Question:
I am the owner of a three attorney general practice firm in Chicago, Illinois. The other attorneys were recently hired associates right out of law school. We have two legal assistants, one paralegal, and a receptionist/bookkeeper. I manage the firm and practice law. I am finding it more and more difficult to do both and I am discovering that I enjoy managing and running the business more than I do practicing law. I would like to spend all of my time to running and managing the firm. Your thoughts are welcomed.
Response:
You are not alone. This is a common problem in law and other professional service firms. I have similar problems in my own firm – it is very difficult to serve two masters – serving your clients and managing your firm. Eventually as you grow you have to pick one – client service (doing legal work) or managing and running your business – as the area that receives your primary focus. This is not to say that you should not do both – but you select the primary area that you are going to focus on and get help with the other area.
A question that I typically ask my new law firm clients – what do you want to be or do – be a business person or a lawyer. The answer to the question often provides a hint to how you should structure your firm. If you want to be more of a business person – hire legal talent to help with serving clients and performing legal work and spend more time working on your firm rather than in it. If you want to be more of a lawyer and do legal work and serve clients hire a legal administrator or business manager (this is more than an office manager) to manage and run your firm.
I have more and more owners of small law firms that are managing their law businesses and not practicing law. I believe the appropriate direction is what makes you happy and what type of work you enjoy doing. Your practice should support and fulfill your personal goals, what you want out of life and what makes you happy. If that is managing – then manage. If that is doing legal work – do legal work.
Two great books on this subject are – The E-Myth Revisited and The E-Myth Attorney – available on Amazon. The theme of both of these books is:
Small law firm owners often spend too much time being the technician (i.e. lawyering) and not enough time managing and innovating. In the long term this can have a negative effect upon value when the owner decides or retire of otherwise exit the practice.
Think about where you want place the priority of your focus – working on your firm (business) or in it.
I believe that at your current size and your limited number of revenue producers you can’t afford to be a full-time manager until the firm grows to at least five lawyers and or several serious revenue producing paralegals (not dabblers but producing $150,000 – $250,000 per year). I suggest that you take a phased approach toward this goal. In the short term you may have to work harder as a revenue producer and a manager and business developer. In the meantime you will have to wear both hats. Be patient.
As AI continues to reshape all walks of life as well as the practice of law, firm management and innovation will become even more important to remain competitive. This is a strategic management area that will require more of your management time. Small law firms that have implemented AI are reporting efficiency gains that have translated into higher profitability and improved well-being.
Good luck with your transition.
Click here for our blog on strategy.
Click here for our blog on management
Click here for out articles on various management topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
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.
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
Question:
I am a partner in a 30 lawyers insurance defense firm in Phoenix, Arizona. We have 7 equity partners, 10 non-equity partners, and 13 associates. We represent insureds through insurance companies that are our clients and pay our bills. We also represent self-insured companies as well. Our firm is in second generation. The original founding partners have all retired and they are the ones that brought in all of the clients and managed and ran the firm. The firm was primarily run by a strong managing partner. Since the founding partners retired we have been struggling in managing the firm, getting new clients, and finding and retaining lawyers and staff. Now all seven partners are involved in managing the firm and while we are all good lawyers we are not good managers or leaders. The firm has lost clients and lost lawyers and we are struggling. All our partners want is to work in their own silos and work on their files and cases. They consider firm management “non-billable” and not deserving of their time. Do you have any thoughts?
Response:
Law firms are finding that developing effective leadership skills can be a very difficult task. Dealing with leadership is a very emotional issue for most law firms due to the independent nature of most lawyers and the general unwillingness of firm lawyers to put aside their personal interests for the good of the firm. In fact, in many cases existing law firm partnership structures and compensation systems reinforce this tendency. What is needed is a balance between partner autonomy and partner accountability. Leaders will either have to be recruited externally (i.e. lateral partners) or skills will need to be developed internally.
The firm can begin by conducting a self-assessment using the following 10 point checklist:
While professional non-lawyer executive directors, administrators, and office managers can provide some relief, the equity partners must still develop appropriate leadership skills and perform upper-level leadership roles. In some firms these skills are simply latent and need to be identified and appropriately reinforced. In other firms such skills are nowhere to be found. Such firms will have to either recruit partners with requisite skills from the outside or develop leadership skills internally. This will take time and will require dedication, focus, patience, and hard work.
This author believes that improvements in law firm leadership will only come about as a result of improved leadership selection and action orientated leadership development programs. Attorneys must begin to shift their attention from a transaction orientation to a firm-first client orientation. Attorneys must begin to make investments in non-billable time and consider such as investments for the future. Attorneys must begin to formulate a balance between accountability and autonomy and begin to embrace change. Only then will an environment be created that supports leadership development that fosters an organization that can facilitate ongoing new client acquisition and retention in the future.
Click here for our blog of leadership
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
Question:
Our firm is a 14 lawyer firm in St. Louis, Missouri that focuses on small businesses – both transactional and litigation matters. There are eight equity partners, two non-equity partners, and four associates in the firm. We are managed by a three member management committee and a firm administrator.
While we have been successful over the past fifteen years since the formation of the firm, we are experiencing numerous issues including:
We would appreciate any suggestions that you might be able to offer.
Response:
I understand your dilemma. You are at a difficult size. It sounds like you are facing many of the problems that firm leaders face at your stage of growth. Your leaders must be willing to:
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
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
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:
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
Question:
I am one of three founding partners in a 17 lawyer insurance defense firm in Houston. We have a total of 18 lawyers in the firm – 3 founding equity partners, 4 other equity partners, 5 non-equity partners, and 6 associates. The three of us founding partners are in our 60s and approaching requirement and are concerned about succession planning and transition. We feel that we are in good shape concerning transition of clients but not so concerning management roles and responsibilities. The firm is managed by the three of us and we have kept tight reigns on the administrative/management side of the house. We would appreciate your thoughts.
Response:
A successful transition strategy involves three components.
While it sounds like you are in good shape concerning legal skills of your other partners and client and referral source relationships, work needs to be done in the areas of firm management and leadership.
Law schools do not train or develop managing partners or lawyer managers, nor does doing excellent and complicated work for demanding clients. Highly competent attorneys do not necessarily make good managing partners or lawyer managers. Some of the best lawyers are the worst managers. The better lawyer managers have a second sense for people and management, in addition to being good lawyers and possibly outstanding rainmakers. Many firms develop successors to management by delegating to selected mid-level and junior partners short term management assignments and by rotating these partners through various management areas to develop their general management skills rather than developing particular lawyers as specialists in specific management areas. These firms begin to train mid-level and junior partners by assigning short term, low risk management activities before entrusting them with key management jobs.
Management Skills
The following are recommended areas in which the management skills of mid-level and junior partners can and should be developed:
Techniques for Developing Skills
On-the-job-training is the most effective technique for developing and refining the management skills of mid-level and junior partners. Three of the most frequently used approaches for teaching management skills include being assigned to a committee, being elected or appointed to a management or leadership position and serving as a member of a special team.
The mid-level or junior partner selected for training should receive administrative assignments and his or her performance should be evaluated accordingly. Each lawyer manager should be requested to develop a plan for the year, including goals and proposed action plans for accomplishing their objectives. They should be required to review these plans with the head of the committee or the partner to whom they are accountable. Partners who are appointed or elected to specific positions should be accountable to a partner or committee responsible for their actions and be evaluated on their performance. Many law firms consider the success or failure of partners in planning and implementing administrative assignments when recommending or setting their compensation levels. This is done to encourage the firm’s “best and brightest” partners to accept administrative assignments and not feel uncomfortable because they may record fewer billable hours. Also, it would be wise for the managing partner or executive committee to identify and provide other non-monetary forms of recognition to successful lawyer managers.
Planning for the transition of law firm leadership and management calls for the ability of the current managing partner or members of the management committee to spot leadership and management potential among the partner complement. Once this potential has been identified the current management must nurture and develop this potential so as to provide the future leaders of the firm.
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
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
Question:
I am the sole owner of an estate planning firm in downtown Chicago with four other attorneys and six staff members. Since we are considered by the state of Illinois to be a necessary business service most of us are still working at the office. I know that many firms are working remotely. How is that working out and what are the specifics of how to make that work – new client intake meetings, work on client matters, coordination with attorney and staff team, and client document signings?
Response:
It is working out very well for many firms and better than expected. Here is what one of my estate planning law firms with four attorneys and seven staff members is doing:
This approach is working pretty well. The firm has sufficient work in process to keep people working and the firm, although new client calls are down, the phone is still ringing are the firm is signing up new business.
It would have been easier had the firm had cloud-based billing and accounting systems as well as VOIP phone system. However, the procedures and protocols the firm is taking is working reasonably well.
Personally, our firm went remote 20 years ago and we don’t miss the days of high office space cost, overhead, wasted commute time, etc. At that time I built out and dedicated 1,000 square feet of space in our home and we have all the systems (phones, file servers, conference room, etc.) that would be found in a typical office. We supplement this with a virtual arrangement with Regus.
Good Luck to all during this challenging time.
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the sole owner of an estate planning firm in San Francisco Bay area. I have four full-time associates, six paralegals, two secretaries, a firm administrator, and four other staff members. We are a high volume operation and we do a lot of marketing. We need help coordinating and handling and coordinating the marketing. Are we ready for marketing coordinator or director?
Response:
Personally I think the firm is a little small for a full-time marketing position. If you can find a person that is willing to work part-time that could work in a firm your size. Many firms your size and larger that have a firm administrator include marketing responsibilities on the firm administrator’s job description and have marketing and business development coordination handled by the firm administrator. Here is an example of the marketing and business development duties that your administrator could handle.
Advertising
Coordinate the firm’s advertising program established by the owner.
Business Development
Coordinate and implement the business development program established the owner
Oversight responsibility by performing or delegating the following:
1 Updating Firm E newsletter database
2 Monthly review of E newsletter Database blocked list report,
contacting contacts for updated email addresses, and updating
e-newsletter and all related databases.
3 Update Other Firm E-newsletter Databases
4 Update case management and time billing databases
5 Distribute Electronic E newsletters.
Client Testimonials
Prompting the owner monthly to solicit one client testimonial from a client and posting or coordinating with the firm’s website provider for them to post the testimonial to the website.
2 Schedule, coordinate, and maintain a file on the firm’s file
server of action items and notes from each meeting.
3 Coordinate and assist in the implementation of action items.
Public Relations
Coordinate the firm’s public relations program.
Electronic Media
1. Website
Oversight responsibility for maintaining the firm’s web site and keep
the website’s content fresh and updated in coordination with website provider.
2. Social Media
Update entries on social media.
Directories
Client Communication/Satisfaction Program
Firm Announcements
Supervise preparation and distribution of firm announcements
Click here for our blog on marketing
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC