Question:
I am the managing partner of a 12 attorney firm in Chicago. We have been considering whether we should develop a strategic plan for the firm. We have problems even having partner meetings on a consistent basis and those often yield questionable results. What are firms doing? Does a strategic plan make sense for a firm like ours?
Response:
According to recent surveys, 70+% of the responding law firms (ranging in size from the largest to 45 attorney firms) have formal written strategic plans. Smaller firms have a much lower experience. In our experiences with smaller law firms we are finding that fewer than 15% have formal written strategic plans. I consider success to be achievement of measurable results as evidenced by achievement of the goals and objectives outlined in the plan and actual implementation of action items. Lawyers and law firms seem to do better at planning than they do at implementation. Larger firms usually are more successful in implementation due to availability of management resources, leadership and functional governance. Smaller firms tend to have problems with implementation. In fact, we frequently recommend that a firm address other management issues prior to engaging in strategic planning. If a firm is having problems implementing day-to-day operational decisions the firm will not be effective in implementing strategic planning initiatives.
You might want to get your operational house in order first and resolve day-to-day operational management issues first and then move on to the future.
Click here for articles on other topics
Click here for our archive blog on strategies
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm of 16 attorneys is trying to make major strides this year in helping our firm design and implement personal business and client development plans. Should we consider hiring coaches? When should a firm consider coaching for attorneys?
Response:
The day-to-day stress of practicing law and serving clients leaves little time for focusing and investing in the future of the firm. When attorneys exhibit the following it may be time for a coach:
Training and skill development is not easy. Studies reveal that 90 percent of the people who attend seminars and training sessions see no improvement because they don't take the time to implement what they learn. Practice create habits and habits determine your future. Up to 90 percent of our normal behavior is based on habits. The key to skill learning is to get the new skill to become a habit. Once the new habit is well developed it becomes your new normal behavior. This requires practice. Unfortunately, attorneys do not have time to practice and experiment.
The coach's role is that of steward, facilitative leader and teacher. Law firms retain coaches to work with attorneys and staff, mostly on a personal level, to address problems involving lack of commitment, inertia, implementation, self-accountability and follow-up. Firms are using coaching in the following areas:
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
For years our14 attorney firm has operated under a formula based eat-what-you kill system. We are moving toward a more subjective-based system. We have been advised that we will need a compensation committee. What are your thoughts regarding compensation committees?
Response:
The components of your compensation plan and partner buy-in will be important to the success of your program. However, how you setup and constitute your compensation committee will be crucial. In a subjective system trust is paramount. How the members are selected, who serves on the committee, how the committee operates, and other matters must be spelled out and communicated to all partners. Here are a few ideas:
The key ingredient of a successful subjective compensation system is that partners perceive the system as fair and have faith and trust in the compensation committee. The process is as important as the outcome.
Click here for our blog on compensation
Click here for our published articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm has been struggling for the past couple years. We have lost three key institutional clients, had partner defections to other law firm, and have suffered financially. We were a 40 attorney firm- six years later we are ten. We simply must improve profitability. What areas of our overhead should we attack first?
Response:
Many law firms waste considerable time trying to find ways to cut a pie that is too small up differently by implementation of new compensation systems or increasing the size of the pie by decreasing costs. While unnecessary expenses should be reduced – once they are reduced a repeated effort to slash costs proves fruitless as a strategy to increase the firm pie. The vast majority of law firm expenses are fixed or production-related. The percentage of costs that are discretionary is low, typically in the 20-30 percent range, and the number of dollars available for savings is small. The available dollars available for reduction disappear after a year or two of cost-cutting, leaving the firm with dealing with the effects of further cuts on production capacity. For example:
§ Should a firm eliminate staff positions if the result is additional administrative burden on lawyers and paralegals thereby reducing the revenue capacity of the firm.
§ Should the firm cut lawyers continuing legal education if improving an attorney's level of expertise is important to increasing revenue production.
§ Should a firm cut the marketing budget?
Once a firm has eliminated wasteful spending and made appropriate adjustments to the budget, further cost reductions often results in the firm reducing the possibility of turning the firm around, improving financial performance, and increasing the pie.
Increasing revenue, while maintaining the same expense structure, is the most powerful approach to improving firm profitability. Additional revenue goes directly to the bottom line and makes a significant impact on partner profits. If the firm is able to increase revenue by10% while maintaining the same cost structure, 100 percent of the additional revenue dollars will go to the partners.
So think revenue – not costs!
Click here for our blog on financial management
Click here for our law firm management articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Phase III – Partnership – Internal/Other Firm
Eventually the question of partnership arises – weather sooner based upon the need or desire to transition an associate into a partnership or to add a practice area by acquiring a lateral partner with his/her book of business. Maybe you are thinking about merging with another firm. Or maybe you have been solo or a sole owner for your entire career and are now contemplating retirement and are looking for a succession/exit strategy and now must either bring in a partner, merge with another firm, or sell your practice. Partnership with another attorney creates another set of interpersonal dynamics and another set of skills that will need to be developed at this stage of your practice.
Phase III Survival Tips
1. Partnership is like a marriage. You must marry the right person. Most partnerships that fail do so as a result of partnering up with the wrong partners. Compatibility is critical. Consider:
a. Long term goals of both parties
b. Work ethic computability
c. Common interests
d. Money and compensation
2. Thinking of merging? Research indicates that 1/3 to 1/2 of all mergers fail to meet expectations due to cultural misalignment and personnel problems. Don't try to use a merger or acquisition as a life raft, for the wrong reasons and as your sole strategy. Successful mergers are based upon a sound integrated business strategy that creates synergy and a combined firm that produces greater client value than either firm can produced alone. Right reasons for merging might include:
a. Improve the firm's competitive position. .Increase specialization – obtain additional expertise.
b. Expand into other geographic regions.
c. Add new practice areas.
d. Increase or decrease client base.
e. Improve and/or solidify client relationships.
