"To Dare Mighty Things"--Thanks Bill!

Thanks to Bill Lerach, I have been saved from having a dreaded "dark" day on my precious blog. I was sitting before my screen, my beautiful 'tabula rasa', waiting for inspiration to come. The seconds were ticking away. Thankfully, Bill Lerach's resignation memo to his firm was put up by the WSJ Law Blog. I have to say, I've read scores of resignation memos (even written one or two!) and none of them were this good. The guy can write.

At any rate, what I liked most about his congratulating and self-congratulatory memo is that he included a wonderful quote from Teddy Roosevelt:

“It is far better to dare mighty things to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”

As I sit contemplating the impending further stratification of class in the legal field, the potential melt-downs that always threaten our economic security, the challenges of new technologies and technologies yet-to-be implemented, and the increased complexity and unknown pitfalls presented by a true globalization of legal markets, it all boils down to this: guts, sweat, blood, and yes, tears. What are we as lawyers (and those that serve them) if we are not pushing boldly on the borders of our current experience, skill and paradigms? It is we who are or should be leading our clients into new terrain, over hidden obstacles, under ensnaring regulatory thickets.

As you psychically pause for breath before the impending storm of activity that will overtake us all after the "Labor Day" weekend, let's remember that it always, always comes down to the basics. It is not whether we stumble or even fall, it is whether we get back up, and quickly.

Have a great rest of your week!

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Read the Market : San Francisco mirrors the National Market for Legal Services

Sitting down to pen a report to my clients and candidates about the state of the San Francisco market report, I note that it sounds just like the reports of my colleagues for every other US market for legal services. Executive summary: Strong, but schizophrenic. Hire/don't hire. Grow/sit. Reach out/pull back.

Overview

Law firms are still in desperate need of corporate and securities attorneys at all levels. Firms have been chronically understaffed in the associate ranks in all transactional areas for at least 18 months and there does not seem to be any immediate end in sight. Partners who want to switch platforms need to be thinking of a seven-figure number before expecting to get any buzz from AmLaw 100 firms. Litigation remains at zero-growth—there are still legion opportunities, but these are all the result of natural attrition, not growth. Thus, credentials are still very closely scrutinized.

Now for some niche reports:

General Corporate, M&A, & Securities

Unchanged since the Spring. Firms are looking to hire, but they want the best. As usual in this market, a corporate candidate must be a generalist, but with a few niche-specialties under his or her belt to bring to the table. Resumes must emphasize the broad-based nature of the candidate's experience, and what value-added they can bring to client, now.

However, although firm needs are still at all-time highs, the recent credit market bumblings have made the hiring process EVEN LONGER. Firms are “checking their lists and checking them twice.” Even after call-backs, firms are hand-wringing before pulling the trigger on a hire. Kind of like the US Postal Service: they deliver, but it takes forever.

Project Finance

Of course this work is usually a DC or NY thing. However, lots of firms say they want to expand in this area. Bring your pedigree and get your transactions list together; it will be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb.

Labor & Employment

Still weirdly hot. It had appeared to cool down in Spring, but is back up to full strength. The L&E door is the only door open for some litigators now.

ERISA; Corporate Benefits

Unchanged. The few. The proud. The ERISA lawyers.

Energy; Environment

Firms are thinking growth and integration. There is lots of room here, but what it takes to break in seems in flux. If you have a story, let’s here it; firms are open-minded.

Tax

Just like your typical tax lawyer, the market for the same is not terribly interesting (no offense!). Must have LLM, must have top-drawer experience, must be well-versed. Firms are not going to train you.

Bankruptcy

Unchanged from the Spring but still stronger demand than Summer and Fall of ’06. Needs still are not extremely stronger however. We’ll see what happens in the next six months. Of course, if the economy tanks, suddenly firms will be knocking down your door.

Trusts & Estates

Unchanged from last quarter. The needs are few and not-well communicated. However, on balance, needs slightly outweigh available talent, so the diligent find positions.

Intellectual Property Litigation

There are still scores of opportunities here. Of course, patent is the sexiest of the markets, but soft IP is still in demand also. If I was still a commercial litigator, I would be doing my darndest to convert myself into an IP litigator.

Intellectual Property Transactions

This area is humming along quite well, but I haven’t seen any continued growth since my last report. Candidates that have corporate governance and other transactional experience combined with some litigation and other IP experience may find such positions a good fit. The practice area calls upon a fair number of disciplines. The standards are high; you MUST have been doing intensive IP transactions work for a full year to get any buzz.

Patent Prosecution and Litigation

I think last quarter I downgraded this area to “warm.” Well, I’m calling it “hot” again. As usual, technical degrees-especially BSEEs and MSEEs--are coveted. If you have one, call me! The needs are constant and varied, and there is a perceived lack of adequate talent. As one would expect, with respect to patent prosecution, the higher degree of technical expertise you have, the looser the standards will be on the legal experience and credentials side. Obviously, strong performance in science as well as in law is desired. If you are interested in patent litigation, the same is largely true, but make sure you that you have solid experience. General commercial litigators need not apply, generally speaking, unless academic and firm credentials are of the highest order.

Real Estate

Only “warm” I’m afraid. The needs are still strong, but movement has been sluggish. Still, there are numerous positions available to qualified candidates. If a particular candidate's credentials are not stellar, but there is solid, broad, and well-documented experience, that may suffice. There was significant movement in this area in Fall 06 and firms still need people, but the market is still coagulating.

Commercial Litigation

Same story we’ve had for two years. Firms can cherry-pick litigators now. If you are a fifth- or sixth- year, you had better make the change yesterday if you want to get noticed. If you are in the senior associate ranks, stay put. Partners? Be ready to demonstrate either a rock-solid plan for growth, or have a significant transferable book.

And now a word about business:

As stated at the outset of my report, firms are growing. If you have a book of business, now is an excellent time to consider finding a more appropriate platform. This means that firms are not only looking to expand the depth of existing practice areas, but many are seeking to add as many niche practices as they can. The new paradigm is full service. Partners looking to change platforms need to think more about the existing (and nascent) culture of target firms and a firm's recent and anticipated business moves with respect to geography, client base and practice group, ahead of the existing depth or quality of a current practice.

Conclusions:

Universal growth, market pressures for further consolidation (merger), and clients’ demands for firms to be all things to all people, mean that the market for talent is hot. However, after the burned hands of the dot-com bust, firms are still slow to hire. Plus, the recent reminder that markets do actually come down and that discrete market sectors are subject to stupidity and cupidity, firms are again wringing their hands about whether to actually hire to fulfill their current needs. They have to hire, but don’t want to get hung out to dry. It makes for a very interesting scenario.

As a candidate, you need to get your irritation-o-meter up to snuff. It is going to be a slow and jarring ride.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Calling Dr. Friedman!

Perhaps I just don't read the right stuff, or enough of it, but it seems to me we are not getting a strong diet of solid analysis on the current rumblings and bumblings in the credit markets. Where is Dr. Friedman when you need him?

I enjoyed reading Bruce MacEwen's post (in turn reviewing two other articles) on the possible fall-out for law firms in the current "uncertain" market. His advice, of course, is that firms need to be as diversified as possible, combined with some strategic thinking. In short, "kindly refrain from knee-jerk reactions." I couldn't agree more.



