Make More Rain : hr, blog

Law Firm Talent Management Doesn't Stop with Recruiting

Admin — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:57:09 GMT

Without question, gaining an understanding of the characteristics of successful lawyers within individual firms can help firms to make wiser recruiting investments. The “Moneyball” project worked on by Kerma Partners and Lexis Nexis’ Redwood Think Tank focused on the characteristics of lawyers before they entered the law firm studied. Valuable information for the firm to have? Certainly, if thoughtfully incorporated into a recruiting strategy.

However, recruiting the best candidates for success within a firm’s culture is only part of the story. What’s the strategy to develop these associates after they are hired? The most qualified new lawyer can be mismanaged (or unmanaged), whittling away at the likelihood of success. The good news is that regardless of the candidate’s development before being hired, his/her development is largely within the control of the firm.

While the recent spotlight on analytics around recruiting efforts is very positive momentum, a firm really should not focus on a recruiting strategy without building a complementary development strategy. Over the past year, the Think Tank has been studying what differentiates successful lawyers once they begin their careers. In the handful of firms we’ve looked at, we have seen a (varying) correlation to success for attributes such as the type of exposure an associate receives, the clients they work with, and the volume of work they perform. Look for an article summarizing these results in the near future. As with the Moneyball conclusions, it will be important for firm managers to view information about the success of their own lawyers in the context of their own firm’s culture.

I welcome feedback and ideas for attributes to test as we continue to apply real analytics to the issues surrounding talent management in law firms.

-Kris Satkunas

Moneyball Indeed!

Admin — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:13:18 GMT

Buzz abounds concerning the recent “Moneyball” project completed by the Redwood Think Tank and Kerma Partners. A lot of the reaction seems to focus on trying to apply the results for a specific firm to the industry as whole. This misses the point entirely.

The basic premise of the study is that there is value in breaking away from recruitment as usual. Spending millions of dollars to recruit the same small pool of candidates everyone else is targeting is not efficient. Within the context of a broader set of talented, accomplished law students, traits should emerge from deeper study that allow firms a more focused approach. Firms who develop the sort of self-awareness a study of this type creates have an opportunity to create substantial competitive advantage in their ability to attract the candidate lawyers (entry-level and lateral) best suited to long term success in and for the firm. On the flip side, retention rates (and the cost of associate attrition) should be dramatically reduced.

With regard to the question about the application of these conclusions industry-wide, there are a number of important points to draw. First, a sample size of 1 is far from telling. In fact, I would expect to find a number of firms for whom the conclusions drawn would be exactly opposite of those for this first firm. Of course, this is not to say that interesting trends won’t emerge as the study is expanded; they will. Which ones, however, will only become clear with a greater sampling. Secondly, and I believe most importantly, the point of the exercise is to not really one of knowing which candidates will make the most successful lawyers generally but specifically, in the context of the firm’s culture, business and experience. This point cannot be overstressed. Yes, we may find that some traits can be correlated with expected success in the profession. That said, any particular firm may find this trait to be unimportant in its context or even negatively correlated. The power of the Moneyball study resides its law firm specificity.

-Norm Mullock

Law Firms Pass On Arbitration In Employment Disputes

Admin — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:00:36 GMT

In an article for the upcoming issue of the National Law Journal (NLJ) posted yesterday on their site, law firms are not taking their own advice when it comes to arbitration clauses in employment disputes.

Is this a case of what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander? Why would arbitration be a good idea for other businesses but not good for law firms? The answer brings into question the utility of arbitration.

The arguments for arbitration come from those who have been burned in litigation. Litigation can have you sitting in front of a jury that likely has no experience in the subject matter at hand and may in fact have motives other than the subject matter at hand to deliver a large award to a plaintiff. Arbitrators, on the other hand, are picked from within the industry from which the dispute arises and ostensibly provide a more fair, though equally binding, resolution at less cost than litigation. Where litigation can hinge on perception, arbitration decisions are meant to be grounded in experience-laden fact.

According to the NLJ story, however, only 10% of 200 law firm respondents to a 2003 survey had "mandatory arbitration in place". I assume this means that equity partners were bound by it through the partner agreement and that other employees were bound by it as a condition of employment, though it isn't specified in the article. One reason cited is that arbitration clauses may have a detrimental effect on the workplace. Said a partner with DLA Piper, "Your attorneys can perceive that you are materially changing their position vis-a-vis the firm and attempting to circumscribe the rights they might otherwise have."

