Question:
I am the owner of a law firm in Chicago suburbs that specializes in estate planning. I started the firm twelve years ago. Over the years the firm has grown from just myself as a solo to a firm with myself and six associate attorneys. Prior to starting the firm I worked in several other firms as an associate and as a partner. I felt I was not being compensated for my hard work so I started by own firm. I have always worked hard and in addition to managing the firm and bringing in all the clients I bill 1700 billable hours a year. My associates are a disappointment. They work the bare minimum, some are lazy, and none are even billing 1400 hours a year. Some are not even billing 1200 hours a year. I have tried bonus systems based on production of fees collected and they have had no effect. In my old firms this was not the case, everyone worked hard and was self motivated. I am at a loss and I don’t know how to motivate these associates. I would appreciate any thoughts that you have regarding what I should do?
Response:
I suspect that you, as a founder, expect the same sort of work ethic and drive that you, as well as others, in your prior firms had over the years. Welcome you the new generation of workers and the era of work-life balance. This is not to say this generation of workers is lazy – their priorities in life are different and work is not the only priority in their lives as it may have been in yours. They may not also not have the drive and self motivation that you had and require direction. You can’t simply put them on autopilot – they require care and feeding in the form of:
Often a little care and feeding will go a long way to changing performance and often accomplishes more that formulaic bonus systems. Here is a prior blog on how to go about this.
I agree that 1200 billable hours is unsatisfactory and you should be expecting 1600 for your type of practice. Expectations need to be established, if they aren’t, and consequences for non-compliance. I think bonus systems such as yours are fine but often do not accomplish desired results without some care and feeding. If you are unwilling to do some care and feeding your other option is to fire your worst offenders and try to replace them with self-motivated associates that have a documented track record of performance. Getting the right people on the bus can be more productive than care and feeding beyond a certain point.
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the managing partner of a six lawyer firm in Nashville, Tennessee. There are two partners in the firm, myself and another partner, and we have four associate attorneys. Two of our associates have been with firm for over ten years. We are trying to put in place a career progression policy for them and we are thinking about having a non-equity and equity tier which would serve as a prerequisite to equity partnership. What are the differences between the expectations and requirements for non-equity and equity partner?
Response:
The main difference between an equity partner and non-equity or income partner is that the equity partners assumes a higher degree of capability in a lot of areas, not just good lawyering. Equity partners are expected to develop business, to manage large client relationships, and to have a level of commitment that allows them to do all of that and maintain a very full practice load at the same time. Non-equity or income partners are generally lawyers that are excellent lawyers in his or her field but doesn’t satisfy the other requirements required of equity partners. In addition, equity partners usually invest capital in the firm and assume the risks of the office lease, credit line, and other liabilities. Non-equity partners usually have guaranteed salaries and equity partners do not.
Here are a few of the typical hurdles that are required to move up to equity partner:
The primary difference is non-equity partners focus is on lawyering and the focus of equity partners is on lawyering and being a businessperson as well – practicing law and managing a business.
Click here for our partnership blog
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in an fourteen attorney firm in Dallas, Texas. There are seven partners in the firm. We started the firm together twenty years ago. Over the years the firm has been very successful and each of the seven partners have had a great relationship. However, over the last five years some of the partners are no longer contributing like they were and relationships have become strained. We are equal partners and our compensation is based upon our ownership interest – so we are paid equally. I am concerned that if we don’t resolve this problem the firm may split apart in the future. You advise and thoughts will be appreciated.
Response:
There are many reasons that difficulties may arise between partners in a law firm. One of the major factors is that working together effectively is a very difficult skill to acquire. Most individuals join a firm without realizing all that is involved. Professionals, especially, frequently do not understand that being an associate, colleague, and partner require a different set of skills than just being talented in one’s field. Many partners often only have a general idea of what the firm expects of them and only limited interest in how the firm itself operates, as distinguished from what they are professionally prepared to do. Most lawyers are highly motivated to use their expertise on client work, not on spending time in organizing or running a firm or partnership, even though doing so would help the firm operate more successfully and efficiently.
The first step would be, if you have not already, to sit down as a group and discuss the problem, establish agreed to performance expectations for the partners, document in writing, and have each partner sign the document. See if this makes a difference. If no improvement is made then the under performing partners should be confronted and some form of action taken. You may have to redesign your compensation system and possibly ask problem partners to leave.
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in a husband/wife owned law firm in Seattle, Washington. We have four other associate lawyers in the firm. One of these lawyers is our son and the other is the daughter of my wife’s (who is my partner) brother. We have four staff members of which one is also a family member. We are a general practice firm and we have been in operation for ten years. While the firm has done well over the years we have had our challenges. Office problems seen to follow us home and both staff employees and non-family attorneys are alienated. We have been experiencing turnover of both staff and attorneys. What should we being doing different?
Response:
I have seen family practices go both ways – successful and not so successful due to the conflict and drama that can exit in family practices if they are not setup and managed properly. A few of the challenges and issues that can arise in family owned law firms include:
Family practices must first start by recognizing that there are three social systems at play – the family, the law firm business, and overlap of the two. Unless boundaries and rules are established there will be conflict and tension. Family roles and roles in the law firm should be be developed. Here are a few guidelines that family practices should consider adopting:
Here is a link to an earlier blog in re children of partners who are attorneys working in law firms.
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am an associate attorney in a nine-attorney firm in Orlando, Florida. There are five partners and four associates in the firm. I have been with the firm four years and I am the senior associate. I am concerned about my future. Recently one of the partners announced that he was bring his son, who recently graduated from law school, into the firm as an associate. Other partners have children in law school. I am concerned about my future. I have hopes of becoming a partner in the firm in the next few years. I am afraid that with partner children in the firm this may not happen. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Response:
Many firms have brought children and other family members into the firm and have had excellent results. Others have not. In general, I believe that law firms do a better job at this than do other business firms. I believe that if the firm lays the proper foundation and goes about it correctly children of partners and existing associates can coexist. Here are suggestions that I suggest for law firms:
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the owner of a four-attorney firm in Indianapolis, Indiana. The firm has three associate attorneys plus three paralegals and three other staff members. One of my attorneys recently advised me that he wanted to do more work remotely. The next day I emailed him my thoughts and advised him that I would not let him work remotely. He then emailed me that he was giving me his two weeks notice. What should I have done differently?
Response:
You should have met with him personally and discussed the matter face to face. Email has its uses but I find it is often overused and used in situations where it should not be.
Note the following scale of communication media and richness.
1. Face to face
2. Telephone
3. Email and texts
Face to face is the richest form of communications and should be used for sensitive communications such as performance reviews and other such discussions concerning performance, praise, training and mentoring, etc. It should have been used in the situation you discussed in your question.
Telephone is the second richest form of communications and should be used for less sensitive communications or for face to face situations discussed above when a face to face meeting is physically not possible.
Email, text, and other written communications should be used for routine communications such as assignment of projects and tasks, work instructions, etc.
Sensitive and difficult communications should be communicated through a rich medium such as face-to-face meetings and routine communications through a lean medium such as a memo.
Media richness is determined by the speed the media provides, the variety of communications channels on which it works, the extent of personal interactions allowed, and the richness of language it accommodates. As tasks become more ambiguous, you should increase the richness of the
media that you use.
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm is a sixteen attorney personal injury insurance defense firm located in Dallas, Texas. I am a member on our three-person management committee. We have been experiencing associate attorney and staff turnover. Recently, we had all employees complete confidential surveys concerning their thoughts and feedback concerning the firm. One theme that was central to all was that the firm has poor communications with employees. I would like to hear your thoughts on what we need to do to improve.
Response:
Obviously, more specifics would be helpful. Communication is a broad topic. Are they talking about mentoring, training, updates of what is going on in the firm, etc? However, here a a few best practices to think about:
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the owner of an elder law firm in Jackson Mississippi. There are three associate attorneys working in the firm that have been with me under five years. All three were hired directly out of law school. While I try to mentor and train each of the associates as needed in “real time” I also conduct annual performance reviews with each associate and provide them with a written performance evaluation. I am getting frustrated as it seems that the feedback that I provide them does not stick and they continue to make the same errors and mistakes. I welcome any thoughts that you may have.
Response:
You may need more frequent discussions that are scheduled. I have some law firm client owners that have an ongoing scheduled meeting with each associate twice a month. You may also want to examine how you actually provide feedback to your associates. Often owners beat around the bush and don’t really provide meaningful feedback.
Giving meaningful feedback contributes an essential component to effective associate management. Whether you give feedback informally, midway through the work or at the end, or formally through a scheduled evaluation process, it gives you a powerful management tool, assisting individuals in professional development, teaching those you manage to work more effectively, and giving recognition and showing appreciation when deserved.
Effective feedback should be:
Praise you associates when deserved. Praise provides an effective motivator for most associates and should include:
Provide constructive criticism when deserved. It should include the items listed above and you should give it:
Use the following outline when giving constructive feedback:
Try to implement some of these ideas and go from there.
Click here for our blog on career management
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
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.
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
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:
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