Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Succession

Jul 26, 2017

Law Firm Succession Planning – Impact of Firm Size for a Solo

Question: 

I am a solo practitioner in upstate New York. I am 66 years old and I am looking to retire and am trying to figure out what to do with my practice. My practice is a general practice and there is just me and one secretary. I welcome you suggestions:

Response:

The size of the firm will present different retirement succession, transition, and exit challenges. Firm size will affect the number of moving parts, specific steps that a firm will have to take, and the overall timeline. Solo practitioners and sole owners will have the most moving parts and face the greatest challenges.

You will have the greatest challenge since you have no associates or anyone in place to transition the practice. Therefore, you could both hire and groom an associate that could buy the firm or become a partner and buyout your interests, sell the firm to another firm, or merge with another firm. Other options would be to become Of Counsel with another firm or simply close down the practice. This takes time.

Hiring and grooming an associate can be problematic for the solo. If he or she does not have sufficient business and does not originate business, the associate will be an expense and the your net earnings will suffer. Other issues include:

• The associate may have no interest in owning a law firm. He or she may simply want to be a lawyer, have a job, and not be a business owner.
• You could invest several years in mentoring and training an associate only to lose the associate to another firm in two or three years. Your succession/transition/exit plan would then be out the window and you would have to to start all over again with less time remaining to do so.
• You may not have may not have the time or inclination to groom and train an associate.

You could sell the firm to another lawyer or law firm. This option works best when the practitioner is actually ready to retire and quit practicing. Often this is not the case and the restrictions on sale of law practice levied by a state’s rules of professional conduct, in particular Rule 1.17, may make this option undesirable. Locating desirable candidates will take time and a well-planned search process may have to initiated.  Our experience has been that this can take a year or longer.

Merger with another lawyer or law firm is another option. This is often a better option for solos that want to gradually phase-down yet continue to practice for a few more years. In essence, they join another firm as either an equity or non-equity partner, member, or shareholder and subsequently retire from that firm under agreed terms for the payout. The odds are improved for clients and referral sources staying with the merged firm and the merged firm is more committed that a buyer might be under a payout arrangement based upon collected revenues. The solo practitioner has more flexibility with regard to the ability to continue to practice longer, reduced stress, additional support and resources, and gradual phase-down to retirement.

Forming an Of Counsel relationship with another firm is an option that many solos are taking. Sometimes it is a final arrangement where a solo winds down his or her practice and then joins another firm as an employee or independent contractor. He or she is paid a percentage of collected revenue under a compensation agreement with different percentages depending upon whether the practitioner brings in the business, services work that he or she brings in, or services work that the firm refers to the practitioner. In other situations, an Of Counsel relationship is used as a practice continuation mechanism that provides the solo with additional resources and support if needed. An Of Counsel relationship can also be used to “pilot test” a relationship prior to merging with another firm. We have had several law firm clients that has taken a phased approach to merger with Phase I being an Of Counsel “pilot test” exploratory arrangement and Phase II being the actual merger.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Apr 18, 2017

Law Firm Succession/Exit Plan – Merger, Selling, Laterals, or Promoting Associates to Equity

Question:

I am the owner of a small estate planning firm in Worcester, Massachusetts. I have three associates and three staff members. I am fifty five and am wanting to begin putting in place my succession/exit plan. I would like to retire and exit the practice in ten years. Would I be better off selling to another firm or attorney, merging the practice, bringing in laterals, or selling to one or both of my associates? I am interested in your thoughts.

Response: 

The biggest challenge for many firms, is finding the right WHO.

The who dictates the what – the actual succession/transition/exit strategy. In other words, many law firms find that they start down one path and end up on another. Not all non-equity partners and associates want to own a law firm. Not all lateral and merger candidates will be a good fit for your firm and culture. The key is the right relationship and sometimes that takes the form of making someone at the firm a partner, bringing in a seasoned lateral, merging with another firm, or selling the practice. Therefore, succession/transition plans have to be flexible and often the key is not get stuck in creating complex succession plans at the onset. Establish timelines, outline a general course of action, generate some momentum and see where that takes you. Then build the plan when you can see where the firm is headed.