I believe that statement holds true to any situation where arbitration exists, not just when applicable to law firms. Any other reason to not have them? The article paraphrased a partner in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig, writing "Arbitration [] no longer offers the benefits of a speedier, cheaper resolution, as proceedings have become bogged down in discovery and quasi-motion work that mirrors litigation."

If that is truly the case, then arbitration has a gloomy future indeed, and not just with law firms. I brought up the article to an attorney I know who defends clients in arbitration and he told me some of his concerns with it:

Arbitration has become very inefficient, with no control over evidence admission (ie, evidence can come in at any time);
The arbitrators do not have the same fear of appeal that judges do and thus are unafraid to ignore precedent;
The quality of arbitrators has declined.

This indicates some serious problems with the arbitation system for dispute resolution. As the attorney I spoke with said, "Our clients used arbitration to get away from runaway juries. Now they are going back to the courts to get away from runaway arbitrators".

We have begun taking submissions for the 2008 Law Firm Economic Survey. If your firm is interested in participating, please contact Brian by clicking here.

9 "Sure Bets For The Future" Attorneys Should Watch

Admin — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:00:20 GMT

Nothing in the future is certain, except taxes, death, and that the world will implode from global warming or some other threat that replaces it. That notwithstanding, Harvard Business Online is boldly proclaiming 9 "sure bets for the future":

1. The Almighty Dollar will share its throne with an Omnipotent Euro.
2. Some currently unregulated financial markets won’t stay that way.
3. Energy will cost a lot. All businesses will have to operate under some form of carbon constraint.
4. China’s and India’s share of world markets will grow. A group of 100-million-population countries, like Turkey and Mexico, will grow faster.
5. Spanish and Arabic will become more important business languages
6. Multiculturalism and multiracialism will reshape cultural identity in both the U.S. and Europe. The Plato-to-Nato story will no longer define America’s manifest destiny, if any.
7. Even as intellectual property becomes more valuable, IP rights will erode.
8. Creative business people will invent new frauds.
9. The aftershocks of the Internet Big Bang will continue. Media will converge. Prices will fall. Devices will proliferate. Profits will be redistributed more often than cards on boys’ night out.

Particularly important, if they come to fruition, are those "bets" dealing with regulation, energy costs, business languages, IP rights, and the deflation of the internet economy.

Regulations (typically poorly drafted whether intentionally or not) are treasure troves for litigation and thus opportunity;
Rising energy costs will impact profits, but again, will be opportunity for those who specialize in related areas of law;
Business languages will impact costs of doing business and what markets you target;
IP rights erosion will impact that area of law;
Technology deflation will benefit firms who invest in it.

Read more here: Nine Sure Bets For The Future

We have begun taking submissions for the 2008 Law Firm Economic Survey. If your firm is interested in participating, please contact Brian by clicking here.

A Full Time Law Firm CEO Comes First

Admin — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:04:19 GMT

Mark Beese, who hosts the blog Leadership for Lawyers, wrote “….mid-sized firms are hiring professional development directors to provide training and support to attorneys.” He based his remarks on an article appearing in the National Law Journal.

It is a good idea except for the chicken for the egg issue. Some midrange law firms appear to be compensating for their lack of a full time CEO or COO by adding a host of specialists to address under-managed areas in crisis. This proves the adage “it only cost a little more to go second class”. As a firm grows in size, it needs C level executives heading functional areas like Technology, Marketing, Training & Development, and other important functional areas. However, you can’t start there. First you need the head, then the arms and finally the legs.

Law firms would do well to make the first move to a full time CEO before going to the next level of management.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

NY Judge Laments "Economic Focus" of Law Practice

Admin — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:00:00 GMT

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog quotes New York federal judge Harold Baer in a post on November 30th, who in an opinion over a violation of a protective order, stepped out and decided to take the opportunity to voice his opinion on the state of the legal profession. Judge Baer particularly took issue with lawyers' "economic focus of the market place . . . infiltrat[ing] the practice of law, subordinating the high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism as a result."

He goes on:

"[P]artners are at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of bonuses but that these hours — or at least the ones that count — often exclude pro bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can throw a firm into turmoil and prompt internecine struggles, or that the bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently described as a business rather than a profession."