The trouble is that we seem to have entered an era without an economic guru or beloved "grand-dad" to help us interpret just what is going on. After Greenspan's retirement, we seem to be adrift in uncertainty. Perhaps the invisible hand has gotten just a tad more inscrutable.

Be that as it may, as "Uncle Milton" would say: "there is no long term." Thus, we must sit squarely on the fence-post between planning for future growth and taking advantage of present opportunities.

It seems to me that we might be better off strategizing how to create new service "products" for our skittish clients, than worrying about whether we should downsize in the midst of the greatest labor shortage in the legal industry we have seen in ages.

My own advice is the same today as it always is: Keep a watch on your billables, keep an open eye to opportunities ripe for exploitation, and keep moving.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Whisper Sweet Somethings: An Interview with Neil Olson, Lawyers’ Coach

I have harped incessantly on the need for lawyers to step up their strategic game. Most of the advice I have given centers on external observations: What is the market doing? where are the next great opportunities? How can I revolutionize my practice to create synergies within my practice group, my firm, my client base?

Ratchet it up . . .

But to really bring the game up to world-class, a lawyer needs to think who s/he can bring on to the team. A vital part of that team is a professional coach, and one that intimately knows the challenges and opportunities presented by the practice of law. There is a fairly new and growing cadre of lawyers-turned-coaches.

Saving you five hours’ worth of research . . .

I thought I would save you the research time in finding out what this coaching thing is all about. I asked the premier lawyers’ coach in my hometown of San Francisco to submit to questions I thought you might ask, and ask them as bluntly as I possibly could.

Below is a quick question-and-answer session with world-class lawyers’ coach, Neil Olson. Neil is a lawyer, a former law firm partner and a trained counselor and professional coach. (Scroll down to see more of Neil’s credentials.)

Neil, what are the three most important reasons that (first) a rising associate (and second) a partner needs a lawyer coach?

“The education, training and skills that lawyers have in common create a particular way of approaching, analyzing and solving problems. When groups of lawyers get together in business they tend to be highly competitive, highly independent and fiercely analytical not simply in their approach to solving their client’s problems but in their approach to solving their own. Modern law firms, however, are large organizations engaged in the business of law – not simply the practice of it.

“For both associates and partners, the value of a lawyer-coach – one who has ‘been there, done that’ – is having a mentor that is not competing with them for business, money or advancement. Having an experienced and committed confidant to sort through issues such as business development, management, leadership, and career satisfaction is the heart of why most lawyers who turn to coaching will want their coach to have practiced law.”

Okay, what's the point of having a coach who claims an expertise in coaching lawyer's problems? For that matter, are their really problems particular to lawyers that other business professionals don't have?

“The general problems lawyers face such as advancement, career fulfillment, in-office interpersonal relationships, effective management and leadership and life/work balance are challenges faced by a great many professionals today.

“The specific nature and the solutions to those problems often lie at the heart of the special education and training that lawyers share as well as the business model used by most law firms – the exchange of services valued by an hourly rate or fee.

“Lawyers are also challenged by the high ethical obligations they have to their clients, to the bar, to the courts and to the public. If a coach does not ‘get’ that, it will be especially challenging for him or her to provide effective coaching.”

Alright, what is this coaching thing all about anyway? Lawyers are so socially conservative as a group (I don't mean politically, of course)--and they get only more so with "age" in the industry.

Thus, if I talk with you as a coach, are we going to be doing funky guided meditations? Group hugs? Or is this something that a hard-boiled professional can get his/her arms around? We are NOT going to be talking about our childhoods, right?

“No ‘kumbaya’ – I promise.

“I come from the point of view that the lawyer-as-professional is typically highly functioning. Less common is the well functioning lawyer-as-business professional and less common still is the satisfied lawyer. It is the creation of a sense of balance between the professional services a lawyer provides and the business the lawyer is in – in the context of what the individual lawyer wants out of his or her life – that creates the biggest impact on the lawyer and the lawyers firm.

“So here is what we do – we take stock of where the lawyer is, we evaluate what needs to be done, we set metrics to determine how we will know if things are moving in the right direction, we create an action plan and we get to work! The coach provides support, inspiration, honest feedback, accountability and, in my case because I have been a practicing lawyer I provide insight on whether the actions are likely to yield the results desired in the context of the real life demands of the business of law.”

In that vein, what do you see as the major challenges facing first, partners, and second, associates, in living up to their potential as practitioners/rainmakers?

“In my experience the challenge is the same for both the associate and the partner – it is the desire to generate business purely by the quality of their services. It is, of course, absolutely critical that the lawyer produce excellent work product – and if he or she is in a narrow and highly specialized practice area that alone might indeed bring in sufficient business.
But that is the rare exception.

“For the most part professional service providers get business because of the relationships they have with the people who can give them business. For the new associate this means treating the partners in the firm as a highly valued client. As the associate rises through the ranks he or she must also then add the current clients of the firm to their list of highly values clients – and as he or she approaches partnership consideration he or she must have developed strong relationships with people in the industry he or she wishes to practice. It is the regular, consistent, and disciplined attention to relationships that, over time, brings in business.

“And you still need to produce high quality work product.”

So why should I have my candidates contact you? What makes someone a great coach?

“First: Why contact me? If you are looking to make your career more satisfying, call me. I work with successful lawyers who have become a bit un-tethered from the satisfaction and (dare I say) fun of practicing law. I use a business-centered approach in that the work I do focuses first on the business of the lawyer, then on the profession of the lawyer and then on the life of the lawyer. And I say this emphasizing that it is the same for the lawyer working in a law firm, as part of a general counsel’s staff, in government or practicing as a solo.

“And, Second: What makes a great coach? Personally, I think great coaches are mature, experienced, grounded, self aware and have the capacity to consistently see the best in their clients. Most of all, like any processional service, the judgment of the quality of the coaching lies in the experience of the client. Like a dentist or a doctor or a lawyer for that matter, it is how the clients feels about the coaching that makes the coaching worthwhile or the coach ‘great’.

“And by the way, if your Coach does not have a Coach --- that should tell you something about his or her commitment to coaching as a professional service.”

As a practical matter, is a telephone relationship with a coach really effective? I know that many people in the business world are used to this model, but I don't think my candidates get it yet--convince them.

“I hold that once the relationship with the client is established, phone coaching can work. I discourage it as a regular habit though simply because so much more is communicated face-to-face. I meet with my clients twice a month for 90 minutes and I much prefer it face to face. I can meet at my office in the Financial District or I can go to their office. One caveat is the need to be generally undistracted by phone calls, email and the like for the 90 minutes.

“Of course, lawyers are busy professionals and sometimes their schedules are unpredictable and effected by the actions of others (like Judges, clients, opposing counsel and so forth). I find that using the phone for occasional meetings works just fine and is often the easiest way to reschedule appointments.”

What if I as a potential coach candidate really do have some problems (performance issues, personality deficit (wink), maybe some other inappropriate behaviors)? Can you handle this?

“I am not a psychologist or mental health professional. I do not provide mental or emotional therapy. I work with healthy and successful attorneys. I would refer those issues to a licensed professional.

“As for behavioral issues – I have been hired to help lawyers become more organized, to manage their time better, to develop more positive relationships with other lawyers and/or staff. Those issues can manifest themselves as short tempers in the office or a lack of interest in practicing law or even the spending of too much time at the office—often without an increase in work product or billable hours. I still hold that the first focus of my coaching is on the business of the lawyer and in that context an assessment of what the behavior is costing him or her and his or her law firm.

“I would also add here that every lawyer I know has an important reason of why they chose to practice law. Some aspect of the practice was interesting, or compelling or fun. That reason can become lost or obscured by the sheer demands of the profession or as a result of the business realities of being in a law firm – but the original reason is still there. Reconnecting the individual to that source of satisfaction is my passion and forms my greatest successes.”

To sum up, what is your operating philosophy towards success and professional development in the legal market? How do I know you and I would have a similar idea about what constitutes a "healthy", "successful" career?

And a corollary question: if you don't really have a fixed opinion about the same, what's the point of coaching? Is this really going to consist only of open-ended questions, sage nodding and warm handshakes?

“Perhaps I responded to this already --- my operating philosophy is that every lawyer I know has worked very, very hard to become an attorney. For each there was a core reason for doing so. I work to help uncover that reason and to place it in the context of the lawyers business, their profession and in their lives.

“As for the warm handshake – my coaching is “time-bounded”. I offer four separate modules. (“The Lawyer in Business”, “The Lawyer as Manager”, “The Lawyer as Rainmaker”, “The Lawyer as Leader”) Each module is six months long. Each module is stand alone and when you are done you are done. You’ll get a binder of information, an action plan, a certificate and you’re off. Before a client begins any module they must first complete a Personal and Professional Accounting and Assessment process which usually takes one month to complete. That includes a full day meeting with me.

“I also have two additional programs which are a bit more advanced and go a bit deeper – the first is “The Lawyer as Satisfied Professional”. It is a year long program and takes a broader look at the lawyer’s entire life. The second is a program for groups or teams of lawyers focusing on communications, team/group dynamics. It is designed for small firms or practice groups. It is designed to be completed over the course of a year but can be completed in a retreat setting over a three or four day weekend.

“And the warm handshakes are free.”

Thanks, Neil!

Short bio for Neil:

Neil Olson is a certified coach and licensed attorney who specializes in helping lawyers reach their fullest potential. Prior to launching his coaching practice seven years ago, Neil practiced law for over 10 years as an associate and partner in a large San Francisco law firm. Neil also founded his own boutique firm and practiced there for nearly 10 years. Neil has trained, coached and consulted with attorneys in AmLaw 50 International Law Firms, Bay Area regional and boutique law firms, in-house counsel for major corporations, as well as sole practitioners. Neil is on the 2007-2008 Executive Committee of the State Bar of California Law Practice Management & Technology Section. Neil is also the National Board President of the Professional Coaches and Mentors Association, and a founding member of the Renaissance Lawyer Society. Neil is dedicated to coaching lawyers in the San Francisco bay area, where he lives with his wife and two children.

Neil Olson - The Lawyer Whisperer
e: neil@neilolsoncoaching.com
w: www.neilolsoncoaching.com


Captioned artwork: Whisper to Tree, by Gregory Gallo.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Read What Your Clients Are Saying--About You

Waves of smugness are now emanating from my little black soul. Why? I'll tell you. One word. "Vindication."

If you scroll down my blog posts, you will see a strange assortment of obscure references to philosophers (of various ilks), impossibly convoluted analogies, and, I confess, plenty of turgid prose.

But you've got to give me credit, at least I'm thinking of ways to break lawyers, and especially law firm managers, out of their molds, ruts, what have you. There is good reason for this: what you are doing, esteemed colleagues, is not working. Your clients have finally spoken.

That Falling Hammer

The only valid indicator of your future success, in my book, is how well you are serving your clients. Generally speaking, and given sufficient time, clients will go where they feel they are being served as they want to be. Which is to say, to be treated with respect, and served quickly. Given how consistently clients feel they have been poorly treated by attorneys since, well, the beginning of time, basically, and the fact that law firms are still billing away, one might be tempted to think that one can keep on plugging and profiting by simply tweaking here and there without wholesale paradigm-change. In other words, that the aforesaid "given time" can be indefinitely forestalled.

But those days are over.

Clients Have Spoken

Take a look at the recent BTI Consulting Group study (free summary here (the whole enchilada costs around 3 'g's)). BTI interviewed hundreds of the choicest clients on the planet. The verdict? This year, half interviewed claim they are doing to ditch their primary law firms and look for someone else. This year. Half. That's 50%. Even if we all hold hands and just play musical clients, there is going to be impact on the bottom line in terms of scrabbling for the next chair before the music stops. Thus, if lawyers continue to think that they can let their hubris go unchecked (client arrogance is one of the biggest complaints), think again.
With the specter of outsourcing looming its head, and the amazing facility of markets to fill needs, one way or another law firms are going to have to do more than spout "client service" and "one firm" slogans to get more clients, to say nothing of retain the ones they have. And now for the mandatory back-pedalling which so many lawyers cannot live without: even if the BTI study is flawed and over-stated, isn't at least the expressed wish to of 300 or so of the largest, richest corporate clients on the planet to change their primary law firms enough to give you pause?

Forget "regime change", we need "paradigm change"

And perhaps, just perhaps, your firm needs more than a cool seminar on marketing to get it together. Maybe your firm, maybe you, need to get your old assumptions knocked around a little, just to loosen things up. Maybe all my crazy posts on Nietzsche, Heidegger, de Maistre and Arendt could actually help facilitate that. Despite the fact that my "statcounter" map looks like the first day of chicken pox, I feel vindicated: I rant frequently that our industry must get off its collective duff and start reinventing itself--and we need to do more than open outposts globally--we need to open new outposts right here, in our minds, in our perceptions, in our way of interacting with clients. Now clients back me up.

Exploitation does indeed, begin at home. With me and with you. Exploiting our own creativity, our own innate ability to transcend the status quo, our own outdated perceptions.

Postscript

And another thing: You lucky 20 who got to the top of the BTI customer-service list don't get a free pass. One telling comment about ubiquitous attorney arrogance and why some clients haven't yet decided to look elsewhere? "Well", said one client, "you just have to pick your battles." In other words, the client just doesn't have the time to look for another, less arrogant, more communicative, more understanding firm. Yet. If that isn't a kick to the gut, then maybe you need your nerve endings re-attached.

Here's the list of 20 firms that made it to the top.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

"Some of My Best Friends are Women": Why The New List of Women-Friendly Firms is Irrelevant at Best

I think I might just scream if I read another vapid blog post in praise of the new list of 50 "woman-friendly" law firms (find the link yourself; if you can't, how in the heck did you find this site?). What rushes to one's mind upon reading the results, however, is that it becomes glaringly obvious that precious little of note is actually being said. Bottom line: Some firms have a (very) few more women than others. Some firms have better benefits that more often impact women than men. Some firms apparently have better marketing departments.

I mean, honestly, look at the numbers. The identified "top-50" have partner cadres comprised of about 10 and 20% women. You might notice that these numbers do not square with the near-ubiquitous parity of the two genders among the associate ranks. (Sorry, non-gender-specific individuals are not numerous enough to be ranked). So what precisely are we praising here?