Unless the retiring partner in a larger firm has a unique practice that requires the firm to conduct a search for lateral or merger candidates, larger firms will not have to embark on a search. However, solo practitioners and often sole owners will have to explore their options and conduct a search for the following:

• Associate candidates that can be groomed for either partnership or to buy the practice
• Associates and Lateral partner candidates
• Merger candidates
• Of Counsel Candidates
• Practice sale candidates

This search and exploration often is the most time consuming and difficult part of the process and often the options identified through this process ends up dictating the succession/transition/exit strategy.

If a firm has associates, does the firm have the right associates on the bus for the long term? In other words, has the firm hired associates that want to be business owners and own a law firm? Many owners and senior partners in law firms are approaching retirement age and are beginning to think about succession strategies. As they examine their associate lawyer ranks, some partners are often surprised to learn that there may be few takers. While their associates may be great lawyers, they may not bring in business and may not be interested in ownership or partnership. Such firms have hired a bunch of folks that just wanted jobs and have no interest in owning a law firm. While this hiring approach may have satisfied the firm’s short-term needs – it may fall short in the long term.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Dec 20, 2016

Law Firm Succession Planning – Selling My Stock to Several Associates

Question:

I am the sole owner of a five attorney personal injury plaintiff firm in the Dallas suburbs. Over the years I have built a sustainable brand through advertising. I have helped my associates develop their reputations, handle substantial cases, and be involved in various areas of firm management. I am planning on retiring in five years and I would like to begin the transition early next year by selling some stock (minority interests) to deserving associates with the remainder of my shares to be purchased upon my retirement. Originally, I had through about selling shares to two associates that have been with the firm for over fifteen years – now I am thinking about selling shares to all four associates. I think it would be easier for the four to come up with the required money. I welcome your thoughts.

Response:

If you are asking for a goodwill value plus cash-based book value as well as a percentage of completion estimated value of your contingency fee cases in process, the amount you are asking for your stock could be considerable. This would indeed be difficult for one or two people to raise and on its face it would make sense to sell your shares to all the associates. If this is not the case if may be possible to the two senior associates to raise the required funds.

Here are my thoughts:

1. You know your people best but give consideration to the future partner dynamics. You are going from a sole owner structure to a five attorney ownership structure if you bring them in all at the same time. This will require some major adjustments in governance, compensation, etc.
2. Are the two newer associates deserving of ownership? Have they developed their skills and earned the respect of the other associates in the firm and others outside of the firm?
3. What do the two senior associates think? Do they want to be future partners with each other? Are they able to come up with the money? Do they initially, after your retirement, want other partners? Do they want the other associates to be their partners – initially or down the road?
4. Interview your two senior associates and get their thoughts on the above questions. They may want to enjoy the benefits of leverage from having less partners as you have over the years. 
5. My guess is that your senior associates would prefer to go it alone if they can swing it.

Don't try to force future partners on your two senior associates. I will rather see you initially admit the two senior associates as partners and let them admit other partners after your retirement when they are ready.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Sep 14, 2016

Law Firm Succession – Transition of Partners and Transition Plan

Question:

Our firm is a twenty-five lawyer firm with ten partners. Six of these partners are in their sixties. What should we be doing concerning planning the succession of these partners?

Response:

In a larger firm with multiple partners, shareholders, or members, succession and transition involves transitioning client relationships and management roles. Such transitions take time. Many larger firms have five-year phasedown retirements for this reason and require equity owners to properly transition clients and management responsibilities. Some firms tie retirement pay or compensation to completing a successful transition program.