The judge certainly wouldn't like the news from San Francisco, where the firms Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin and Heller Erhman are trimming their support staffs due to economic concerns.

You can surmise that the point the judge is making relates to making the business more of a priority than the practice (ie, using your practice to shield a patent troll business). However, I can't help but wonder if the judge is lamenting the loss of the bartering system and the handshake agreement as legal tools for payment and contract as well. He suggests that a "focus on the marketplace" is incompatible with a professional practice. I believe the criticism is unwarranted.

I agree with the judge to the extent that the lack of focus on client needs over firm policies hurts the profession (ie, threatening to discontinue direct deposit if billable hours not recorded within time frame). Perhaps there are some firms who do not allow or encourage pro bono work, but the vast majority of firms actively provide free legal services and encourage it for their associates. However, a firm cannot base its financial model on providing free services. The judge assumes both are incompatible, as if running a firm like a business necessarily means that attorneys cede their status as professionals. Judge Baer all but states this in his quote, "[a] profession is not a business".

Does the judge think that law is the only profession? Does he assume doctors are not professionals because they choose not to work with an insurance company and thus limit the choice of patients, based on a (gasp) business decision that the insurance company is not favorable to the business needs of the doctor's practice?

Further, assuming that the "high standards of service, collegiality and professionalism" are subordinated solely based on things such as providing credit for bringing in new business, requiring that attorneys place a value on their work performed, and looking at revenue numbers makes the judge look antiquated and naïve.

By his quote that "[a] profession is not a business" judge Baer places a line in the sand in a way not so different than an owner of a steam locomotive might relative to the impracticalities of building a freeway system to support vehicles powered by internal combustion engines. If "economic focus" is truly his lament, there's a better way to make his point. Mark Herrmann, in his book The Curmudgeon's Guide to Practicing Law (ABA Publishing, 2006), addresses the associate who asks "They want me to bill a lot of hours, so why not?" To the curmudgeon, billing time is compared to an unwilling child taking piano lessons: if you are focusing on the time rather than the objective, then you may as well not participate in the activity at all.

If you do good work, you'll always have plenty to do; "billing hours" will be irrelevant. If you ever feel the need to bill long hours, then please find another law firm to employ you. Your only obligation at this firm is to pursue the client's cause; "billing hours" is not on the agenda. (Herrmann 14-15)

Attorneys who focus on the needs of the client realize that recording your time is a chore (a necessary chore) secondary to the act of practicing law. From a management standpoint, it is imperative that the habit of recording your time is automatic; from a practicing standpoint, it is the way to "approximate, however crudely, the value given to each client" and "know who is busy and who is available to work on new projects." (Herrmann 15)

For anyone who hasn't already read this book, I highly recommend it. Although I suspect that most attorneys who have have been in private practice for more than 10 years will already be familiar with its tenets. The judge doesn't qualify (although he does have a stellar career as a public servant) and that may explain the generalization.

It is the responsibility of the equity partners (ie, owners) to ensure that the firm survives and its non-equity attorneys and support staff are paid. That means making decisions to retain talent, reward marketing efforts, and pay attention to the firm's finances. Now, if the judge is advocating that law firms not be held to the same standards as other businesses (ie, no payroll taxes, benefit requirements, compliance with other federal and state employment laws, etc) then perhaps his criticism may have some merit.

Maybe we will see the judge make another manifesto in opinio, this time railing against the application of business requirements to law firms. Otherwise, the judge will appear as a curmudgeon of a different type than Herrmann chronicled: one who is ignorant of the realities of running a business, regardless of profession.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center
877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com .

Client Loyalty for the Attorney or the Firm?

Admin — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:35:00 GMT

Some time ago David Maister responded to an inquiry from a reader of his blog, Passion, People and Principles, who raised the question of Loyalty to Whom? How does a law firm secure the loyalty of its clients when, to the client, the face of the firm is the individual attorney?

Maister’s answer is unquestionably sound. The firm must add value to the relationship. If the firm as an institution has nothing to offer the client other than the role of the single or primary attorney, then it doesn’t deserve the loyalty of the client. Client loyalty defaults to the attorney.

