Tuesday

Not your usual blog post: But Let's be Colleagues Anyway


I've been told that no one wants to read a blog about ideas, philosophy, art, culture: you know, boring stuff that "doesn't make money."

We'll see about that. In my view what we need more of if folks who are busy thinking about their respective industries--and their respective lives, cultures, countries, political parties and favorite novels---and start putting it all together. What do you say? Shall we start a dialog about life, zen, business and sales all at once? I think so.

I can tell you this: And I've said it elsewhere in this blog: You need to start thinking about the 'colleague' paradigm. Every person who meet in a business context or any superficial social context is a potential colleague. What is a colleague? It's someone who talk to about business; someone who exchange interesting and pertinent articles with; it's someone who swap leads with; it's someone who eventually wind up doing business with.

But keep the crazy stuff to yourself--or your 'secret' blog.

Bottom line: you need like, oh, 500 'colleagues'---folks you can call, remember their kids names, remember their company's last merger (it's all written down in your notes, dammit!) and think about ways to help each other out. It's an economy of give and take. Not take. That's over.

It's especially over right now: "jobs" are not only scarce, they're almost a thing of the past. The concept of "contract" work, "project" work, "consultancy" is king. It's more than that, it's king, queen, jack and 10 of spades. Get affiliated with a quality agency, and start getting work and experience in a safe, legal and gratifying way (might I suggest my own business here?).

Let's face it---everything, everything, everything is up to you---so start GETTING relationships started. Oh. Did I mention this is time-consuming! That's right. Hours. Hours you didn't know you have. Surprise! You just found them. I did!

Write your experiences below. I'm interested to hear what you think?

(The photo above? A 'great wealth talisman'--slap it on your own site!)

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......


I'm providing several lists of opportunities for attorneys who no longer have their 2008 platforms. Scroll down if you are in a hurry. This installment is for the big-law types that want to stay there (or return). Options for other categories follow in upcoming posts. The below is largely from the associate perspective, with some info for partners as well.

Introductory remarks: Decide. Now!

Since I have last posted, roughly 10% of 'big-law' attorneys lost their positions. Probably more than that. Most of those individuals have already begun in earnest their job search. Most have been told by recruiters that there is nothing that can be done (by them).

Thus, there is a high degree of networking going on, many, many calls being made to contract agencies, many favors being called in, many 'just wanted to re-establish our friendship' coffees. These are all good, of course. A few have hung out their shingles. Some are collaborating in loose associations that they don't call firms. Some have fled the industry. Truly our profession has had more than its fair share of pogroms.

Now what? I don't need to tell you that it is 'gut-check' time. Either you are committed to this industry or you are not. If you aren't in it for the long haul, take a contract position (if you can find one) and look for the exit strategy. Write that novel (I've heard it can be done in two months, by the way), start that business, take a non-legal management positions, etc. If you are committed, it is time to look at alternate strategies.

Strategies:

I've outlined below strategies based on a few broad-brush goals. For purposes of this post, I'm focusing on big-law candidates. I'll focus on other tracks in posts to follow (shortly). Here goes:

Don't kid yourself, you have fewer options. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. No exceptions.

a) Network like mad: Call every friend you know; review the website for all of the AmLaw 200 for all openings; apply for them. If you are not on LinkedIn, are not reading "Above-the-Law", etc., etc., you need a brain transplant (sorry). Get with it. To use the vulgar language of "The Little Red Book of Sales"--if you do not have at least 200 LinkedIn partners, 'you suck.' Fix that straight-away.

b) You may not take a contract position. There MIGHT, POSSIBLY be some loosening of this rule (which before this year (2009) has always been IRON CLAD (contrary to popular belief). However, if I were a betting man, I'd wager rather not. It had better not be document review--it had better be through Axiom or something (fie on them, by the way) or an ad hoc temporary relationship doing what you were doing at the law firm. If you DO take such a position, make sure it is ONLY ONE, and not a serial thing. You may be able to call this hanging out your own shingle, but that's problematic too (see below).

c) You MAY take a non-legal management position (as long as it is high up enough or with a high-tech-sounding company, especially if in the industry that your future firm wants to court--even if that company might not be a potential client). For instance, you may take a position with your cousin's software company (especially if in Silicon Valley or Atlanta, for example)--better if the company makes money, made headlines, etc. In such a case, your particular position is not AS important (although better if you were GC as well as whatever other hat you might wear). But working as even a high-level non-legal manager at, let's say, WalMart is a non-starter.

d) You MAY take a sabbatical.
Doing nothing is actually better than taking a non-big-law position or a non-legal position. Really. Write a book or something. Of course, if you can afford to do that, you might not have read down this far in this article.

e) You MAY take a (paying or non-paying) non-profit position. Permissible. Could be interesting. Try to ensure you are doing what you want to be doing subject-matter wise.

f) Please do not change subject-matter expertise.
Makes for a very messy resume.

g) You may, of course, change markets (LA to NY to Dubai, etc.).

h) You may, possibly, get away with hanging out your own shingle, but I don't advise it. Law firm prejudice against this practice is exceedingly high--UNLESS your client list includes names like APPLE, WALMART, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY; you know, that sort of client. Further, if you have very WEALTHY and SUCCESSFUL high-tech clients; also fine, of course. You'll be expected to bring them with you.

i) If you are a partner: you can go anywhere you like as long as your billing rates don't dip (too much) and you keep your clients. Watch those rates; you'll be in a fix if you've jumped your law-firm ship to save your clients and reduced your rates too much. How much is too much? That's for another article. And, really, too ad hoc to comment upon fairly (go ask www.AdamSmithEsq.com!!!).

Final Injunction:

You WILL NOT be able to simply "sanitize" your resume when this all 'blows over': so the best rule of thumb is to think "would I hire myself with this resume?" AND "everything I've ever done since going to law school MUST be on my resume."

If you have questions or comments, by all means let me know. I've been wrong. Once or twice.

Happy hunting. And believe me: this is war, make no mistake. That gives me an idea for another post . . . .


return to today's post

Read More......

Monday

No More Waiting.


I've been waiting since November 16th for something to say (date of my last post). That is, something that hasn't already been said 100 times by 100 media outlets. That's because no one has any idea what is going on in the economy. No one knows whether the promise of a crush of new litigation work will materialize. No one knows whether the whole game is going to come crashing down around our collective ears. It has not been easy to make revenue forecasts for 2009, I can tell you!

The only thing that perhaps should be said is that there is no reason to believe that there is going to be any 'closure' or 'resolution' to the current economic crisis anytime soon. We may muddle along for months in this twilit gray-zone of uncertainty. We may have further gut-punches to our GDP and maybe even some kidney-kicks to our productivity. Regardless, we can't collectively hold our breathe. We have to accept the new uncertainty. In a way, the economic meltdown of 2008 shattered the paradigm of our faith in unending prosperity in a way similar to the crash that 9/11 brought to our paradigm of invulnerability to terrorist or other outside threats to the Nation. We're left with fewer economic and political illusions.

Just another way in which we Americans (and/or all those in all continents living the economic dream) share something in solidarity with those in the 'emerging' world.

Thus, we have no choice but to gird our loins and get to work--even if 'get to work' means 'work at finding work.' We have been graphically reminded that there are no guarantees in life; a lesson all of us could stood to have learned without the object-lesson of the mortgage crisis-turned-global economic meltdown. But there you go.

So, there really is nothing new to say. We have to grin and bear it. Nevertheless, marketing, salesmanship, leadership, professionalism, and skill all still go at a premium. The majority of the competition doesn't exemplify these traits. Since there's much less fluff-room for mediocrity these days, there are still opportunities everywhere. We just have to have faith in ourselves.





subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......

Sunday

Buckle Your Seatbelts: The Law Practice of 2030



I'll spare you my usual 'rant' of the day (namely: why you ABSOLUTELY should be on 'linkedin' and exploit that amazingly versatile and powerful tool). Suffice it to say I found an interesting discussion there which I'll respond to further here.

The question is where the legal industry will be in 2030. An intriguing question. Some enterprising professionals are happy to share their thoughts with you for a mere $1,000. Check out the free version here. These folks at "Legal Transformation" won't share their advice for how to cope with the changing world for free, but they're happy to give you their doomsday analysis gratis. They see four possible scenarios ahead:

a) "Blue-chip Mega Mania" (which sounds a whole lot like what we have right now--or had before September 2008;

b) "Expertopia" (basically, the 'boutique-ification' of law practice);

c) "Techno-law" (vague--but some sort of (pseudo)-utopian, vast shrinking of the practice of law based on mutual global cooperation in regulation--yeah, I know); and

d) "E-marketplace" (again, vague--but something to do with commoditization of legal work).

Here are my thoughts--and I'd appreciate Bruce McEwen's input on this--we'll see if he responds on Adam Smith, Esq.

T
here are several countervailing trends that will serve to affect different firms differently.

1) Corporate clients will continue to require higher and higher degrees of specialization better served by smaller firms. That and various economic pressures are serving to break up a number of larger firms.

2) Yet, because corporate clients are increasingly global in scope and outlook, they require the efficiencies that can only be gained by a smaller number of vendors, hence fewer law firms that can do more: i.e., larger firms.

3) At the same time, innovators will continue to provide human and electronic technologies that will permit greater ease in managing disparate vendors globally.

4) Thus, I predict, as the summary alludes to, a bigger gap between successful global firms and 'the rest' and an increased array of boutique and "mega-boutique" firms (I believe I'll take first credit for that neologism) globally to meet meets.

5) As the next wave of globalization continues, more and more firms will be rocked by the various volatilities in the market.

6) Regardless, in a real way, many of the four scenarios will occur simultaneously. Global cooperation will continue with many international organizations providing greater similarities between legal practices in more and more jurisdictions. Yet, the power of developing nations vis a vis the Big-20-nations will ensure that doing business globally will be simultaneously necessary (as profit margins will be driven ever lower and thus scope of sales will need to be greater) and more difficult. Hence, as one of their experts predicts, demands for legal services will indeed outstrip growth of Gross Global Product.

7) Given the confluence of increased technological innovation and the desire to find common ground in the wake of global financial worries, many conflicts will be suppressed. But, yet again, the respective domestic concerns of the several nations will mean the continued high need for legal services around the world.

8) Anyway, in 2030 I see: a) over 100 firms of truly global scope and of general service and of 3000 attorneys or more; b) approximately 500 firms of global scope of two types--'mega-boutiques' serving a single subject matter area across national and regional boundaries (each of at least 500 members); c) the consolidation, however, and outright dissolution of many so-called US national firms, which are really only trans-regional firms with high hopes. These firms will experience large net losses; d) We'll also see the proliferation of super-star solo- and micro-firms that provide transformational leadership.

9) Implicit in the above is a large move of attorneys away from smaller practices to large. This wlil be made possible by the decimation of the ranks of merely national firms.

10) Bottom line: Lawyers will continue to experience low unemployment, but the individual attorney must do everything she or he can do to increase her/his own level of expertise, perspective and network to remain in the profession. The bar continues to be raised. Of course, that's entire entire separate post.

Not coincidentally, that's what this entire blog is dedicated to. Raising the bar.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......

Friday

Stay the Course


Things are not so different as they seem. What is right, what is prudent, what is good business and networking sense are all still true. And will remain so.

It has been difficult the past couple of weeks to write anything on a blog such as this which is really all about commentary on the practice and management of law practice. Maybe it's because I read about 75 different news sources on a given day, but it is all sounding more the same than it even usually does.

Yes, we all hear every day that:

  • no one knows whether the lay-offs we are seeing are simply 'normal' adjustment given the economic volatility;
  • no one knows whether the recent large law firm collapses of Thelen and Heller are indicative of future failures, or whether they were weak firms that otherwise would have withstood the recent market gyrations.
  • no one knows whether the entire business and/or legal community is still falling off a cliff and if so whether we'll bounce or crash./li>
  • one one knows if, alternatively, we'll pull a rabbit out of a hat and avert serious repercussions (unemployment in double-digits, major negative growth, serious deflation).

It's definitely time to get beyond mental hand-wringing.

It is tempting to wonder if everything we do in terms of marketing and selling our practices is now obsolete.

I am reminded of a scene out of Tolkien. In the dead center of his sprawling trilogy, Tolkien places a loyal warrior of conservative outlook (small "c") and juxtaposes him with: 1) an imminent war with a large and agressive neighboring state (Saruman); 2) real instability in the home political front (Theoden supplanted by Wormtongue); and 3) the 'chance' meeting of a political upstart (Aragorn), a representative of an enemy race (Gimli the dwar), and a vaguely untrustworthy representative of an exotic and dangerous land (Legolas the elf of Mirkwood). Eomer rights asks Aragorn: "what shall a man judge as right in these strange days?"

Aragorn answers: "as he ever did." Right, in "Middle Earth" did not change. Well, right does not change for us either in our early 21st Century, at least as it applies to growing our practices and our respective networks and our outreach.

We must continue to reach out to known contacts, seek profitable introductions through trusted colleagues, and keep on building, improving and expanding our print and internet 'footprints.'

Let's all get back out there. For those of us who haven't yet faltered but are unsure, be confident. Even if there are set-backs, the basic human needs that drive our economy will continue to make the demand for our services, no matter what our place in the legal market, strong.

For some step-by-step reminders on how to build your network, click here.

Stay on course!



subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......

Tuesday

Narcissism 2.0: 'Homework' for My Candidates; 'Homework' for Life


In a quiet pool near a silent grove, Narcissus fell in love with a reflection of his youthful face, and died. Not a complicated plot. Curiously, while short, this story is recounted numerous times in Greek mythology, and in a variety of interesting forms. Obviously, the myth must have communicated something important in Greek culture. With the proper understanding, it can provide vital information to us in our time as well. My hypothesis is that this illusive character from Greek mythology presents us with a profound mystery and potentially an important insight into the human psyche. Understanding the deeper message presented by Narcissus' challenges, and failure, can have a direct impact upon our understanding of ourselves, and upon our productivity and career satisfaction-ultimately, perhaps more than that.

Introduction

At the most basic level, this article is specifically designed for my candidates to give them a framework (and comprehensive list) of information that I as your recruiter need to represent you. The story as told by the Greeks and many of their apologists, is of a young man who was unable to see himself for who he really was, and by means of this, was unable to relate to others. He was thus destined to be consumed with a superficial understanding of his own worth (valuing only his reflection and not his own true self) and therefore foreclosed from success in relationships or life.

This understanding of the unexamined or faultily-examined life also characterizes the modern understanding of clinical narcissism. What I propose for anyone seeking to reach higher levels of productivity and fulfillment from their profession, is that they combine what to some may seem a 'narcissistic' attention on one's self, but in order to avoid the pitfalls of the true meaning of the word. In short, I propose a way through the contradiction between the popular meaning of the word on the one hand, and the classical and clinic definitions on the other. Thus, the challenge that I lay before my candidates is: that they find a greater and more accurate understanding of their owns strengths and weaknesses through a thorough examination and profound attention on themselves, in order to escape from the pitfalls of a failure of self-knowledge (which is often a false esteem, called narcissism), and thereby access and hone their strengths and abilities for greater professional productivity.

How To Read This Article

This piece, while long, is NOT intended to 'scare you away' or overwhelm you. Rather, it is designed to give you ideas and serve as a starting point for conveying what you believe is of note in your career path. There is no need to provide answers to all of the below questions, nor to do it in any particular form or order, or to follow any particular format at all. Rather, please view the below as merely a brain-storming experience to get your creative juices flowing.

Further, feel free to skip around. You may want to read only the overview below, and perhaps the conclusion, or perhaps get ideas for only one aspect of the project you are having difficulty with. The danger in giving anyone 'guidelines' for a creative experience is that it will rather stifle creativity. Don't let that happen to you!

If you find this explanation restrictive, or, if you have a very defined, and limited set of information that you feel best describes you, great! There are a number of ways to get to our common goal, which is: to present as much information about you as a professional and a person to give a potential hiring partner a sufficiently detailed understanding of what you can bring to his or her organization.

Confidential Nature of the Information

From my candidates, I am asking for a free-form, stream-of-consciousness email, written confidentially to me, with the purpose being to communicate as much about your experience as a professional (and student, businessperson, etc.) as possible-the good, the bad, the ugly, but most especially the wonderful, unique, inspiring, shamelessly name-dropping, and personal. As we will have already discussed in person or by telephone, the information will stay between us-no one else sees it (no staff person and no database entry person-neither will it be saved on any system accessible by others). Further, as it has always been and remains my policy for all candidates to sign off on the text of all cover letters, there should be no concern that any particular revelation will find its way into a cover letter without your knowledge and consent.

The Overall Gist

The point of the exercise is for the candidate to divulge as much as possible of the information and detail that they would eventually like me to be able to mine for a compelling cover letter. On the most banal level, I need great one-liners for the text of that letter! On a higher level, I need to have a critical mass of information about your professional and academic (and other) experiences to get a sufficiently intuitive sense of what you bring to the table so that I can develop themes that will form as the superstructure for that letter. Further still, I need to know who my candidate is to a sufficient degree to know how to answer those little "pertinent questions" that law firm recruiting coordinators tend to ask-and to answer them in a way that is accurate, compelling and presents you in the best possible light. My goal is for the candidate to take the project wherever it goes-it is not necessary to use the document as an outline. Every candidate has unique experiences and attitudes toward life, their career, the law-everything. Thus, each time the process is engaged in, there is a different result-which is entirely the point.