A plan might included the following:  

• The Transition Partner becomes a Transition Partner as of the commencement of the phasedown and begins client and management transition at that time and ending on his/her retirement date, at which time he/she retires and withdraws from the partnership. Compensation of the Transitioning Partner is proportionately reduced by the amount of reduction in the Transitioning Partner’s present work schedule.
• Transitioning Partner is responsible for the collection of his/her accounts receivable and billing of his/her Work-in-Process throughout the entire transition phase unless delegated to his/her Co-Responsible Partners.
• Transitioning Partner’s purchase price (payout) is to be calculated immediately prior to the beginning of the transition period and in the same time and in the same manner in accordance with the Firm Partnership Agreement, and will be paid only upon the completion of the transition period.

Some firms are providing economic incentives for the transitioning partner to handoff work to others.

The internal succession/transition plan provides a mechanism for the firm to outline a general timeline for a senior partner’s retirement, a process to effect an orderly transition of clients and management responsibilities, and a vehicle for starting initial discussions.

Jun 28, 2016

Law Firm Succession – What to do When No One is Interested in Equity Ownership

Question:

I am the owner of a fourteen attorney insurance defense practice in Baltimore. I started the firm twenty years ago after leaving behind my partnership in another firm. Of the other thirteen attorneys there are four non-equity partners and the rest are associates. I am sixty three years old and beginning to think about retirement and how I am going to transition out of the practice. Two of the non-equity partners are well seasoned attorneys, have major case responsibility, and have developed solid relationship with clients. I have discussed equity partnership vaguely with two non-equity partners but their interests seem lackluster and they have been non-committal. I would appreciate your thoughts and advice on what my next steps should be.

Response:

It sounds like your non-equity partners are on the fence as a result of the "vague" nature of your discussions. It is hard for non-equity partners or associates to commit to equity and taking on the risk of ownership when they don't know what the deal is. This is a scary proposition for them and they need detailed information so they can evaluate and make an informed decision. A vague discussion doesn't cut it. I suggest that you put together an equity partnership proposal that includes:

1. Profit and loss statements for past the five years.
2. Balances sheets for the past five years.
3. A current accounts receivable and unbilled work in process report.
4. Tax returns for the past five years.
5. Malpractice insurance application.
6. Building and other leases.
7. Proposed Partnership Agreement
8. Proposed Equity Partner Compensation Plan
9. Planned date of admission
10. Governance and management plan
11. Ownership percentage being offered
12. Capital contribution or buy-in requirement

May 31, 2016

Law Firm Succession – Transitioning Clients to the Next Generation

Question:

I am a member of a three-member executive committee for a 34 lawyer firm in Austin, Texas. We have been in practice for over one hundred years. While we have had partners retire in the past with no issues we are now facing a situation where seven partners are approaching retirement at the same time and each of them controls significant books of business. What can the firm do to ensure that retiring partners properly transition their clients so the firm can continue to flourish after the partners are no longer here? We would appreciate your thoughts.

Response:

This is problem that many law firms are facing as baby boomers approach retirement. Rather than one or two partners coming up for retirement many firms are experiencing a "bunching of retirees" all at the same time. This can have a significant impact upon cash flow planning, client development, and attorney talent management.

Here are a few thoughts:

1. Access your lawyer talent pool to insure that you have people in place that can service the needs of the retiring partner's clients. If your talent pool is insufficient develop a strategy (lateral recruitment, merger, etc.) and develop a plan for locating lateral/merger opportunities.
2. If the firm does not have a plan for dealing with the upcoming partners retirements and the transition of their clients write a client transition plan and commence its implementation. The plan should include an action plan that is structured like a project plan with beginning and ending dates, specific times, and individuals assigned to specific tasks. The plan should serve to keep things moving over a three to five year transition time period.
3. Your committee should be communicating with your partners approaching retirement, talking with them about their goals and timelines concerning retirement, and getting them to commit to a date certain even if it is many years into the future.
4. The compensation should include incentives that encourages retiring partners to transition rather than hoard clients.
5. Determine a shortlist of who in the firm should take over clients.
6. Begin client introductions to successor attorneys early. Go deep with relationship building – not just a simple introduction. Your committee and the retiring partners should monitor and follow-up with successors to insure that they are developing relationships with these clients.
7. Assign co-responsible attorneys to all matters that a retiring partner is assigned.

There are a lot of other ideas that you can explore. The key point is to communicate with your senior partners, get them thinking about retirement rather than pushing it under the rug so there is a three to five year transition period, and start early. I have seen too many situations where a partners walks in and announces that he wants to retire in the sixty days, six months, or one year. This is not enough time if the firm wants to retain retiring partner's books of business.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Feb 02, 2016

Law Firm Succession – Should I Close My Doors

Question:

I am a lawyer from Carbondale, Illinois area. Last week I attended you Illinois State Bar Association CLE Webinar – Law Practice Succession and Transition – Ideas for Getting Started. I am 66 years old and I fit the "Sole Owner" model that you discussed. I am the practice. I have one associate and one legal assistant and my associate has neither the desire or the ability to take over my practice. I am tired and want to retire by the end of the year. With no successors in site I am thinking that I should just close the doors at the end of the year. I welcome your thoughts.

Response:

It could come to that if you cannot find someone interested in taking over your practice. However, since you have almost a year before your planned retirement I would at least try to see if you can find another lawyer or law firm to buy or otherwise takeover your practice – preferable "buy". Start now as it often takes a year. Make a short list, make some phone calls, have some lunches, get to know some folks, and see what kind of interest there might me. Keep a continual momentum going. Since you are the practice – this will be a concern to a potential buyer especially if you are unwilling to stay on after the sale in a consultative transition capacity. You might want to rethink your timeline – otherwise you may have to simply close the doors and refer out the work and strike the best arrangement that you can.

Click here for a link to my book – The Lawyers Guide to Succession Planning – published this week by ABA

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Oct 27, 2015

Law Firm Succession/Transition/Exit Planning – Two Phase Deal Arrangement for Sole Owners

Question:

I am the solo owner of a five attorney estate planning firm in Los Angeles consisting of myself and four associates. I am approaching retirement and looking at my exit options. Since there are no heirs apparent in the firm I am looking to sell the practice. However, the potential buyer that I have been speaking with is nervous and concerned about client defections, proper transition, etc. Also, I would like to continue to practice for a few years and don't want to run afoul of the rules of professional conduct. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Response:

You might want to consider a two-phased approach. Merge with the other firm, continue to work for a few years, work on transitioning relationships, retire and sell your interests, and continue to work as an Of Counsel after that if you so desire.

For Example. A sole proprietor was generating $500,000 in annual revenues with one full-time senior attorney, a full-time paralegal, and a clerical person while netting 40%, including perks and benefits. This owner wanted to work three more years full time and several more years in a part-time role thereafter. The firm interested in acquiring the practice was a three-partner firm generating $2.2 million a year working with similar clients, under a similar culture and fee range.

Phase One consisted of a merger with the retiring owner agreeing to retire in three years and sell his ownership interests for an agreed amount. At its inception, the two practices were combined. The successor firm provided the practice with the same amount of labor required in the past through a combination of retaining and replacing staff, as both were deemed necessary by the parties. The successor firm took over most of the administration, and the deal was announced to the public as a merger. 

The transitioning owner was able to come and go reasonably as he saw fit, run his practice through the successor firm’s infrastructure, and retain significant autonomy and control. Because he historically generated a 40% margin, the successor firm agreed to assume all the operating costs of the practice and pay 40% of gross collections from the transitioning owner’s original clients as compensation. Phase One was set to terminate on the first of the following events: (1) the end of three years; (2) the death or disability of the transitioning owner; or (3) the election of the transitioning owner.

Phase Two was the buyout of the retiring partner's ownership interest, and it was set up in a traditional fashion. Phase Two kicked in at the end of Phase One. By deferring the buyout until the full-time compensation ceased, the transitioning owner could extend the period for his full-time compensation, and the successor wasn’t being asked to pay for the practice and full-time compensation at the same time."

Many firms have taken this approach and we have found that it increases the likelihood of successful client transitions, reduces the risk of client defections, and increases the value for the retiring owner.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

Sep 15, 2015

Law Firm Succession/Exit Planning – Sole Owner Practice

Question: 

I am the owner of an estate planning practice in northwest suburbs of Chicago. I have two associates and for staff members. I am sixty seven and would like to retire when I am 70 (3 years). I have no idea as to where I should start and the approach I should take. I would appreciate suggestions.

Response: 

Sole owner firms and solo practitioners face a real challenge when deciding what to do with their practices. While many of the issues are similar to those faced by multi owner firms, sole owners and solo practitioners must also face the following additional challenges:

• Identifying another attorney in the firm to move into a partnership position
• Locating colleagues to sell the practice 
• Locating merger candidates 
• Effecting the sale or merger of the practice 
• Proper wind-down of the practice if the practitioner decides to simply “close the doors” (employees, client files, etc.) 

As with multi owner firms the key is to start early and not wait until the last minute. I suggest that you put in place your succession/exit plan as soon as possible – not just for retirement but for unexpected situations as well – so that your family, employees and clients are not left in the dark if something should happen to you.

Just because you have associates – don't assume they want to be owners and own a law firms. Look into this early as it may impact your hiring strategy as well as your overall strategy and whether it will be an internal vs. external succession strategy. 

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

May 20, 2015

Law Firm Succession – Coming to Terms With Aging

Question:

I am the managing partner in a 12 attorney firm in Chicago. We have 6 partners and 6 associate. We a boutique litigation firm. Three of our partners are in their mid to late 60s and should be thinking about retirement but they seem to be in denial? How to we begin to addresses this issue?

Response:

Several years ago I was giving a presentation to an ALA (Association of Legal Administrators) Chapter and after the presentation an administrator came up to me and asked, “what kind of financial incentives can we put in place to encourage some of our senior attorneys to retire”? I responded by saying “help them identify some hobbies.” While my comment was partially in jest, many attorneys,
especially baby boomers, have invested so much into their careers and law practices they have not had either the desire or time to invest into other areas of interest.

The more difficult components of retirement include:

• Coming to terms with aging and the fear of getting older;
• Deciding how to spend your time once you quit working;
• Identifying other interests;
• Preserving your self-esteem after retirement;
• Planning your retirement; and
• Dealing with the stress of retirement.

For some people the best way to retire may be to continue working.      

For others, rather than being a time of easing back and retiring into old age or continuing to work in one’s old job or career, it can be a time of personal growth and an opportunity to explore other interests, callings, and vocations. It can be a time of freedom to do what you always wanted to do but could not because you had to earn money and the pressure of work prevented you from pursuing you dreams and interests that were in tune with you values and beliefs. Here is a list of a few areas that lawyers approaching retirement might want to explore:

1. Teaching courses at a local law school or university
2. Pro-bono work
3. Writing
4. Photography, gardening, travel, or other hobbies
5. Serving as a director on a profit or non-profit board
6. Counseling
7. Volunteering

Retirement planning begins with taking the time to think about how one will use their time.
If you live fifteen years beyond your retirement your will have 28,800 hours that will have to be filled with retirement activities. (five days a week, eight hours a day, 48 weeks, for fifteen years)

Find ways to encourage your senior attorneys to explore and think about their future and explore other interests - both at home and at the firm.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

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

• « Later
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Earlier »

Copyright © 1996 - 2024 Olmstead & Associates, All Rights Reserved

Home – Resource Center – News Releases – About Olmstead – Services Provided – Contacting Olmstead – Sitemap