Are firms to be commended for still having women vastly underrepresented among the partnership ranks? For that matter, is it particularly note-worthy that large firms have better benefits than others that happen to benefit women or "flex-time" types of both genders? Is it particularly praiseworthy that the more sophisticated firms are doing everything their poor imaginations can come up with to retain talent at any cost no matter what their genitalia? Given the consensus, among lawyers at least, that women are the complete equals of men in intellect and the near absence of fear left among male lawyers of female leaders, then I would have to say "no". These numbers are not newsworthy. At least not as intended.

What precisely then is this list supposed to tell us? Frankly, I don't think it tells us anything that we don't already know. Neither do I think the list does, will or should have any impact on female lawyers' decisions as to the best law firms to work for.

Let's face it, the real pioneering work for women in law firms has already been done (although many thanks to those women who did that work!). The next frontier for law firms is not whether or not women are practice group leaders, managing partners or anything else--the next frontier is not about gender.

As a recruiter, I can tell you that there is no resistance whatever in firms for women leaders. Rather, firms are screaming at me for more women. I just can't find them.

Of course, women are still self-selecting out of practice for lots of reasons. Not the least of these is the still-present assumption among women and men both that women get stuck doing mommy duty (and of course there's that little biological thing). Now, I do believe that there is plenty of work to be done in firms in accommodating a variety of lifestyles, and the part-time/flex-time/smooshy-time movement has a place in law firms. But I certainly don't give firms any credit for being no further along the curve than, let's say, your average corporate structure. Frankly, lots of men bail out of law for the same reasons that women do (at least this one did); it just doesn't get noticed.

Mostly though, firms just want you 28 hours per day, no matter what you look like. I just don't see how we can still call that a gender issue.

And I have to say, the race and sexual preference barriers have also been largely destroyed, at least in major markets. When the president of the bar association for the capital of the nation is an openly gay African-American (Melvin White, pictured), you know that we are in a whole new world.

That brings me back to the list. I'm afraid you aren't going to get me to jump up and down because a few law firms have a few more percentage points of female partners than others and that a few have gone to better consultants than others to adopt better benefits packages more favorable to women. This is news?

When you can find me 50 firms of 50 or more attorneys that have 50% women partners and 50% female practice group leaders, I'll deign to golf clap.

Immediately thereafter, I'll start asking you real questions, like about your firm's plan for growing its China and India practices and how many MBAs and non-lawyer strategists you have on staff.

The dialogue has moved on, folks. Tell me I'm wrong.

----------------------------------------------
update:

Does anyone have a high-resolution photo of Melvin White?

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Embrace “Dasein”: Heidegger, Corporate Existentialism and the New Millennium.

I would have to say that lawyers are, as a group, unconscious philosophers. Whether we recognize it or not, we carry out the scholastic tradition begun in late Antiquity and brought to flower in the much-maligned 12th Century of the Common Era. After all, lawyers read, reflect, critique, add and subtract to a living corpus of thought (the law), do so with an eye toward logic and tradition, and necessarily presuppose an ordered universe (or at least a universe emerging from chaos). Just like our hair-shirted forebears.

Lawyers as Rationalists

If this is true, then lawyers are, essentially, believers in “the rationalist” approach to seeing that world. That is, we read about, understand and view the world through the prism of analysis, reason and structure. We are thus “rationalist” philosophers who essentially see ourselves as separate from that which we observe.

Artificial Divide

In philosophical terms, lawyers have thus unavoidably divided the “subject” from the “object”; the viewed from the viewer. In other words, we see ourselves, as did Descartes, as ultimate realities in our own minds distinct from the phenomena of the world. We fundamentally and temperamentally agree with cogito ergo sum, which is to say that our fundamental, irreducible reality is the fact of our own thoughts, our own consciousness; all the rest can be done away with, and is ultimately unproven: fundamentally, then, it is not real. Therein lies the rub.

Really, Really Real

It is this very philosophical position (conscious or otherwise) that is hindering, I believe, the wholesale adoption of the management reforms, the global growth, the creativity in creating new legal products and new client partnership dynamics that are necessary to take the practice of law through the inescapable changes that new market realities demand. We cannot as a group re-conceive of our practice, our profession and our industry in new ways because the market “realities” are not “real enough.”

Managing-Partner Existential Angst

Any law firm leader worth her salt has seen legion articles, been to numerous conferences and had countless sleepless nights contemplating the challenges that face our industry. Most of these changes are bound up in the new reality of a one-world global market for legal services (as there is a one-world global market for everything else!). But the problem is, as just about everyone will agree, is that law firms will not or will not do so in the short term. They are stuck.

Fighting the Hypo

Specifically, and by way of example, lawyers, law firms, and even many of their consultants, are attempting to stick their collective heads in the sand about the massive capital investments that will be required to stay competitive in the coming two decades. Many lawyers still hold up the straw man of “law as profession” versus “law as business”, as if there were any vitality in making the two mutually exclusive. Some believe that facilitating larger firms is irrelevant because larger firms only correlate weakly with increased PPP, or that the capital infusions that could be made possible by law firm IPOs are unnecessary because no one will know what to do with the cash, or yet again that the globalization of firms is not necessary because firms can get along fine with just associating with a series of foreign “friendship” partners. I suppose reasonable minds can disagree on these issues—but that doesn’t make the other reasonable minds right, I’m afraid.

Breaking Free

What is the catalyst, then, that will allow law firms, and thus a critical mass of individual lawyers, to embrace the incredibly vital, exhilarating and terrifying opportunities presented by 21st-Century practice, and thus finally discard 19th-Century models of behavior like the old wineskins that they are? No amount of sermonizing will apparently make a difference. No amount of stating and re-stating the opportunities makes much of a dent on some of these Teflon minds. No reiteration of the economics involved can convince many that the market realities are realities that actually affect them, which in turn means THEY MUST ACTUALLY CHANGE.

Dasein: The Great Marriage of Phenomenon and Perception

What then? It goes back to fundamental beliefs, aka, philosophy. It is the very nature of the implicit philosophical bent of the “lawyer mind” that is keeping us as a profession from embracing all that is available to us. That rationalist bent that I described briefly above is to blame. It is that belief that we can analyze apart from the reality that gave rise to the analysis that hinders us. The antidote? Some good old-fashioned existentialism. We need to make the tectonic shift away from “cogito ergo sum” to “Dasein”, “being-in-the-world”, and “being there.” If you need a full refresher on existentialism, dust off your college-days copy of Heidegger’s “Being and Time.”

Briefly, this new paradigm sees the UNITY between phenomenon and thought. It advocates a perspective that there is no artificial disconnect between the world as it is, and how we perceive it. In short, Dasein is a construct that imbues our thought processes with an understanding of temporality: all things are moving, all things are passing, and we must be a dynamic part of that movement.

Get With the Program: Irrationality Is Part of the Equation

The upshot, the “bottom line” (horrid phrase) of all this is just this: we cannot sit back and wait for our logic to dot all “i”s and cross all “t”s. Rather, we must embrace the chaotic nature of human existence. We must be willing to engage with the world as it is: a fluid state of “absurdity” and non-rationality that the true geniuses among us truly grasp. And it is those geniuses that create new products, envision new needs, create new modes and means of interacting with consumers, and how consumers interact with their world. In short, we must allow our analysis to “be good enough.” We cannot wait for an historical precedent to validate our hunches—we must act on them!

Corporate Existentialism: Corporate Identity

And to get at those hunches, we must be “existential” as organizations. That means that as an organization (a particular law firm) we must determine who we are first and foremost (our strategic advantages in terms of product and service) and then extrapolate what we have been and what we WANT to be into that ever-changing milieu of the global—the universal—market.

If we can do that, if we can embrace that shift, we can get fully into the deep water, the center of the channel of our client’s world—and thereby also, not only become better capitalists and managers, but become better lawyers.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Salary Compression, Lock-Step & Adding Value

I was intrigued to hear that Pennsylvania firm Fox, Rothschild has refused to raise first-year salaries to the new $140K market-rate. Of course it was their rationale that piqued my interest. Their refusal is based, ostensibly, on the rather boldly-obvious reasons that: 1) they didn't want to further impact their clients on rates; and 2) that the partners "had no stomach for the increase." No doubt. You've gotta give them credit for honesty.

Why Whine?

It is true that clients cannot be thrilled with the industry-wide raise in salaries. Still, clients as a group have been complete lambs about massive rate increases over the past ten years (well, basically) so I really don't see the point of drawing the line at how the most junior associates are compensated.

It is also perfectly clear that higher first-year salaries do not mean that all big-law lawyers are suddenly richer. Rather, of course, it means greater compression in the ranks: the difference between what a first-year and what a sixth-year makes tends to shrink for all but the very wealthiest firms (and it is pretty impacted even there).

Heresy

Where I differ with many on the issue is that I do not think this is a terribly bad thing, nor do I think that it impacts retention. Regardless, I think it is unavoidable. The real question is what the implications are for the practice.

The Rub

And the implications are these; the industry as a whole is moving toward a dawning realization that the value-added of any particular piece of hum-drum legal work (research, drafting, even arguing) carries with it only so much value. In short, legal work, or certain types of legal work, will be and are becoming commoditized. An expensive commodity, albeit, but a commodity nonetheless.

Not that firms will not pay more for higher-quality work (there will always be $400 per hour associates at white-shoe big-law and $120 per hour associates at small defense shops). Overall, however, we are moving away from a paradigm that values time-in-service. I don't think clients should be complaining necessarily that they are paying too much for first-year work (they always chew this down in terms of hours-cutting anyway). What they should be thinking is "why should I pay x% more for the fourth-year version of this?"

New Billing Schema

I'll cut to the chase. We are moving toward billing schema that value project billing over hourly calculations and we are moving toward ever-increasing squeezing of associate compensation at the top. The true (and basically only) dividing line in compensation will be between partner and associate. Thus, associate salaries will approach (although likely never reach) a single, austere plateau of hegemony.

The real, and only, interest will be in partner compensation. And by "partner" I mean to emphasize the "project manager" aspect of legal work versus those performing lawyerly tasks. Moreover, partners are going to stop wearing all three hats simultaneously (1: shareholder; 2: manager; 3: worker), and begin wearing just one or two at a time.

Parting of the Ways for Partnership qua Partnership

Thus, partnership itself will become more rigidly differentiated. Once we adopt the Clementi reforms, we will have (hat number 1) non-working and even non-lawyer "shareholders" who can't or need not practice (IOW income based merely on equity position will become a reality one way or another). Once partner compensation becomes more universally tied to aggregate, "team" performance, we will see partners begin to let go of billing for their own analysis and spend the bulk of their time keeping their fee-earning troops motivated and in line (in short: truly managing as a primary function) (IOW, hat number two). Finally, we will see a distinct minority or partners who continue to bill out their own time as high-level strategists (hat number 3), but their compensation will be far beneath that of their colleagues, except for a rock-star few.

Thus, the triumvirate of phenomena: increased salaries for junior associates, compression of associate salaries overall, and the realization that the true value-added kicker in terms of chargeable rates wil be the management of legal work, rather than the 'mere' performing it.

To all the Fox, Rothschilds out there: rather than worry about the impact on your clients of higher compensation for your junior associates, worry more about attraction of talent in the first instance and how your overall billing scheme fits into the new, coming paradigms.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now



return to today's post

Associates: They "Know Your Name"- "The Odds Will Betray You!" (or "How To Navigate the Interview Process Unscathed")

Casino Royale is my favorite action movie of 2007. The new James Bond is smart, fast, strong, ruthless-and a hacker. He jaw-droppingly pierces the veil that surrounds the pompous and pampered but no less hard-boiled "M," breaks into her penthouse condo, steals her cyber-identity, and uses his ill-gotten gains to catch the bad guys. What a guy!

Perversely, movies like this give the lie to the notion of cyber-security. It doesn't take a James Bond-or even an MI6 dropout-to ferret out secrets...your secrets. If you think you have craftily hidden something during an interview or hiring process, I'm afraid the odds say you are wrong--dead wrong. The odds will betray you. You associates need to read the below to get some perspective. You partners and law firm managers should scan this as well--you need to get a read on what your potential associate hires are facing.

Angels Fall from Blinding Heights.

Okay. What you need to understand first and foremost is that you are your own worst enemy. Most fibs about background are unearthed by the culprit.

I once had a candidate who flubbed an otherwise-terrific interview at a fabulous firm because she lied about completing a CLE class, of all things! The firm couldn't have cared one whit whether she went to that darn class, but it did care very much whether everything on her resume was correct-100% correct. How did she get found out? She made a slip of the tongue in the interview. The inconsistency was as plain as day.

This is common-common!-folks. Take it from a professional recruiter who does this for a living. Moreover, your grandma was right; it is easier to tell the truth than to conceal a lie (even if it's only a "fib" or a "slight gloss on the unvarnished truth"). You can never anticipate all the ways in which misinformation can come up. Don't bother. Don't fall off the "blinding heights" of the moral high ground.

No One Else Here Will Save You.

Now it's time to really understand what your employer's background check will, and will not, uncover. In the legal arena background checks are actually quite limited. Generally, due diligence (other than review of documents you yourself submit) will only consist of the following:

• verifying your admission to practice law with the appropriate state bar(s);
• sending you through a gauntlet of interviews with between three and as many as 12 attorneys in the firm (nice, that!);
• a heart-to-heart with your recruiter, if you are using one;
• perhaps a criminal background check (not even standard); \
• a call to one of your references (who must be a lawyer at a law firm, by the way-preferably, and sometimes exclusively, a partner).
  

Of course, law firms feel pretty safe knowing that (at least if you were admitted in California) you've gone through the fairly rigorous background check that the state bar put you through as you exited law school. But any nasty little secrets beyond that point won't have been caught. Neither will firms have conducted credit checks (which, actually, they really should do).

The bottom line is that the formal process is not terribly daunting, assuming you can handle your own references (which a surprising number of people do not adequately prepare). On the other hand, you can do quite a bit to ensure that the process goes smoothly.

A Spin of the Wheel.

The biggest wild card in the entire process is your reference. It is amazing what indiscretions will be allowed to slip into that one phone call between your reference and the hiring firm.

First of all, these folks will not be contacted until after the firm has already, or already nearly, decided to extend an offer. They just don't take the time beforehand.

Sometimes even well-meaning references will inadvertently say negative things, usually in the form of left-handed compliments such as "Johnnie has done really well, considering his rocky start." Priceless. Here is what you must do when selecting and preparing a reference:

• Call your reference ahead of time to ask if s/he will serve. (Yes, I know this is basic. But people fail to do this all the time. You must first ask the reference if s/he will be so kind as to serve as one.)
• Ask your reference if s/he can give you an "unqualified reference." I put that little two-word phrase in quotes for a reason: use it and no other. What this does is put the reference on notice that s/he must not say stupid, backward, irrelevant, or in any other way less-than-stellar things about you. Usually a reference, when asked this in a point-blank fashion, will say "yes," even if there is some tiny little part of his or her mind that thinks you have chinks in your armor. There is social pressure to acquiesce to requests. This will also ferret out the posers. When confronted with such a request, a few references may back out. They won't say, "Darn, I could give you a lukewarm reference, but 'unqualified' is too strong a word." They will say something like, "Well, our policy is that I really can't give out references. Maybe I'll have to get in touch with HR." No thanks. Don't bother. They are telling you that they won't do such a thing. Find someone else. Fast.
• Don't ask over and over. Asking once is sufficient. Once you know that your prospective firm is actually going to call a reference (meaning it's actually asked for one-because you should never volunteer references at the outset), leave your reference a friendly message informing him or her that so-and-so from blah-blah law firm will be calling to ask for a reference. "Just a heads-up!" That's plenty. People do not like being asked more than once. (If you have kids, you are smiling right now.) Plus, asking again just gives your reference an opportunity to back out. You don't need that.
  

When The Storm Arrives, Will You Be Seen With Me?

While most layers are not adept hackers, they can, amazing, read, and browse the internet. That means they know how to use "Google." Astonishingly, they even know that lots of attorneys (in some silly fit of willful ignorance) put their weirdest secrets on "Facebook" (by the way, do you think recruiters don't know you do that? get real).

The Coldest Blood Runs Through Our Veins.

Remember that law firms are businesses first, second, and last. They have procedures for a reason. They don't deviate much. If you as a candidate give them any excuse not to hire you, they won't. There are quite simply too many fish in the sea--even during a strong market (which we now have in California, at least). This means that you must be honest about verifiable facts and you must prepare your references to ensure everyone is "on message."

However, there are things that you do not need to tell your prospective employer--and that you shouldn't. These include various subjective reasons you left your last firm. As far as I am concerned, there is really only one acceptable reason that you left your last firm: the firm or practice, while it initially made perfect sense, later changed and was no longer fulfilling your professional goals.

If you please, read that sentence one more time...it implies a lot. That statement implies you are a sure-footed, right-thinking, rational professional. You have overarching goals, you evaluate options based upon them, and you constantly update your analyses to ensure that you are always on path.

For a few good and solid-sounding reasons, your last firm was no longer on path. If you need to dig around to figure out some great-sounding reasons, call a professional recruiter. He or she can help you dig down to your own true professional goals and figure out what really went wrong.

What you cannot and should not tell your next employer are reasons for leaving that have nothing to do with your professional plan. Moving because your girlfriend got a whim to live somewhere sexier is not a reason. Neither is wanting to be closer to Mommy and Daddy. Neither is wanting a fresh start because you ended up alienating every single lawyer in your past firm. No. A thousand times, no. Read my lips: it is all about the work.

Once you get inside the firm, of course, it's a whole other game. I'll leave you with my favorite part of the lyrics (snippets of which I presume you figured out have been used above as headers):

If you come inside things will not be the same /
When you return to the night /
And if you think you've won /
You never saw me change /
The game that we all been playing!

ttfn.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Gödel, Escher, Bach: Out of the Refuse of Meaninglessness and Despair, Build Your Own Golden Braid

Law School was an epiphany for me. I experienced a secret, shameful joy at finally realizing what I had suspected all along in my then-young life: our language, seemingly so solid, so understandable, is built on shifting sands of fluid assumptions that no one can pin down. It was a blessed relief to finally accept that nothing I had ever known had any substance: words, after all, have etymologies (histories), but no definitions. For some, however, the tearing down of their paradigms was a crushing blow.

Blame Socrates

Don’t give me that: you and I know full well that our torts professors were hard pressed to put meat on the bones, as it were, when discussing “proximate cause,” “cause in fact,” “reasonableness” or anything else. This is why the Geneva-convention-violating mental torture that is the first-year of law school is called “the Socratic method.”

Yes, it was the sartorially-challenged, pig-faced philosopher of the preceding era that finally woke us up as an intellectual community to the fact that no one can sufficiently define a damn thing. What is “honor” anyway? What is “evil”? What is “good”? All of these words carry huge stores of collective imagination, but they are perniciously resistant to specificity. In short, our words appear to have real meaning and specific references, but in reality they are little more than shorthand for clap-trap piles of images, emotions and memories—no one can agree on what they really mean.

Ditto The Practice of Law

The same is true for our professional lives. We are paid by our clients to navigate the waters of the treacherous, labyrinthine locks of the legal system. We are charged with explaining a conceptual framework that is ever-changing, with its own vocabulary, and one that more closely reflects the paucity of meaning that our language necessarily carries with it than the layman is comfortable, or capable, of understanding. Not only this, but we must also navigate the troubled waters of building a practice.

Yes, And Our Business-Building Too

And the practice itself is fraught with difficulties. We are asked to create a synergistic vibe that will suck in business, fees and adulation, and pour out pristine written product and oral gymnastics. We must market, write, cajole, woo, manage, politic, strategize, hypothesize, inspire and command.

There is a reason why there is an entire industry of gurus whose function it is to explain again and again and always in new ways, what precisely all these tasks really are, how they are to be performed, how they are to be understood, and how they are to be communicated. In short, not only our legal vocabulary, not only our procedures, not only our practice, but our entire professional lives are themselves edifices built upon, and with, stones that in turn have no meaning, or meanings that we can barely understand, much less agree upon.

And yes, folks, that is a good thing.

The Golden Braid

Twenty-five years ago I had the pleasure and challenge of reading Douglas Hofstadter’s Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Published in 1980, it was the darling of the intelligentsia for several years. It is an intriguing book alternately as clear as crystal, and murky as mud. I’m afraid it is also at times as “turgid and confused” as J.S. Bach’s music was accused of being centuries earlier. For me as a 9th-grader at the time, it was exhilarating.

The book’s title names three pre-eminent geniuses: J. S. Bach, M.C. Escher (you remember, he drew the photo at top, famous for depicting the physically impossible), and Kurt Gödel (the famous 20th-century logician). The book is worth the cover price (still in print) just for the exposition on the work of these three subtle minds.

But the point of the book is far more ambitious than a mere recitation of the virtues of three dead white guys. Rather, Hofstadter tries to communicate in fable, analogy, statistics and dense prose, that it is possible—nay, unavoidable—that our most treasured beliefs, ideas and constructs are based upon building blocks that cannot be defined, that are self-referential, in short, are “loops in logic.”

We Just Can't Help it.

By means of these three giants of thought, Hofstadter helps us to see the power, beauty and vitality of living freely and fully in the world of ideas: there we are unfettered by the need to nail down every hole in reason. The world as humans perceive it does not consist in unalterable truths, but rather in powerful ideas full of rich and ineffable meaning, built upon perhaps shameful, ugly and sweaty lapses in logic and un-pin-down-able truths.

The upshot? Life and sanity are to be based, quite probably, on constant movement. Bach’s music only makes sense when listened to as intended; upon analysis and examination, it is hopeless confused. Escher’s drawings are to be enjoyed for the mind-bending quality, not torn apart pixel by pixel. And last, the world of logic as illuminated by Gödel is a process, but based upon un-provable hypotheses.

The Moral of the Story:

The injunction: go with it. Take the meaning you have in experiencing the whole, and fret not about the messy underbelly of the details. Learn by doing.

For me as someone who has lived in and now serves the legal profession, this is a very pivotal idea. As I mentioned above, attorneys are faced with a life’s work based on explaining the unexplainable, and with creating a practice based on activities that no one can actually pin down the secret of success to. All that remains is to move forward, to run with your current opaque understanding, and find meaning and even joy in the race.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

return to today's post

Keep Associates and Keep them Happy: Start Grading Partners on the Curve

It is axiomatic that associates are tired, frustrated and ready to walk at a moment's notice. Many commentators have warned that the sky is going to fall on the profession if we can't as a group figure out how to make lives for lawyers more bearable (read here and here and here). And yet, of course, the world keeps right on spinning and lawyers keep right on billing. I think there is no danger that the "legal market" as such is going to implode, but it is true that many firms are losing profits needlessly and that many poorly-managed law firms find themselves either facing extinction, absorption or reduced greatly in prestige. To bring it closer to home, just how much is your firm spending for every instance of associate turnover? That's what I thought. What to do?


Well, there have been many well-meaning folks who have tried to preach the gospel of basing partner compensation on soft factors (you know, time spent mentoring, 'team-player' attitude, pro bono work). Trouble is, the only way to make these work is to have highly arcane and individualized compensation structures that tend to breed discontent and rightly so: if you are going to infuse a rational process with subjective standards, you are going to get irrational results and decreased loyalty and morale.

Moreover, everybody knows about (and I constantly harp on) the need for law firms to incorporate some of the more modern and humane management principles long-ago adopted (or at least embraced) by the business world. Where is the nexus?

I'll tell you, and this should be easy for a law-school-survivor to figure out: start grading partners on the curve.

Now I'll tell you right now I do NOT mean these "360-degree" reviews where associates colleagues and practice group leaders alike get to weigh in with more subjective talking points. (Those are fine for identifying the "screamers" but I don't think they are an adequate tool for judging productivity). Rather, we need to start making equity partner compensation based solely (or very largely) on the gross revenues and profitability of his/her team.

Here's my analysis:

1) We need partners to be motivated to do whatever it takes to retain their associates and non-equity partners (of counsels, etc.). We all know that simply raising associate salaries in lock-step or otherwise will help (and lock-step is better), but does not fix the problem. The "whatever it takes" part means actually spending time with individual lawyers in the firm mentoring them, helping them improve their work, motivating them, socializing with them. There is no substitute for this work. And I'll tell you that every single new lawyer wants this and says so--the rest just want it but don't bother saying it anymore, even to themselves.

2) To do this, equity partners must go back to the days of high associate/partner ratios. To be clear, that means more bodies per equity partner. Any decent economist--and lots of economists with JDs and a law firm practice behind them--will tell you this. So why does it not happen? Well, the partners on the ground say it is because their clients want to see only senior people working on their cases given how high rates are. I think this is bunkum. Clients will be happy if you give them high value for money. Giving them high value for money in part means paying high dollar for high-value (strategic) work (partner work) and less money for grunt work (research, run-of-the-mill hearings, drafting contracts). No, the real reason partners are hoarding work is that they are desperate to cover the tracks of their inability to lead associates and build a team. That, and the fact that law firms aren't universally compensating them for their aggregate billings, or it is difficult to assign things appropriately.

3) People will work harder, longer, and better when they feel part of a group that gives them esteem. Building teams means that people actually have to work together. This means that they don't operate as free-lancers ready to take whatever comes along. Thus, associates' time should be monopolized and assigned to a single equity partner. I can tell you that associates will grumble far less about working weekends when they know: a) their partners actually notice they are there; b) their partners are actually invested and investing in their professional development; c) they know their partners and know that the one's future is all tied up in the other's. The much-vaunted benefits of associates working for every tom, dick and jane in the firm are over-rated: this is just more "non-learning", but with more people involved in the confusion, and with loyalty and connections diluted.

4) Further, equity partners must be compensated solely upon the effectiveness(revenues and profitability) of their individual teams. This is going to force partners to spend more time hunting down that work, yes. And it is going to force partners to spend the time keeping their team motivated. In short, it will help partners actually take the time to educate themselves about management principles, rather than just review memos and to their junior partners' and associates' work for them.

5) Partners must be "graded" (compensated) relative to each other. We need to break out of the miasma of accepting "ok" profits and force equity partners to innovate in terms of emotional-intelligence (human management) skills. To do that, we are going to have to continually compensate partners relative to each other in terms of team revenues. And I don't care if one group has different rate sensitivities, etc., etc. The presidents of small divisions at huge multi-nationals do not get compensation the same as large ones. Get over it. The point is that partners will work toward high compensation as a group. To do that, we must force them to spend the time and thought-resources strategizing how to maximize their team's overall productivity. They cannot be spending 75% of their time doing traditional billable work. That is insane. If they know that the financing of that Jamaican beach-house is tied to how effectively they can actually manage their subordinates attorneys, and that there is NO WAY that they can personally bill themselves out sufficiently to do it--they will actually start thinking about building their teams.

Conclusion

If we want law firms to enjoy greater stability, better profits, world-class management, high retention rates and overall a higher-quality service to their clients, they are going to have to start treating equity partners as VP-level business managers. Practice-group leaders and regional managing partners are going to have to start acting like company presidents, and managing partners as CEOs. Team-building is essential. Mark my words, firms that refuse to adopt practices that will reward partners--on a rational and consistent basis--for overall productivity will fall in prestige, size and profitability relative to those that do.

Have a great rest of your Monday!

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

Corporate America Goes to Kindergarten: Why Being "Nice" Could Get You To the Next Level. Really.

Now I usually do not get all dewy-eyed about the virtues of "nice"ness; in fact, I usually hate the word (just what is "nice" anyway?). But the verdict is in: nice makes might. Or so says Marshall Goldsmith, counselor and coach to the high and mighty in the corporate world. That's right. Big CEOs with bigger private jets are paying six figures to hear what I'm about to tell you, and what you maybe could figure out for yourself if you really thought about it, and what you ought to have learned at your mother's knee: that leadership involves putting the golden rule into practice: listen, temper your ego, and resist the urge to demonstrate your wonderfulness at every turn. Of course, you have to be Marshall Goldsmith to get paid to say this stuff. But don't get me wrong, far be it from me to diss anybody's gig (glass houses and all that--I'm a headhunter, remember?). Anyway, I think he's got a point worth saying.

Goldsmith's book, with the snappy, most-modern, haiku-like title "What Got You Here Won't Get Your There" (hey, at $24.00 a bargain over his usual fee!) lists 20 lessons for staying at the top, and then getting to the "tippy-top" (what else should I call it?). Never fear! My read of Goldsmith boils them down down to just five. You can read all 20 on your own time. Here we go:

1) Get over yourself. Stop trying to INCESSANTLY prove how wonderful, brilliant and sexy you are (that's what blogging is for). Subordinates, superiors and laterals alike really could use a break. Yes, yes, we must learn to promote ourselves, but that doesn't mean that every single conversation needs your last word, not every memo needs your little extra edits, not every proposal needs your revisions. Be judicious, in other words, with your glow: not letting the other children play and shine once in a while destroys morale and makes you look like the Machiavellian narcissist you really are (not that there's anything wrong with that).

2) Don't be such a jerk. Yeah, this needs to be said. As Goldsmith so succinctly puts it, the question is NOT "It is true?" but "is it worth it?" Interesting.

3) Try being positive. Um, this is more pleasant for everyone. It is amazing the capacity for humans (sorry, in my experience, especially lawyers) to believe that their negative take on all things is actually interesting, impressive or otherwise tolerable. It is not. Your secretary knows this, but s/he is paid not to say it. Thus, try to make affirmative statements. It won't break your face.

4) Grow up. Mature adults do not blame others for their failures, act appropriately by not playing favorites and not sucking up and actually apologize when they err. Amazing, but true. They also realize that supreme "self-actualization" is the sister-city of megalomania.

5) The past is the past. Get over it and move on.

I somehow get the feeling that if I had written the book, it might not have played so well. Regardless, the important thing is that after all my railing against the lack of management sophistication in the law firm world (here and here ), it turns out the regular corporate guys are similarly challenged in the "act like a grown up" department. Just like us.

The upshot of all this is that these seemingly innocuous tips really can, and really have, made an impact on the careers of high-powered managers. Apparently you can go far by running rough-shod over others, but when you get to the upper levels of management, it suddenly matters to actually exhibit real leadership skills. Just like in kindergarten.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

Law Firm IPOs--The Great Equalizer?

The only law firm economics specialist I know of is Bruce MacEwen. His opinion of the utility of the much-mentioned but little discussed Clementi (non-lawyer ownership, read: corporate-style reforms, is that the large established firms don't need them: don't need the capital, don't have any trouble expanding when and where they want to, don't need more money for infrastructure. Pause. I find this difficult to believe, but then, I'm not an economist.

On the flip side, regional and "consumer-oriented" (read: personal injury and other mainly contingency-fee firms) do need all these things. And an IPO can give it to them. I'm sure that none of the AmLaw 100 firms are worried about PI firms getting more cash--the two groups move in askew lines. However, on the margins, I see this as a huge tipping point.

What about the smaller national firms, or the larger regional firms--isn't capitalization a large issue for them? Couldn't an additional tidy eight-figure sum mean the difference between expansion and retraction for them? Thus, I see the possibility of law firm IPOs as simply the next logical step in the "arms-race" for market dominance and, for that matter, market survival. As the philosophers say (at least the ones I like) and as the savvy money managers say (I now read the Accentureand Wharton on-line resources, too) life/survival is all about growth. If law firm IPOs are going to mean the ability of a large swathe of firms to expand--and potentially "take it to the next level" in terms of national or regional expansion--this is going to have real impact on growth and for that matter retention on the part of ALL firms--large and small.

I think whether or not IPOs could have an immediate impact on the big-law types, such firms are going to be hard pressed to forego the possibility once the kinks get worked out (yes, and after the rules get re-written). If they do forego, we are going to see the IPO used as an offensive weapon to create far more competition for partner attraction at the just-below-first-tier. And that potential for greater competition and thus playing-field-leveler, is a good thing.

To boot, it doesn't appear that a law-firm IPO would necessarily have much negative impact on a partnership in terms of productivity, focus, etc. If we take the words of the MP of the first law firm to do it, it is as easy as falling of a horse. Read MacEwen's interview here.

The bell has been rung.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now

"This world is the will to power--and nothing besides!"--Clementi, Psycho-Babble and the Need for Transformative Leadership

Ad Arguendo's new tag line is "the blog of law and leadership". I came up with that after agonizing over how to work through a new post on the "Clementi" effect that is creeping up on us (if you don't know what I am talking about, heaven help you and click here). I was trying to figure out what I could usefully add to the conversation that might be more articulate than: wake up! this is happening! US firms are going to be caught with their pants down while their European counterparts use new-found billions to outflank them in infrastructure and new platforms! I still think that pretty much sums it up--but that isn't what I was going to write about today.

Psycho-Babble Quip of the Day

No, my rant of the day is a little more abstract. Yes, more. As a good little disciple of Bruce MacEwen, I dutifully rushed over to his blog this morning to see what might have fallen from his lips. As usual, it is spot on. If I may, I'll clear up a little of the underbrush.

What law firms need, right now--today--is a new paradigm of growth, a new paradigm of what it means to practice, a new paradigm for exploiting resources. And that paradigmatic shift is: synergy, openness, responsiveness, dynamism, quest for dominance.

Nietzsche said it well when he opined on what "life" is (paraphrasing): an instinct for growth, for power. To date, lawyers have been quite sweetly (bless them) thinking in terms only of an individual practice group here, a new platform there. They have not (as a group) been strategizing how each can dominate a particular market, how they can become the greatest and largest in a particular niche, or better, how they can revolutionize a practice qualitatively, how they can reinvent what the attorney-client relationship means in a particular industry. In short, they are small thinkers, not big thinkers. They have failed to grasp that strategic thinking means a constant evaluation of what one has, what one has done, what one wants to do, and an open eye to the possibilities great and small.

Tactics versus Strategy

Said another way, there is a lack of understanding between the "tactical" and the "strategic." As a former soldier, I understand it well. "Tactical" and "tactical proficiency" mean knowing how to do one's job--knowing how to move on the ground when trying to reach an objective, knowing how one's enemy on the ground was likely to move and figuring out how to respond. This is the extent of most law firms' thinking: they are good lawyers and strive to be better and exploit the markets that come to them.

You Know it When You See it

But there is the second way of thinking--strategic thinking. This is one of those "you know it when you see it" kind of things. Strategic thinking is what those scary wonks in the basement of the Pentagon are doing--thinking three wars ahead, figuring out how to use weapons that haven't been invented yet, making scenarios to fight enemies that have not come into ascendancy. On a level a little closer to home: they are listening in not only to their current "targets" but every target they can think of. The strategic mind is one that is always listening, always seeking new information, and always integrating the new information into what is already known, striving to expose the mind to everything, in all areas, in short, to see the world, humanity and everything in an all-embracing vision of ultimate complexity.

Breaking it Down

Huh? I can tell you, that is what genius is all about. That is what Steve Jobs and the other wonder-wizards of our age are doing. They are taking it all in and they are thinking of entire new products, entirely new needs, completely tangential paradigms. In short, they are not just just making better beans, they are inventing new crops, reinventing how to farm them, reinventing how to eat them, reinventing what "food" is.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW?

It means actually "seeing" what is hidden right in the open. Just for starters: All of our nation's former enemies are now economic partners and competitors. The world exists in a free-form exchange of capital unfettered by political necessities. Smaller nations, nations with few resources, and seemingly little savvy, can leap-frog over the powers that be. Plus, all of our "conventions" of practice (like no non-lawyer ownership of firms) exist only in our minds--they can be changed in a trice. That means that despite the growing hegemonic dominance of American law firms across the globe, anyone can change the rules. Law firms need to hire bigger brains, craftier brains, non-legal brains, to help them join the 21st-century in terms of management savvy.

Be That One

If you think for one minute that the world is going to wait for us to deign to grow up as an industry, take the reins that our head start have placed in our hands and then dutifully fall in line behind us, think again.

Think strategically. If you can do this, you will be ahead of 999 in a 1000 souls. Be that one.

subscribe to AD ARGUENDO now