perceive that the firm provides them with opportunities for growth in their work, type of clients, progression to partnership. They want to know if there is a partnership track and specific details if there is a track.
  7. Recognition. Lawyers join firms to receive prestige, opportunity, and clients. Junior lawyers want to maximize their options and get good training. Senior lawyers want profitable work. They want name recognition.
  8. Environment. Many lawyers are not interested in working in a rigid environment. Casual dress policies and informal policies concerning how to address lawyers and staff in the firm can go a long way in creating a relaxed atmosphere.
  9. Team spirit. Lawyers join firms to work cooperatively with others. Lawyers that want to work alone are solo practitioners.
  10. Quality Facilities. Don’t skimp on your facilities and systems. Invest in quality office facilities, furnishings,  and office systems.  Use state of the art technology. Many lawyers have left their firms and joined other firms because antiquated technology at the prior firm.
  11. Competent support staff. Failure to provide lawyers with competent support staff can be a major irritant and can cause lawyers to look at other firms.

For sure, ensure that your compensation and benefits for your lawyers are competitive. While compensation and monetary benefits play a key role in lawyer retention, many of the above factors plan an important role as well. Many of the lawyers that I see changing firms are for other reasons other than compensation and benefits. In fact, some leave for less money when they feel they are undervalued and see more opportunity for growth and development in another firm. Some leave when they see the opportunity for equity in another firm.

Click here for our blog on HR ideas

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

 

 

Sep 05, 2018


Law Firm Valuation – Factors that Effect Firm Value

Question: 

I am the owner of a small estate planning firm in Kansas City, Missouri. I have two associates and four staff members. I am considering acquiring a small (solo) practice in a nearby community. I have read some of your articles as well as your book on succession planning and valuation, and the multiple of gross revenue used to establish a goodwill value for a law firm. What are some of the factors that can impact whether the multiple is higher or lower – a firm’s potential value?

Response: 

While multiples of gross revenue is a common approach, a key ingredient should be the profitability picture before distribution to owners. In other words, what is the quality of earnings? A firm that nets fifty percent of gross revenue would generally command a higher price that a firm that nets twenty-five percent. Factors that should be considered in determining a firm’s potential value are:

  1. Quality of Partner Earnings
  2. Quality of Personnel
  3. Strategic Location
  4. Nature of Clientele
  5. Practice Areas
  6. Fee Structure
  7. Hours Managed by Partner
  8. Investment in Office Facilities
  9. Investment in Technology
  10. Quality of Services per Client Satisfaction Reviews
  11. Firm Stability

The average partner or owner earnings figure is the critical component. If the average partner/owner’s income is low, normally the practice is not worth much. A good business person will not pay for a business and pay a premium when it cannot be justified.

Click here for our blog on practice sale

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

 

Aug 29, 2018


Law Firm Effective Rate Improvement

Question:

I am a partner with a sixteen-attorney firm in downstate Illinois and a member on our three person management committee. My responsibility on the committee in overseeing the firm’s finances and supervision of the firm administrator pertaining to accounting and finance. In reviewing our financial reports I have noted that our effective billing rates (realization rates) are not what they should be. We are reluctant to raise rates to our clients. What other steps can we take to improve our effective rates?

Response:

The most direct way to improve rate performance is to simply increase rates at an amount at least equal to inflation and to do so often (at least once a year). Without regard to whether this can be done, there are several other important techniques such as:

  1. Managing the client intake process
  2. Tailoring rates and billing policies to specific clients and matters
  3. Managing rate and billing adjustments
  4. Billing often and keeping the client informed
  5. Tying partner reward structure to rate performance
  6. Reporting rates achieved

Managing the client intake processes is probably the most important technique for improving rate performance. Intake management means:

Here are some ways to accomplish this:

  1. Effective preacceptance interviews
  2. Credit checking or prior payment history review
  3. Up-front discussions and arrangements
  4. Liberal use of retainers and advances for costs
  5. Early conflict of interest checks 
  6. Use engagement letters; and
  7. Management review of significant new clients or matters except accepted.

Click here for our financial management topic blog

Click here for our law firm profit improvement blog

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Aug 22, 2018


Law Firm Retreat Follow-up and Implementation

Question: 

I am a partner in a eighteen attorney firm in Milwaukee. Over the years our firm has held firm retreats, but the results have been disappointing – a lot of talk and little action. We have the same problem in our monthly partner meetings. We spend a lot of time in meetings – discussions and decisions made but little implementation. This week we are having a partner vote to decide on whether to have a retreat this year. Frankly, I will vote against it and I think it will be a waste of time. What are your thoughts concerning law firm retreats?

Response: 

I understand your frustration and concern. Many law firms have had similar experiences with retreats. Good ideas and decisions but no follow-up or implementation once the retreat is over. Often retreats are too loose with no structure or leadership.

Insure that the firm appoints a qualified retreat leader either from within the firm or someone outside the firm that has experience leading or facilitating retreats. Identify specific objectives and desired outcomes during the retreat planning phase and design in how follow-up and accountability for implementation will be achieved. Be sure you come away from the retreat with a specific plan for follow-up action on every problem discussed. For example, if you decide to start a talent search to fill specific position, or if you have assigned several partners members to work further on specific problems and report the results, it is important that individual assignments and target dates for reporting and completion be made explicit. Determinations of this kind should be recorded and made part of the minutes of the retreat. Further, a system of follow through meetings to assess progress is advised, in order to maintain the momentum achieved at the retreat.

Many law firms benefit considerably by incorporating specific retreat decisions into a twelve month plan and schedule of activities to meet firm objectives. Planning of this kind typically results in significant firm progress, even though there may be initial resistance to these efforts by some firm members.

Click here for our blog on strategy

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Aug 15, 2018


Six Worries That Keep Law Firm Managing Partners Awake at Night

Question: 

I am a new managing partner in a thirty-five attorney firm in Tucson, Arizona. I replaced the previous managing partner who retired. He was the firm founder and had been in the position since the firm’s inception. I have had this position for six months and I am finding the job overwhelming – trying to serve my clients and managing the firm at the same time is very difficult. What are the major challenges that managing partners are having.

Response: 

I understand and appreciate your situation. Managing partners advise me that the following challenges are what keeps them awake at night:

  1. Managing cash flow. Investments in technology, higher salaries for attorneys and staff, and longer collection cycles are all having a negative impact upon cash flow. Contingency fee firms have additional cash flow challenges. Managing partners must insure that client bills are going out promptly, client payments are deposited promptly, and vendor bills are paid “just in time.” Cash shortfalls will have to be financed with additional partner capital contributions or bank loans.
  2. Satisfying hard to please clients. Institutional clients are demanding more from their law firms in terms of service offerings, geographical coverage, responsiveness, and fee arrangements. Law firms are finding that the market for legal services is a buyers market and that they must continually innovate in order to continue satisfying client demands. Many are conducting client satisfaction interviews with these clients in order to measure client satisfaction and identify needed improvement areas and new opportunities.
  3. Competition from other law firms and non-law firm service providers. The oversupply of lawyers, advertising, and the internet has increased competition between law firms. In addition to the competition between law firms, law firms also also facing competition from other service providers as well. Managing partners are finding they have to allocate more resources to advertising and marketing. Websites, internet search engine optimization, and pay-per-click internet advertising is becoming the norm for many firms.
  4. Getting new clients and keeping existing clients. Today clients are less loyal and more likely to switch law firms than in years past. Managing partners are having to work harder to retain existing clients and acquire new clients. Acquisition of new institutional clients often requires responding to request for proposals, bidding for engagements and projects, preparation of quality proposals, and making presentations to prospective clients.
  5. Succession and retirement of senior partners. Many law firms are experiencing a “bunching” of numerous senior partners approaching retirement at the same time. Succession and transition planning is critical to the continued success of these firms. Getting partners to openly discuss their retirement plans is a major challenge that managing partners are facing.
  6. Getting and retaining top talent. Acquiring and retaining top lawyer and staff talent is becoming more difficult and more costly for law firms. Even though there is an oversupply of lawyers on the market there is still a shortage of experienced lawyer talent in many practice areas. Lawyer search timelines and recruiting cost are on the rise.