Nevertheless, there is a wide range of information that is suitable subject-matter area. In order to prime the pump of your imagination, I provide the below outline of possible avenues to take. I have hesitated long before putting these suggestions in writing, as I certainly do not intend this exercise to descend to a "deposition by interrogatory." Rather, these are provided only as placemarkers in the process. With that important caveat, please refer to the below list of topics when beginning the process:

Your current practice:

Try to give me a narrative that explains the arc of your career. How and why did you begin in your first practice group and how and why did that evolve (it may have been chance, it may have been by design). Importantly, what is your current practice, what do you like about it, and what do you want to do in the next phase of your career? The following are provided by way of illustration:

  • Provide a laundry list of each component part of the process that you have actually engaged in with respect to your core specialty. When people hear that you are a "corporate" lawyer, for example, they want to know specifically what parts of that global set of practices you have experience with, and what tasks you have actually performed within that.
  • Describe the types of industries that your clients are in.
  • Begin at the beginning: list each subject-matter area that you have practiced in throughout your career.
  • If your career is sufficiently lengthy (5 years and up) you may have some meta-analysis to provide. By that I mean that you likely have a broader understanding of how all the component work you have completed fits into the arc of a particular business process. If so, tell me about it.
  • Talk about the parts of your practice that you like and those that you don't. Further, tell me about the parts that you have excelled at and those you haven't (it will be interesting to see the slippage between those two sets of criteria).
Your Academic Career

I am interested in understanding not only all about your law school career, but also about your other graduate experiences as well as your undergraduate career. If your secondary education was overseas or otherwise remarkable, it too may be worth discussing. Try to use the following as a guide for the detail to provide:

  • Discuss why you picked the institution (banal, Machiavellian and climatic reasons are all valid!). Disclose your grade-point-average and your class standing. If you took a particular interest in one topic, discuss what it is, why it was interesting, any particular recognition you garnered from that interest, etc.
  • Make sure to list every single award, extra-curricular activity, and all organizations in which you had any sort of leadership role (academic, professional, pro-bono, civic, service, community, fraternal, etc.).
  • Discuss any personal triumphs you enjoyed or challenges you overcame.
  • Discuss any particularly important influences (professors, other mentors, formative events going on in society during your educational experience, etc.), how they influenced you, and how they impact your current approach to your career.
Your Transitions.

It is exceedingly important to handle properly the issue of a candidate's transition from one work experience to another. Further, no matter what degree of success you perceive that you have in your career, please understand that your understanding of what a law firm may perceive as a "good" or "bad" reason for moving is probably other than your immediate reaction. Thus, it is good to trust your recruiter on this point-they deal with this issue literally every day and are generally free from any particular bias-they simply know what the current trends are and can help advise you in managing this particular issue. That being said, the recruiter cannot help you if you do not actually disclose all of the reasons you left or are intending to leave your current position and why you think another position will be better. Therefore, as the candidate generally is not in the relatively knowledgeable position regarding 'good' and 'bad' reasons, it is best to think long and hard about what they are and then disclose them to your recruiter for advice.

There are two types of transitions to consider-the immediate change between your current (or immediately preceding employment) to the next (with respect to which you are asking your recruiter to assist you).

The Current Job Change:

As stated, rational thinking and full disclosure to your recruiter are key. To that end, it may be beneficial to consider the following issues that often come up in any particular transition:

  • unfulfilled in the current position due to corporate culture;
  • unfulfilled in the current position due to lack of appropriate type, caliber or volume of work;
  • unhappy because of a particular co-worker or set of co-workers in the current organization;
  • personal, non-work-related need to change geographical markets;
  • personal judgment about the viability of advancement in the current position;
  • personal judgment about the continued vitality of the current firm;
  • personal judgment about the future direction of the current firm;
  • professional decision that a different (more prestigious, larger, smaller, more focused, more generalized, etc.) firm is better in terms of your overall professional plan;
  • perception that you have enemies at your current firm;
  • perception that you have burned bridges and/or otherwise made yourself unable to advance in the current firm.
In addition to the above issues, it is important to think about what questions may be raised by large changes in direction in your career-past or present.

Past or Present Changes in Direction

It is important to think about the reasons you have left a particular position, as stated. Moreover, it is important to explain to your recruiter any sea-change in your overall career direction. For example, if your prior experience was heavily weighted in one practice group, and you are looking to change subject-matter areas, or, rather, if you are seeking to move from government work to the private sector, your recruiter needs to understand this. Further, any such change in your past career must be similarly explained. For example, I once had a candidate that had a JD, two LLMs and a JSD; the burning question in my mind, and in everyone else's, was why this candidate now wanted to move from academia into private practice. The point is, moving from one sector of a market (from government service or academe to private practice or from an overseas practice to the US or from one region to another) raises a question in the mind of the potential employer-and you must answer the question on your own terms rather than leave the employer to guess. To be sure, such changes do not go unnoticed.

Positive Feedback.

It is certainly true that firms are interested in hearing positive feedback that you may have received in the past-the more specific the better. While firms often ask for references at or near the time of making an offer, they certainly would benefit from hearing about past praise that you have received to assist them in evaluating whether they want to get that far. The key is to be specific: what sort of skills have you demonstrated, what positive outcome was the result, what was the context of those skills (whom did they benefit), etc. Consider the following:

  • Review any and all prior written evaluations. Provide a sampling of specific positive feedback. Try to avoid banalities. Solid observations are what are needed. For example: "seems to have great rapport with clients", "is able to hone in immediately on the core issues", "judgment is trusted in the firm" are all positive. Conversely, banalities such as "fitting in well" or "doing a great job" do not communicate anything helpful.
  • Think back to positive statements made by colleagues, clients, partners, co-workers, professors and the like. Provide quotes or near quotations if possible.
  • Be free to name names, or at least to identify the rank or position of those that have had an influence in your professional career, or have given you positive feedback. It is helpful to know that you relate to clients, but better to know that the CEO of Chevron thinks so if that is the case. Likewise, it is certainly positive that you participated in symposia and gave lectures that were well-received by the attendants, and better to know that the attendants included senior trade officials, diplomats of several industrialized nations and an ambassador or two.
  • On the topic of 'naming names', please be as thorough as possible with respect to the names of friends that you may have potential target firms. We can use those names (if you believe it appropriate under the particular circumstances) to use those names as internal references to follow on any submission.
  • Remember, one of great advantages to working with a recruiter is that he or she can sing your praises (effectively and appropriate to be sure) but nonetheless sing them. To do that, your recruiter needs the raw materials to draw upon. Our opinion (while valued!) will not get you an interview-the candidate must demonstrate that he or she is respected in their current and/or former milieu.
Conclusions

The process of a legal search can be a mere blip on your professional radar, a minor catastrophe, or, conversely, the beginning of something new, wonderful, and even life-changing. It all depends on how much of the real, down-and-dirty thinking that you are willing to put in to the process. When it comes down to it, we must be willing to face ourselves, and do so on a far deeper level than Narcissus did. He saw only his face, the mask that he presented to the world. As passionate professionals, however, we are challenged to look still deeper, into all the wonder and majesty behind our façade, and even behind our conscious thoughts. To the extent we can gather the full quantum of data about our preferences, temperaments, experiences, skills and limitations, and apply thoughtful analysis to the same, we can become far more successful than ever imagined. Please enjoy the process, but engage in it nonetheless!

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......

Monday

In-House Counsel Withholding, and to Withhold, More Work from their Law Firms


If you've been around as long as I have, you've seen this headline and the cycle it refers to, at least a half-dozen times. Click here for a concise summary from the AmLaw Daily. Yet, this time around, the move toward keeping more work in-house will be (more or less) permanent. That's because the current trend is not the usual economic see-saw that corporate management usually indulges in. Rather, it's a function of the in-house bar increasing its relative strenght within corporate management, as well as its collective sophistication as a distinct legal perspective.

So, the real questions are: a) what work is staying in-house; and b) what can firms do about it to maximize profits.

First, the kind of work that is staying in-house is not high-level analysis, but rather more high-volume (repeatable) work. Notably, they are keeping inside the lower-level document review work as it pertains to litigation, due diligence and compliance. That work can easily be monitored in-house. Frankly, folks like me (director of a contract attorney agency) are increasing convincing in-house counsel that several types of work can be done far more economically (and frankly BETTER) by a contract legal force, than by their white-shoe law firms.

Second, law firms can capture some of that work by utilizing contract agencies themselves. That way they: 1) keep more control over more of the work; 2) still get to save their clients money without sacrificing their partners' A-rates; and 3) get to minimize their own overhead and expand their own reach by being able to take on larger projects than every before--without committing to great numbers of associates.

All you need now is a reputable, professional agency that actually screens its folks and takes an aggressive role in making projects actually work smoothly.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License

return to today's post

Read More......

Friday

Social Entropy: Heller, Law Firm Collapse and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


You can't fight the facts. Even though death and taxes seem pretty darn unavoidable, they are less so than the 1st and 2d law of thermodynamics. Let's get it straight: 1) The energy of the universe remains constant; 2) entropy in any system increases over time. That means any closed or open system over time will tend to slow down, run down, get cooler, fall apart, unless energy outside the system is applied.

I was inspired by Paul Lippe's article (AmLaw Daily) about Heller's downfall. He predicts further firms to fall, but not more than is 'normal.' I'm not quite sure what a 'normal' rate of law firm failure means, other than this: in a go-go economy, almost every type of organization thrives. In a moderate-growth, flat-growth or negative-growth scenario, firms of a weaker organizational structure will fall apart. This is normal, healthy, and--in the macro sense--unavoidable.

In scientific terms, "social entropy" reigns. Unless outside fuel is applied to a particular system (organization like a law firm or even an entire economy), the system will begin naturally to fail. In one iteration of the theory, increased dissatisfaction means increased entropy (failure). This has been applied as broadly as to assert that as soon as fossil fuels became relatively scarce, the social structures of the US would begin to fall apart (the "Peak Oil" debate).

I don't know about that, but I do hypothesize that in order for firms to keep their assets coming "back up the elevator" every morning, they are going to have to expend more energy. If we postulate that law firms are a "closed system", that means the energy has to come from outside the system. As there is little economic impetus, there is little energy coming naturally to firms. Thus, firms have to increase the total energy pressure on their organizations by increasing the amount of energy expended by each individual member of the firm. Further, they'll have to think of ways to invite outside energy in.

Some concrete suggestions:

1) Law firm leaders need to think about bringing in professional management. I know, many firms are already on that bandwagon (or at least pay it lip service), but most firms are clipping along with the increasingly outdated 'managing partner' model. Great, energetic lawyers need to be expending their energies down the channels they know best--practicing their craft. They shouldn't be figuring out how to be creative managers and market-reading gurus. That energy can be tapped from outside the 'system' and should be.

2) Law firm leaders obviously need to be snapping up as many stars from the fallen firms as possible. This is obvious, but real attention needs to be paid to that recruiting function--internally and externally, to make an effective bid to capture the stars (and star groups).

3) Firms need to think about their partnership agreements and corporate organization. Some have postulated that Heller's demise was due in part, and perhaps largely, because it was organized as a partnership consisting of professional corporations. In order to avoid double taxation, it needed to empty the coffers every year by year's end. In short: they were even more undercapitalized than their competing US firms. Instead, law firms need to think about ways to increase their capitalization while still attracting talent. The only way to attract energy like that will be to apply even greater 'work' (in physics terms) to the organization. Bottom line: The "good ole' days of yore" when law firms were partnerships in spirit as well as on paper worked because of social norms, yes, but also because agreements incentivized loyalty to the group. We've got to get creative to recreate that in this age of "free-agentry".

4) Law firm leaders need to increase the energy they apply to the law firm as a social organization. The firm is like a factory only on paper. In reality, it stays together only because: the individual profit centers are incentivized to stay and because there is a social dynamic that reinforces those incentives.

Scientists point out that lower temperatures will not naturally flow to higher temperatures without work being applied (think of your refrigerator--it only works because energy is being applied to its compressor, etc.). Thus, if law firms are going to attract talent, they are going to have to work even smarter.

Because law firms are complex organisms in a complex society, large amounts of energy must be constantly applied. Another analogy: law firms are alot more like helicopters (scrambling to say in place) than airplanes (application of a single source of power in a single direction). That means we've all got to be alot more flexible--something lawyers are temperamentally not inclined to do.
Bottom line: if you are unwilling or unable to being to apply yourself in new ways, your chances of flitting from firm to firm (with successively decreasing results) increase.


subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now


Creative Commons License




return to today's post

Read More......

search ad arguendo