3. I would start by thinking about your reasons for wanting to merge and your objectives. Ask yourself the following questions?
a. Do you want to practice in a large firm? If not, what is the largest firm that you would want to practice in?
b. What is driving the desire to merge?
c. If the desire to merge is being driven by a desire to retreat from internal problems – what have you done to address these issues internally?
d. Is your name being part of the firm name important to you?
e. What are your expectations and objectives for a merger?
f. What are you looking from a merger partner?
g. Make sure that you look for a complimentary fit. If you are weak in firm leadership, management and administration – look for a partner that is strong in these areas. Strong leadership, management, and administration may be hard to find in a firm under 25 attorneys.
Are you ready for the challenge?
Click here for our blog on mergers
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Response:
Create a plan before even starting the practice even if it is a one page plan. This will serve as a roadmap for your practice. See Helen Gunnarsson’s article in November 2011 Illinois Bar Journal.
Click here for our blog on marketing
Click here for our published articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm, a 12 attorney firm in Detroit, needs to find a way to improve fee revenues and financial performance in 2012. We do not have a business or strategic plan, have never had a retreat, and we don't even have a budget. We believe that we must do something for 2012 and yet we are out of time since 2012 begins next week. Any suggestions?
Response:
Generating adequate fee revenue is the primary challenge for most law firms and this is where I would start for 2012.
I am a strong believer in the power of focused goals and objectives when integrated with a system of accountability. I have clients that have improved fee revenue by 20% (over a two-three year period) with existing headcount simply by establishing production goals for each attorney and paralegal in the firm – reporting, measuring and reporting goal v.s. performance monthly using simple reports, and follow-up with individuals behind on their goal attainment. Solo practitioners can use the same system and use a staff member, spouse, or coach to serve as an accountability partner. You might want to consider the following:
Try to get this in place by January 1, 2012 and see how this works for you and consider this your first baby step. Down the road you might want to consider a firm budget and eventually a strategic plan. See Helen Gunnarsson's article on strategic planning in the November issue of the Illinois Bar Journal.
Click here for our financial management topic blog
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the sole owner of a 12 attorney firm in downtown Chicago. With staff we have a total of 23 people in the firm. Managing people is my toughest challenge. I am having problems with people not following firm policy and doing what they should not be doing. It is driving me crazy. What should I do? I am interested in your thoughts?
Response:
Tell them to stop. Seriously. As owner of your firm you can't beat around the bush and be sheepish concerning your expectations concerning desired performance and behavior in the office. Confront the performance or behavioral problem immediately. Manage such problems in real time. Don't wait for the annual performance review and don't treat serious problem as a "self-improvement" effort. Tell them how you feel about the performance or behavioral issue, the consequences for failure to resolve the issue, your timeline for resolving the issue, and the follow-up schedule that you will be using to follow-up and monitor the issue. If they must resolve the performance or behavioral issue in order to keep their job tell them so. They may need this level of confrontation they need in order to give them the strength to be able to deal with their issues.
Being a wimp does not help you or them. Tell them like it is and conduct a heart-to-heart discussion. You will be glad you did.
P.S. It gets easier with practice!
Click here for our blog on HR ideas
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm has in place a strategic plan as well as a firm client development plan and individual lawyer client development plans as well. While we have great ideas and good intentions – we seem to be falling short of the mark and not accomplishing much. What are you thoughts regarding our dismal success with our client development efforts?
Response:
Based upon our observations drawn from working with client law firms over the past eighteen years we have concluded that marketing is poorly understood and ineffectively implemented in many small law firms. In addition, the following obstacles are at play:
There is no time for marketing or any firm developmental activities. Production is king and non-billable activities such as marketing are discouraged.
Attorneys are uncomfortable with marketing. This is primarily due to lack of understanding, training, and experience with the process.
Many attorneys confuse marketing with advertising. Marketing is not advertising. Marketing activities can exist without any promotional components such as television advertisements, radio spots, tombstone magazine advertisements, or direct mail. Marketing is the broader process concerned with the development and delivery of legal services and is part of the firm's long range planning process. It provides answers to the questions what are we selling and to whom are we selling. It involves maintaining relationships with existing clients as well as creating new relationships with prospective clients. In fact, a major objective of many successful marketing plans is obtain additional business from existing clients.
Frequently law firms experiment with marketing and engage in isolated promotional activities not integrated with the firm's business plan with the expectation of immediate results after the one-shot activity. The firm engages in fits-and-start activities that are completely unfocused, unrelated to an overall plan, unmeasured, inconsistent and often inappropriate.
The typical culture of many law firms discourages investment in long-term developmental activities. The focus is on billable hours and production. Everything else is of secondary concern. The consensus governance model typical in law firms hinders change and timely decision-making at the firm level. In addition, effective marketing in law firms requires marketing at the firm, practice group, and individual attorney levels. This requires effective training, mentoring, follow-up, and accountability at each of these levels.
Most reward and compensation systems focus on short-term production and discourage participation in longer term (non-billable) firm investment activities or projects.
Tackle some of the above issues and you will be on your way to improving your client development and marketing efforts.
Click here for our blog on marketing
Click here for our published articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC