Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Partnership

« Earlier | Later »

Oct 08, 2013

Managing Law Firm Partners – How to Herd the Cats

Questions:

I have just been elected as the firm's first managing partner. We are a 9 attorney firm in El Paso, Texas. After a month I am already frustrated and wish I had declined the role. I have two partners that are simply not producing, do as they please, and I am powerless. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Response:

Non-productive partners always pose a challenge. They are usually the “nice – easy to get along with folks” which makes it difficult to confront and deal with them as well. However, the longer that you let such problems fester the harder these situations will be to deal with in the long term. Layout performance expectations and deal with them in real time.

Consider:

You will need to sit down with your other partners and get their support and commitment to stand behind you and support you before you embark on this journey.

Click here for our partnership blog

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

Sep 17, 2013

Law Firm Non-Equity Partnership Tiers

Question:

Our firm is a 12 attorney firm in Houston. Currently we have three equity partners and nine associates. Several of our associates have been with the firm for over ten years. My partners and I are all in our early 60s and are beginning to think about succession and retirement. If possible, we would like to keep the firm within the family and not go the merger route. What are your thoughts concerning two tier partnership structures (equity and non-equity partnership)? Should we consider bringing associates in first into a non-equity tier?

Response:

I believe that a non-equity tier gives a firm a way to give associates the professional recognition and status of being a partner without conveying actual ownership and diluting ownership and control. Often a key differentiating factor between equity and non-equity partnership is client origination. Partners that don't originate a sizeable book of business often don't make it to the equity tier. For very small firms a non-equity often does not make sense - for others it often does. If you believe, as I do, that equity partners should be client originators and if you currently have a mix of client originator and non client originator associates with ten years or more time with the firm you may want to consider a two tier structure. You should carefully define, and put in writing, admission criteria for each tier.

Click here for our partnership blog

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

Jun 11, 2013

Law Firm Buyout Arrangements in a Contingency Fee Practice

Question:

I am a partner in a four partner law firm in Cleveland, Ohio. Our firm does class action contingency fee cases and all of our fees are contingency fee. We do keep time of our time expended on these cases even though we don't bill by time. One of our partners has announced that he will be withdrawing from the firm. We each have 25% ownership interests. How do we value the firm and determine his buy-out. Our partnership agreement does not address this nor do we have any precedent. Do you have any suggestions?

Response:

The real value component is the value of your unsettled cases and it will be difficult – if not impossible – to determine the value of these cases until they are concluded in the future. Some firms payout the capital account and the value of the hard assets upon departure or over a relatively short payout period and they have a future payout formula for the cases in progress as the cases are concluded.

Click here for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for our blog on financial management

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

Jun 04, 2013

Problem Law Partners

Question:

Our firm has been discussing how to handle one of our partners. We are are 12 attorney firm in Houston. One of our partners who is one of our highest fee producers and best business getter's simply won't follow firm policy or play by the rules. He won't turn in time-sheets in a timely manner, he is argumentative with others in the office, and not a team player. He is "me first" while the rest of the partners in the firm are mostly "firm first". We are trying to build a team based practice and this one partner is holding up our progress. Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how we should handle this?

Response:

Dealing with "maverick partners" is always a challenge. Of course they seem to always be the heavy hitters and this makes it that much more difficult as often there are major clients and large sums of money at stake – at least in the short term. This can also be major issues and large sums of money at stake in the long term if you don't deal with the maverick partner as well. In addition you won't be able to achieve the vision and goals the firm is trying to achieve.

Many firms have had to deal with the problem of a maverick "huge business generator" who just wouldn’t cooperate with firm policies and caused conflict and tension in the firm.  It is an unplesant task – but in the end – worth the investment. In the end he or she either conforms or leaves the firm. We have been advised by our clients that even though they may have struggled in the short term as the result of the loss of a major fee producer – in the long run the firm was better off and should have done it earlier.

Click here for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

Mar 12, 2013

Partner Compensation – Two Attorney Start-up Firm

Question:

I am a solo practitioner in Chicago. I've been offered by another solo to join him as a partner, and was wondering if you could suggest any articles or books I could look at to think about how to structure the partnership.  We bill about the same number of hours, but his rate is 50% higher than mine (300 v 200) and he has 20 years on me in age and experience.

Response:

I am a believer in true partnerships as they seem to work best and the compensation system that seems to work the best is where the partners share and share alike the profits based upon their ownership percentage. Initially a percentage is agreed upon based upon the revenue/profit
history and experience that each brings to the firm. If the level of contribution changes over time you talk about it and the percentages are adjusted. You may want to start by looking at your fees and profits over the last five years and compare them to his and use this as a starting point. Consideration should also be given to his experience. Hours don t matter as much as dollars. Then determine that ratio. Often in an arrangement such as this, depending on the ratio, it might be a 60%/40% split. If this is what you agree to then establish your capital accounts in accordance with that ratio (initial firm investment in the form of cash or other assets) and then split profits according to this split. Over the years adjust as needed. If you have a healthy partnership you will be comfortable discussing this subject.

Other approach if you want to be lone rangers would be a formula eat-what-you kill approach.

Here are my blogs on this topics generally:

https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/category/compensation/ 

Here are a couple specific blogs:

 https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/2009/05/  

https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/law-firm-eat-what-you-kill-partner-compensation-systems

Click here for articles on other topics

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

 

Mar 05, 2013

Law Firm Partner Conflict: Ideas for Resolution

Question:

We are based in Kansas City, Missouri. We have two partners, two associates, 5 staff members, and have been together for 6 years. The firm is the result of a merger of each of the two partner's practices a few years ago. The integration has not gone well. We are quite polarized. Each partner operates as a separate island, does his own thing without regard for the other partner, and staff follow suit. Each partner has very different practice values, approaches to practice, and goals. Conflict has escalated to the point when productivity and profitability has suffered and everyone is miserable. Would you share your thoughts?

Response:

Conflict is not always bad – sometimes conflict can actually be productive if it can be effectively managed. Destructive conflict on the other hand can destroy a small law firm. I often try to look at conflict from both a micro and macro point of view.

From a micro perspective I would look at the individuals themselves. Are their personalities compatible? Do each of the partners have the same vision for the firm and share similar core values, propensity for risk taking, need for control and tolerance for ambiguity?

From a macro perspective I would look at some of the organization and structural characteristics of the firm. This might include internal communications systems, interdependence of work tasks, clarity of job roles and responsibilities in the firm, decision-making, resource sharing, etc. Often people are stepping over each other and if we change some of the structural elements we can resolve the source of the conflict.

It is easier to fix and resolve macro level conflict than micro – individual – personality caused conflict. Your situation sounds like micro – individual – personality caused conflict and general incompatibility. Unless your firm wants to operate as a "long ranger" firm operating essentially as independent practices you may want think long and hard if it makes sense to continue the partnership.

Click here for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for articles on other topics

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

Jan 15, 2013

Law Firm Owner Considering Bringing in a Partner

Question:

I am the sole owner of a law firm in Tucson, Arizona. I have 7 associates working for the firm. I have one very senior level associate that I want to consider for partnership. I want to do this to keep him interested (he has been approached by other firms) and I envision him being a cornerstone of my succession plan – 10 years out. How should I start the process with him?

Response:

It sounds like you have found the person – or whom you believe is the right person for partnership. However, just because he has been a good associate does not mean that he will be a good partner – the relationship will be different. But at least he is somewhat of a known quantity since you know him and have worked with him for several years.

Here are a few ideas of where you might start:

  1. Outline you goals and expectations for the relationship.
  2. Meet with your associate and identify his goals and expectations for the relationship.
  3. Determine how much control over the practice and decision-making are you willing to give up? Share?
  4. Determine how much and for how long you are willing to make less?
  5. Determine if the associate will be expected to bring in business? When/Timeline?
  6. Think about the firm you want to build – firm-first or lone ranger (team based or individual practices)?
  7. Decide on firm name – will it change? Should it? Impact on image, clients, etc.
  8. Decision as to capital contribution or buy-in? Yes or No? How much? Timeline for payment?
  9. Ownership percentages
  10. Voting
  11. Compensation
  12. Withdrawal arrangements

Once you can come to terms with some of the above issues craft a suitable partnership or operating agreement that you can both live with.

Good luck!

Click here for our partnership blog

Click here for articles on other topics

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

Oct 31, 2012

Developing a Law Firm Associate Career Progression/Partnership Admission Program

Question:

Our firm is a 14 lawyer firm in Phoenix, Arizona. We are a new firm (formed 8 years ago) and we have 5 equity partners and 9 associates. Several of the associates have been with us since day one (8 years) and are asking us about partnership. We want to be fair and keep our top talent. What are your thoughts on this topic?

Response:

A common complaint that we hear from our interviews of associates is lack of feedback on short term performance and what is takes to "make partner" and how they are progressing toward eventual partnership. During a recent interview an associate told me – I would like to know:

  1. What does it take to become a partner – consideration criteria? What do I have to do?
  2. What is the timeline for consideration?
  3. How am I doing – am I partnership material?
  4. What does partnership mean in this firm?
  5. What are the mechanics of admission? (Is there a buy-in)

I suggest that you and your partners consider developing what I call a Law Firm Associate Career Progression/Partnership Program and put it in writing. Here is an approach you might take:

  1. Determine if you want more partners? How many – evaluate the appropriate ratio.
  2. Consider non-equity partners as a first step and determine what that means.
  3. Establish a minimum number of years for consideration – i.e. seven years.
  4. Determine competencies and expectation for associate development and document.
  5. Develop an associate performance evaluation form and conduct formal annual evaluations.
  6. Develop partner admission criteria (associate to non-equity and non-equity to equity partner) and document.
  7. Write-up an overall program document and include as attachments the competencies document, the performance evaluation form, and the admission criteria document.
  8. Present the program to associates in a live meeting format to launch the program.

Regarding equity partnership – make the criteria tough – and require a buy-in or capital contribution. Business development and a client following should be required by most firms for the equity tier. 

Click here for our blog on law firm partnership

Click here for our law firm management articles

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

 

Oct 02, 2012

Law Firm Governance and Structure – Impact Upon Competitiveness

Question:

Our firm is in Nashville TN and we currently have 12 attorneys – 7 partners and 5 associates. We are an eat-what-you kill law firm. In essence we operate as separate profit centers and operate in our own silos. We all have to come together and agree on any and all management decisions. Our management team consists of "all partners". We do not have a office administrator, office manager or even a managing partner. We all have the freedom to do as we 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

 

Sep 26, 2012

Hiring Entrepreneurial Associates That Can Eventually Become Equity Owners or Partners in a Law Firm

Question:

We are a Toledo, Ohio law firm with ten attorneys. We have four partners – all of which are in their 60s and approaching retirement. While our six associates are great lawyers – none bring in business nor do any of them seem to really be interested in partnership. It seems that we hired a bunch of folks that just wanted jobs and have no interest in owning a law firm. I would be interested in your ideas and thoughts.

Response:

Years ago it seemed that all the associates working in law firms wanted to eventually become a partner in the law firm. This has changed as a result of the new mix of women and men graduating from law schools and entering the legal profession, changing attitudes toward work life balance, other opportunities outside law firms, and other variables. While partnership/ownership is still important to many – don't assume that all the associates that you hire will even want to be equity partners – especially if it means a hefty capital contribution and signing personal guarantees for a large amount of firm debt.

A question that I would ask – have you really discussed with your associates their interests in equity ownership? As a group? Recently an associate, whom the firm had written off, advised me that while he was not interested now due to his present situation in life, he would be in maybe five years – especially if others also were brought in as well – in other words he did not want to have the responsibility alone and be an equity owner by himself.

I suggest that you talk with your people and see where they really stand. Help them to begin developing client development skills. Depending on you and the other partner's retirement timeline – you may have to consider other options such as laterals or merging with another firm.

A key suggestion is to look for entrepreneurial associates when you hire. The desire for ownership of a business if often in a person's blood. Don't start the interview with a discussion from law school until the present. Dig deeper into hobbies, family, etc. that will provide clues as to whether you may be hiring someone that just wants a law job or someone that eventually wants to own or be a partner in a law firm.

Click here for our blog on career management

Click here for our articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC 

 

Archives

Categories

    Subscribe to our Blog