Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Governance

« Earlier

Mar 04, 2026

Law Firm Management Structure for a Small Insurance Defense Law Firm

Question:

I am a partner in a eighteen – lawyer insurance defense firm in Houston, Texas. There are ten equity partners and eight associates in the firm as well as an office manager/bookkeeper and six other paralegals/legal assistants. We started the practice nine years ago. Other than administrative matters handled by our office manager, the management of the firm is handled by involvement of all the partners. Currently, we are getting more and more frustrated with this method of governance and management. It takes forever to make decisions and the quality of our decision-making leaves a lot to be desired. It recently took us nine months of discussions to agree to get the carpet cleaned. There has to be a better way. What are you finding that similar law firms are doing?

Response: 

Your experience and current frustration is what we see in law firms using the “democracy approach.” While it made have been a good approach when you started the firm and were smaller, you have outgrown this approach.

Most smaller to medium sized law firms choose one of the following approaches to governance and management.

  1. Democracy
  2. Managing Partner
  3. Executive or Management committee.

Democracy

This is the method your firm is currently using. Under this method each member of the firm has an equal voice in management or in some cases a voice based upon the number of equity shares held. Any decision must be agreed by all partners, and various administrative tasks may be assigned or rotated among partners or delegated to an office administrator or office manager. While benefits to the partners by participating in firm management is influence and control over their own practices, law firms that utilize this method of governance progress more slowly and at a less profitable rate than firms governed under one of the other approaches to governance and management.

Managing Partner

This approach is probably the most efficient form of managing a law firm.  Authority and accountability for all firm matters is controlled by one partner or a tightly knit group of dominant partners. The managing partner is often responsible for originating and retaining the firm’s major clients. The managing partner may  receive all work assignments from clients and assign work out to other partners and associates. The managing partner typically determines the partners’ and associates’ compensation and perquisites.

While the other partners may be able to focus entirely on billable/productive legal work, this type of structure is not the best approach for many firms. A major fundamental problem involves partners being “left out” totally of the management of the firm. The managing partner becomes overloaded with firm decisions. Furthermore, as an active attorney, this partner may not be able to devote the time or follow-through on management and operational matters. Since no other partner may be trained in managing the firm, this partner may not feel comfortable in relinquishing power to anyone else. This is a problem which may be especially troublesome if the managing partner dies, becomes ill or disabled.

Some attorneys may be dismayed at the prospect of having their firm dominated by an individual or group of partners. However, if properly handled, this form of structure can be productive, and economically and professionally rewarding. To be effective, the managing partner should maintain communication with other partners. The managing partner should seek advice from other partners (and associates) on matters that will affect them. The managing partner should obtain other partners’ input on decisions, appoint individuals or committees of partners to perform particular functions and require a report of their achievements.

Executive or Management Committee 

The executive or management committee is an approach typified by a committee of partners having defined authority, accountability and responsibility. In most smaller firms this committee, frequently consisting of three partners, may be responsible for recommending and implementing policy for the firm, planning for the future, appraising results and recommending corrective action, as required.

A three partner-executive or management committee is the most common configuration used to avoid deadlocks or inaction and to spread the burden of administration among appropriate partners. One of the partners should be designated to chair the committee. Each of the other members may be assigned authority, responsibility and accountability for coordinating and/or performing specific functions. For example, one partner may serve as the financial partner. This would involve responsibility for ensuring the preparation and analysis of income and expense budgets and financial reporting. This partner would oversee attorney production, fees, collections, etc. A second partner may be responsible for the personnel functions including associate career development, i.e., employment, training, evaluation, etc., and implementation of policy for the administrative staff. A third partner may serve as the general administrative partner, and oversee the implementation of administrative policy, systems, information technology (IT), etc. These partners may be assisted by an office administrator, office manager, bookkeeper, etc.

To preserve continuity on a management/executive committee, it is generally recommended that tenure of partners on the executive or management committee be staggered over a two-or-three year period. The executive committee should communicate with the partners regularly or as issues arise. The executive committee should meet weekly, or if that isn’t convenient, as frequently as required.

Meetings with all of the partners and associates should be scheduled monthly or quarterly.  Following the departure of the associates, the partners can discuss matters relating to financial and policy issues.

I believe that based on your present situation and past history you should consider a three-member management committee with a governance plan that outlines that responsibilities and authority of the committee and the full partnership. Identify and outline the restrictive decision areas that the require full partnership to weight in on and vote.

Click here for our blog on management

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Dec 17, 2025

Law Firm Management Structure and Governance

Question:

Our firm is a twelve lawyer business law firm in San Antonio, Texas. We handle business transactions as well as ligation. Three of us partners started the firm seven years ago and the firm has grown since then. Currently there are seven equity partners and five associates in the firm as well as six legal assistants/paralegals and a bookkeeper. One partner serves as managing partner. The managing partner handles all of the administration except for the basic bookkeeping. Many management decisions require the approval of all of the partners. We are beginning to feel that we have outgrown our management structure. Excessive time is spent by the managing partner. He is spending 40 percent of his time on firm administration. His practice is suffering as well as revenues. An inordinate amount of time is spent by the rest of the partners on administrative and management decisions. We have monthly firm meetings and virtually all of the time is spent on administrative matters. It takes us forever to reach consensus. Recently it took us six months to reach a decision on getting the carpet cleaned.

We would appreciate any thoughts or suggestions that you might have.

Response: 

While the firm’s management structure worked for the firm in the past when the firm was smaller, more structure will be required if the firm hopes to grow and be more profitable in the future. Growth will require structure at the partnership and administrative level. The managing partner is spending way too much time on administration as well as the other partners.

The partners should consider hiring a firm administrator to handle all administrative matters and the managing partner or a three partner management committee should focus on higher level management matters. The full partnership should weight in only on matters reserved for their vote and approval. As the firm grows the partners should involve others in management without micro-managing.

A problem facing most firms is lack of long-range focus and the amount of partner time that is being spent on administrative matters as opposed to higher level management issues.

Partners in many law firms spend more time on administrative management matters rather than higher level management/leadership concerns such as lawyer management, attorney compensation, process, business development, mentoring, and long-range planning.

Management deals with those issues that relate to overall control of the firm, including those decisions that should be made by equity partners and the selection of an individual or individuals who will manage and administer the firm. The clear trend today is for centralized management, with substantial authority being delegated to whoever is selected for management and administration.

Specific policy matters that might be reserved for full equity partner vote include:

Specific policy matters that might be the domain of managing partner or management committee might include:

A firm administrator appointed by the managing member or co-managing members would direct the business/operational affairs of the firm and would report directly to the managing member/partner or co-managing members/partners.

Administration 

When we discuss administration, we are referring to the everyday management of the firm as it relates to finance, staff, and systems. Clearly, today’s trend in administration is to hire competent professionals at the level that suits the firm. Administration is the execution of management policies established by the equity-members and the managing member/partner, co-managing members/partners, or executive/management committee.

At your size I believe that you are ready for a firm administrator. The firm revenues presently being lost will more than pay the salary of an administrator and still leave additional profit to pay additional compensation to the partners.

Click here for our blog on management

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

 

May 29, 2024

Law Firm Structure and Governance

Question: 

We are a group of six partners that are in the process of leaving a well established firm in Los Angeles, California and will be starting our own firm. In our early planning we have been discussing how we will structure and manage the firm. You advise and suggestions would be most welcomed.

Response: 

Most smaller to medium sized law firms choose one of three fundamental varieties of management structure. These systems may be characterized as management by:

  1. Democracy
  2. A managing partner
  3. An executive or management committee.

Full Partnership – Full Partnership or All Partners –  Under a full partnership each member of the firm has an equal voice in management and is “just as needed” as others to act. Any decision must be concurred upon by all partners, and various administrative tasks may be assigned or rotated among partners. Notwithstanding the perceived benefits accruing to partners as the result of participating in firm management and “controlling their own destinies,” democratic firms traditionally progress more slowly and at a less profitable rate than firms governed under one of the other structural concepts.

Managing Partner – This approach is probably the most efficient form of managing a law firm. A strong managing partner is oftentimes referred to as a “benevolent dictator.” Authority and accountability for all firm matters may be controlled by one partner or a tightly knit group of dominant partners. Typically, a managing partner is the person who opens the office in the morning and closes it in the evening. He or she may be responsible for originating and retaining the firm’s major clients. The managing partner frequently receives all work assignments from clients and parcels work out to other partners and associates. The managing partner typically determines the partners’ and associates’ compensation and perquisites.

Executive or Management Committee – The executive or management committee structural concept is a representative form of governance typified by a committee of partners having defined authority, accountability and responsibility. In most smaller firms this committee, frequently consisting of three partners, may be responsible for recommending and implementing policy for the firm, planning for the future, appraising results and recommending corrective action, as required.
A three partner executive or management committee is frequently recommended to avoid deadlocks or inaction and to spread the burden of administration among appropriate partners. One of the partners should be designated to chair the committee. Each of the other members may be assigned authority, responsibility and accountability for coordinating and/or performing specific functions. For example, one partner may serve as the financial partner. This would involve responsibility for insuring the preparation and analysis of income and expense budgets and financial reporting. This partner would oversee attorney production, fees, collections, etc. A second partner may be responsible for the personnel functions including associate career development, i.e., employment, training, evaluation, etc., and implementation of policy for the administrative staff. A third partner may serve as the general administrative partner, and oversee the implementation of administrative policy, systems, automation, etc. These partners may be assisted by an office manager, bookkeeper, etc.

To preserve continuity in the management function, it is recommended that tenure of partners on the executive or management committee be staggered over a two or three year period. The executive committee should communicate with the partners regularly or as issues arise. The executive committee should meet weekly, or if that isn’t convenient, as frequently as required. To keep all of the partners apprised of issues before the executive committee meeting is held, it is recommended that the meeting agenda be distributed to all partners within 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Partners should be encouraged to discuss, with members of the executive committee, any items listed on the agenda or recommend subjects for discussion. Following this meeting, minutes should be prepared and distributed to all of the partners for information purposes.

Click here for our blog on management

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

 

Feb 07, 2024

Law Firm Practice Group Management – Practice Group Leader Roles and Responsibilities

Question:

Our firm is a 17 attorney insurance defense firm in Cincinnati, Ohio. We are in first generation and we have 9 equity partners, 3 non-equity partners, and 5 associates. We are managed by a three member  executive committee and a firm administrator. We have been discussing the need to create a few practice groups and appointing practice group leaders for these groups. We are wondering what the roles of these leaders should be and what should be expected of them. Your advise is appreciated.

Response:

The overall purpose and role of practice groups as well as their leaders should be to create structure and accountability within their respective practice groups  to maximize the economic potential of the firm while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork. The practice group leaders should have discretion as to how to implement these responsibilities within their groups. Recognizing that practice leaders have many priorities, it is expected that they may delegate certain functions to one or more partners within their group, i.e., training associates, reviewing and following-up on marketing initiatives established by the group and individual members, etc. It is also anticipated that the practice leaders may call upon the members of the executive committee to assist in the implementation of these initiatives. However, practice leaders must retain responsibility for working with timekeepers within their practice group – partners, associates and paralegals – on their individual productivity, billing, collection and marketing efforts.

Here is a list of typical practice group leader responsibilities:

1. Productivity

On a regular basis, monthly at the outset and at least as the end of each quarter after target levels have been achieved, practice leaders should review the billable hours of each timekeeper in their practice groups. Are partners pushing work down and is there sufficient billable work to keep all timekeepers fully occupied to meet target performance levels, and distribution of work among practice group associates.

2. Economic Performance

Equally important to the success of a law firm is the need to improve the effectiveness of its attorneys’ billing and collection practices. Practice group leaders should review monthly accounts receivable reports for the practice partners and to work with each partner to take prompt and appropriate actions to cure delinquencies.

3. New Client/ New Matter Intake Procedure

Except for the conflicts checks, partners in a great many law firms make individual decisions committing their firm to a particular client representation.
Since practice leaders are expected to be responsible for setting the course, and profitability, of their respective practices, i.e., implementing the practice area strategic plan, it follows that they should play a significant role in the decision on what work the practice should pursue through client development initiatives and what work it should accept.

4. Associate Mentoring, Compensation Adjustments and Growth

Practice group leaders should take the lead to implement the firm’s mentoring program for each practice group associate and periodically evaluate the each associate’s growth, ensure preparation of annual written reviews of all associates by partners supervising their assignments and assume responsibility for prompt implementation of performance improvement directives or outplacement.

5. Partner Compensation Recommendations

Practice leaders should assume an important role in the compensation evaluation of partners in their practice group. Practice leaders should prepare annual qualitative evaluations of each partner in the practice, and, where applicable, coordinate evaluations for partners associated with more than one practice group. In addition, they should review annual performance statistics for each partner and make recommendations to the Compensation Committee.

6. Strategic Planning and Practice Development

Partners in a great many law firms focus their attention on the development of their individual practices and to commit their firm’s resources to support these efforts. While I endorse these individual efforts, many of the more financially and professionally successful law firms have determined that it makes sense to create some structure to ensure that the individual efforts fit within the overall strategic plan for their practice area and their firm.

7. Lateral Candidate Opportunities

Whether as a result of strategic planning or unanticipated circumstances, it is anticipated that all of the firm’s practice areas will be opportunistic to the possibility of considering lateral acquisitions with profitable books of desirable business to enhance the firm’s practices. Because this process may be time consuming for the firm’s lawyer management, it will be important for the practice leaders to identify resource needs, conduct initial screening of lateral candidates, and when a viable candidate is found that satisfies the firm’s screening criteria and the practice group’s strategic plan, make recommendations to the Executive Committee.

Click here for our blog on management

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Jan 29, 2019

Law Firm Structure and Growth

Question: 

I am the administrator with a firm in Buffalo, New York. We have fourteen attorneys – seven partners and seven associates. We are an eat-what-you kill law firm. All the partners have to weight in and agree on any and all management decisions. Our management team consists of “all partners”. While I have been hired as the administrator to management the firm, I have very little authority to do anything. The partners all have the freedom to do as they please and there is very little accountability to each other. Recently we have been discussing the pros and cons of why we might want to change our governance and overall structure. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Response: 

I believe that law firms that are “firm first” team based firms and organized along these lines have (or will have) a competitive advantage with respect to clients, legal talent, and merger partners. As law firms grow the “lone ranger” confederation approach no longer works. Decision-making is too time consuming, partner time is wasted, and opportunities are missed. Synergy (where one plus one equals three or four) is not achieved and the firm achieves little more than any one of the attorneys could achieve in solo practice.

Recently I was working with a similar size firm in Chicago that was looking for a merger partner. When the other firm learned that my client was a “lone ranger” firm they discontinued discussions. Larger firms that are “team-based” are not interested in merging with “long ranger” firms – they tend to cherry pick key talent from these firms rather than pursuing mergers or combinations.

Click here for our blog on governance and structure

Click here for our articles on other topics

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

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

 

Apr 25, 2018

Law Firm Management Committee vs Full Partnership

Question: 

I am a partner in a fourteen attorney firm in San Antonio, Texas. We have eight partners and six associates working in the firm. The firm was founded twenty years ago, so we are a first-generation firm. Two of the partners were the founders of the firm and the other six were made partners in later years. Currently our method of governing the firm is handled by the full partnership. While each partner has one vote, we try to manage by consensus. We do not have a managing partner or any committees. We have an office manager that primarily handles the accounting and the staff oversight. The partners meet weekly to discuss issues and make decisions. We are beginning to have issues with our management structure. Partners are not showing up for the weekly meetings and complaining about the amount of time it is taking away from servicing their clients. Should we consider a different approach? We would appreciate your thoughts.

Response: 

You are at a difficult size, still a small partnership but big enough that management by all may no longer be working for you. I believe that you should consider either a managing partner or a management committee of three partners elected by the partnership. For this to work all of the partners must agree to surrender some degree of independence to a managing partner or a management committee. I would start with putting together a list, or job description, for the managing partner or management committee. Partnership agreements often outline management decisions (powers) reserved for the partnership with all decisions handled by the managing partner or management committee. If your partners are unwilling to  surrender some degree of independence then changing to a managing partner or management committee may prove to be wasted effort.

Click here for our blog on governance

Click here for articles on other topics

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

Apr 11, 2018

Law Firm Practice Groups

Question: 

I am a partner and a member of our three-member executive committee. Our firm is a twenty-five attorney litigation defense firm in Kansas City, Missouri. We handle matters such as personal injury, medical malpractice, professional malpractice, products liability, and health care law. Each attorney handles and manages his or her own cases and operates in isolation of the other partners in the firm. Other than attending a quarterly partnership meeting there is little interaction among the partners. We have been discussing whether we should form practice groups. We would appreciate your thoughts.

Response: 

Practice groups can be excellent vehicles for enhancing communications, attorney and staff skill development and training, practice management, and marketing. Practice groups should share the mission and vision of the firm as well as goals of enhancing services to clients by developing the skills of the members of the group in a particular legal specialty or industry niche and developing business for that particular group. Practice groups should not operate as isolated islands but should be structured and integrated with the firm. Specifically, functional practice groups should:

Practice groups can be structured around legal specialties such as personal injury, product liability, and professional malpractice. Other practice groups can be structured around industry niches such as energy, health care, etc. In cases where a firm has a very large client a practice group can established for that specific client.

While practice groups can have their advantages, I have found that in many firms they are dysfunctional. They do not meet on a consistent basis, have no goals, or direction, poor leadership, and seem to accomplish little. To be effective  practice groups must:

  1. Be setup by the executive committee with specific goals and have a written charter developed by the executive committee.
  2. Effective leaders should be appointed by the executive committee to serve as chair of the practice group assigned. Specific roles should be identified as well as expectations.
  3. Practice group chair leadership effectiveness should be a factor in the compensation system.
  4. Practice groups should have written strategic plans that integrate with the firm’s strategic plan.
  5. Practice groups should meet monthly.

I believe a practice group would be a logical direction for your firm. You might want to start slow and try a “pilot” test group where there appears to be significant interest and see how it develops.

Click here for our blog on governance 

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

 

Jan 31, 2018

Law Firm Leadership – Profile for a Legal Administrator for an Eight Attorney Firm

Question: 

Our firm is an eight attorney estate planning firm in the Chicago area. Our firm has grown from two attorneys to our present size in four years. We have five partners and three associates. Currently management is handled by a managing partner. The partners have been discussing hiring a legal administrator. We were thinking of hiring someone with experience in managing law firms and a solid background in human resources and bookkeeping/accounting. One of our clients suggested that we hire someone with a strong academic background, MBA, CPA type that has served as the CEO of a mid-size corporation. What are your thoughts?

Response: 

I think you are too small to justify hiring a person with this background that is currently employed in such a role. Such a person would be unaffordable and if you could locate such a person your firm would probably be a stepping stone until they find a position elsewhere. If you were able to find someone that is retired and willing to work in a small firm setting that could be a possibility. Another option would be to hire someone that has served as CEO, COO, or CFO of a smaller company – with or without MBA, CPA designation. You could also look for an experienced legal administrator that has worked in a larger firm – possibly with a CPA or MBA. Again affordability will be an issue as well as long term retention. Personally, at your current size I think you should look for someone with BA or MBA degree in business, with a strong background in accounting and human resources, and experience as an administrator in a law or other professional services firm such as an accounting firm, consulting firm, engineering firm. Look for someone that has worked in a firm with 15-35 attorneys/professionals. Be careful of applicants that have worked in very large firms – i.e. 50+ attorney firm for example, as they may only stay a short while in a firm your size and move on to a larger firm when a position becomes available. They may also not be the “hands on jack of all trades” administrator that you need in a firm your size.

Click here for our blog on governance 

Click here for articles on other topics

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

Archives

Categories

    Subscribe to our Blog