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.
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
Posted at 08:31 PM in Governance, Partnership
Tags: law firm competitiveness, Law firm governance, law firm structure