 

 

 

Click here for our blog on governance and leadership  

Click here for our blog on financial management

Click here for our law firm management articles

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Aug 07, 2018


Firm Administrator vs Director of Administration or Chief Operating Officer

Question: 

Our firm is a fourteen-attorney firm in South Florida. I am the senior member of a three member executive committee. Our firm is in the second generation of partners. The founders retired five years ago. Upon their retirements we changed our governance from a managing partner to an executive committee model supplemented with a office administrator – some refer to the position as the office manager. Our executive committee model has worked relatively well. The administrator that we hired five years ago is still in place but we are not satisfied with his performance. We believe that this is in part due to the fact that our expectations have changed. When we hired him we thought that we needed an office administrator primarily to manage the office staff and the billing and bookkeeping function. So we hired an administrator that had worked, as his first job out of junior college, as an office manager in an eight-attorney firm for two years and had an associates degree in accounting. He has does a good job with managing the staff and the billing and bookkeeping. However, we have now discovered that we want more – we want executive level leadership. We want someone that is respected by all the attorneys and can:

  1. Provide overall leadership
  2. Help lead the executive committee
  3. Develop create solutions to problems
  4. Lead the associates
  5. Serve as marketing director, etc.
  6. Take the lead in strategic planning and implementation of a strategic plan

I welcome your thoughts and opinions.

Response: 

Yes your expectations have indeed changed. Your administrator has not been able to grow in the role expectations that you now have for the position and does not have the education or experience to meet your new demands.

My observations are as follows:

  1. You would like your administrator to act and think like an owner/partner.
  2. You would like your administrator to be a quick learner.
  3. You would like your administrator to provide a higher level of management insight and bring business training and experience to the table.
  4. You would like your administrator to be accepted as a peer professional by all the attorneys in the firm.
  5. You would like your administrator to be innovative and willing to question the status quo.
  6. You would like your administrator to provide recommendations concerning new methods for  improving the firm’s operations and profitability.
  7. You would like your administrator to be able to resolve most administrative issues with minimal guidance from the executive committee.

I believe that you would like an administrator to serve more in the role as a Director of Administrator or Chief Operating Officer and your present administrator simply does not have the education, experience, and maturity to function in this capacity. If you want someone to serve in this capacity you will have to hire someone with degree credentials – such as a MBA or CPA, that will facilitate the candidate’s acceptance by other attorneys in the firm as a peer professional as well as provide the candidate with the academic tools needed to carry out the expectations of the position. In addition, you need to hire someone that has ten years plus as a director of administration or chief operating officer position in a similar size firm or company – preferably a firm that provides professional services such as a law firm, accounting firm, engineering firm, etc. You will have to look beyond the titles that candidates have had and inquire into the specific duties and roles performed. You will need to back up this inquiry with solid reference inquiries.

A director of administrator or chief operating officer position is rare in a fourteen-attorney firm. Many firms your size have administrators or office managers similar to the office administrator that you currently have. The downside to establishing such a position in your firm will be the salary that you will have to pay – more than many of your attorneys and even some partners are being paid – and turnover in the position when an opportunity from a much larger firm comes along.

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Aug 01, 2018


Law Firm Merger or Of Counsel Arrangement and Due Diligence Information from Larger Firm

Question: 

I am a solo practitioner in upstate New York and I hope to retire three years from now and move to Florida and spend my retirement years there with my family. I have been talking with a larger firm, twenty-attorneys, in Albany that has an interest in me either merger my practice with their firm or joining as Of Counsel. My plan would be to work three more years, gradually phase back, and transition clients and referral sources.

I have had several meetings with the partners in the firm and they are now asking me for detailed due diligence information – tax returns, financial statements, etc. I have no problem providing these documents however I was wondering if I should be asking them for information. What do you think?

Response:

I believe that you are entitled to similar due diligence information from the other firm. You need to see what you are getting into.

Usually the smaller firm gets less – but they should share some information with you as you have with them.

I would ask for the following from them (or discuss with them):

  1. Five years profit and loss statements, balance sheets and tax returns.
  2. Lawyer and staff headcount for each of those five years.
  3. Current hourly billing rates.
  4. Description of practice area mix of clients by dollars collected – practice type and office location.
  5. Description of how the firm bills (hourly, flat rate, contingency)
  6. Copy of all leases (office space, equipment)
  7. Copy of malpractice insurance policy and last application.
  8. Salaries and benefits for equity and non-equity partners.
  9. Any governance plan or agreements.
  10. Copies of all partnership agreements or operating agreements for all business entities.
  11. Any documents pertaining to the retirement of partners including information as to obligations for partners who have already retired and those nearing retirement.
  12. Compensation data for equity and non-equity partners.
  13. Copy of the written compensation plan for equity partners if one exists or if not a discussion of how the compensation system works.
  14. Information on the line of credit and copies of all debt agreements.
  15. Copies of third party vendor agreements (equipment leases, subscriptions)
  16. Copy of the firm’s present malpractice insurance policy and most recent application.
  17. List of benefits provided.

I presume that you all have discussed any potential client conflicts of interest, etc.

You need to zero in whether the arrangement is going to be a merger or Of Counsel arrangement. If the arrangement is to be an Of Counsel arrangement the firm will be less likely to be willing to share all the information on the list and you will have less need as well. However, I believe you should at least have the basic financial and compensation information.

Click here for our blog on mergers

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Jul 24, 2018


Law Firm Succession Planning – Getting Partners to Discuss their Future Plans

Question: 

I am the firm administrator for a twenty-five attorney firm in Baltimore, Maryland. We have fourteen partners and nine are in their sixties. We have no succession or transition plans in place for senior partners. Every time I bring up the topic there is a resistance to even discuss the topic. I would appreciate any help that you can provide.

Response: 

A decade ago, only the more proactive, well-managed law firms had in place programs and provisions for senior partner succession and transition. A majority of firms simply had not addressed or even given serious thought to the eventual retirement and exit of their senior partners. However, in the last five years, I have seen a lot of interest in succession, transition, and exit planning. The avalanche of baby boomers reaching retirement age has fueled this interest. Firms from the largest to the smallest are getting proactive and actively addressing succession and transition of senior partners. Some are putting in place formal programs, while others are at least addressing succession and transition informally using ad hoc approaches.

A recent Altman Weil Transition Survey gives us a glimpse of what other law firms are doing. Here are a few highlights from their survey concerning responding law firms.

Many other law firms are finding it a major challenge to get senior attorneys to talk and share their plans concerning retirement. In many cases the families of senior attorneys are having the same challenges. Coming to terms with aging is a difficult topic. In the case of law firms, often senior attorneys simply don’t know their future plans themselves, need the income, fear that others shareholders/partners will steal their clients, or the firm simply does not have a mechanism in place that mandates transition planning. Some firms are implementing mandatory retirement and others are putting in place financial incentives to motivate early transition of clients. Client loss is the most significant concern.

Keep at it and don’t give up but it may take a series of baby steps. Educate your partners on the risks of “doing nothing”. Provide them with articles and other resources and keep the topic on the agenda.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Jul 19, 2018


Law Firm Structure and Elevating Associates to Partnership

Question: 

I started my firm as a solo nine years ago in New Orleans. My practice focuses on maritime defense litigation. Over the years I have added associates and currently I have six associates working for me. I am overwhelmed with work – from the legal work that I am doing in addition to the business development and firm administration. My thought is that I should consider restructuring the firm by making some of my associates partners so I can offload and share some of the administrative responsibilities. I would like your thoughts. What are other firms in my situation doing.

Response: 

Years ago when I started in this business there were solo practitioners and there were multi-attorney firms that were partnerships. There were not many multi-attorney firms that were what I call sole owner firms – firms will many attorneys and just one owner. This has changed. More and more attorneys don’t want to be in partnerships with other attorneys. Sometimes this is a result of bad experiences in other partnerships. In other cases they simply want to go it alone. Also, more and more associates don’t want to take on the stress and financial obligations of partnership – they simply want a job that provides them with a decent income with work life balance. I have law firm clients with sole owners, fifteen to twenty attorneys, and fifty to seventy staff employees. These firm owners have hired firm administrators, marketing managers, and other such talent to offload the administration. While these firm owners have been enjoying the fruits of sole ownership eventually they will have to reevaluate their situation when they begin planning their succession and exit strategies.

I think you have to ask yourself the following questions:

  1. Is adding partners the best way to offload your administrative responsibilities? Should you hire a firm administrator?
  2. Are  you ready for partners?
  3. Do you have associates that meet your requirements for partner admission? Have you thought about these requirements?
  4. Do the associates that you would consider for partnership have an interest in being partners?

Give this some more thought – don’t just make partners to have partners or to have someone to handle administration.

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

    Subscribe to our Blog