Those commenting on Maister’s post did not all see this issue as a problem. This, I might add, is the natural position you would expect from the individual attorney who would like to own clients individually. For law firm leaders and managing partners, it is a strategic problem. Their role is preservation of the law firm as an institution. In the business incarnation of the legal profession, the individual attorney can earn more and accumulate greater wealth as an owner of a vibrant law firm that delivers value greater than the sum of its lawyers' efforts operating individually.

Therein lies the key, as Maister points out. The law firm has to deliver value, not merely assign lawyers to a matter or case. Delivering value over and beyond that of the assigned professionals is a key strategic issue. The drive to add value is at the heart of branding, positioning, proprietary technology, knowledge management, specialization, industry knowledge, the team approach in client relationships, cross selling, referral networks, extranets and other tactics for exhibiting and delivering organizational added value.

Without deliberate efforts (tactics) to add institutional value, clients become the portable property of the responsible attorney. The law firm become little more than shared office space and shared overhead.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Limited Law Firm Budget Produces a Winning Strategy

Admin — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:26:52 GMT

Ross Fishman is a smart marketing guy. I have mentioned him in several prior posts (for example, the posts Marketing 101 and Getting Agreement to Change).

Writing for the FrontLines section of the December issue of the Law Practice, Ross again demonstrates that there is magic in applied Marketing 101. Working with a 20-lawyer law firm in Salinas, California, Fishman turned a marketing problem into a winning business strategy. The problem was a limited marketing budget. Ross’ solution was to narrow the firm's marketing efforts to a single industry. In this case, the farming industry, which just happened to be the dominate industry for the area. All of the local law firms handled some agricultural clients, but no one had ever targeted the industry. With Fishman’s guidance, the Salina law firm did. Fishman turned a limited marketing budget into a winning business strategy—targeting a narrowly defined delimited market with a strategy to dominate it. For more on the benefits of such a strategy, see the prior post Importance of Market Position for Law Firms.

I don’t want to steal all of Fishman’s thunder. You can read the case study starting on page 8 of the December issue of Law Practice.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Secondments: A Sound Law Firm Tactic

Admin — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:37:00 GMT

The terms ‘secondment’ and ‘secondees’ aren’t used much in the U.S. Nor is the tactic (by whatever name) used often by midrange law firms. Secondees are usually young associates who for an intermediate term (several months to a year) are given over to clients as temporary additions to their in-house legal team. Internationally the practice is more common, especially in the U.K. It has expanded beyond secondment assignment just for young associations to include senior members of the law firm.

There are good reasons for the strategy. First and foremost is the relationship building aspect between the law firm and the client. Because secondees are usually provided at a bargain price, the client views the arrangement as the law firm making an investment in them. For midrange firms, a secondment strategy lowers the risk of adding to its legal team. Adding new associates is an expensive undertaking. The cost comes right out of partner profits and many experts believe that it takes as long as three years before the cash flow from the additional associate becomes positive. The smaller the firm, the greater the relative impact on existing law firm partners. Having an ongoing secondment program can help finance those additions.

The relationship with insiders that secondees develop during their tenure with the client will surely prove to be valuable in terms of retention and expansion of the business relationship between the client and the law firm. And the law firm builds a team with a far greater awareness of service quality concerns of all clients.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Managing Law Firm Professional Development

Admin — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:21:38 GMT

The move to hire a C level executive to oversee the professional development, is working its way down from the AmLaw 200 group to smaller law firms.

In morepartnerincome’s opinion, the biggest barrier to an effective professional development program is decentralized scheduling of legal work. Associates have no control over the work that is assigned to them. Partners tend to assign work to their favorites, which causes associates to find themselves in a rut doing reparative-style work. An associate reads the absence of professional development considerations in case assignments as a lack of interest in them. As associates start to feel short-changed, the grass begins to look greener elsewhere. Until law firms have someone with the power to counter the preferences of supervising partners, the associate disappointment over professional development will continue to drive associates away. Accordingly to NALP, 80% of associates have left their original firm by their fifth year in practice.

At the same time that firms are beginning to face up to the retention issue many are also dealing with aging baby boomers. Why not combine these two management issues? Many firms have retirement age partners who would like to remain actively engaged but without the demanding work schedule of handling client responsibility. Many are willing to do so for same or less than what the law firm would have to pay to hire an outside professional development director. Combining the two could be a perfect match.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Marcus Speaks Out On Mandatory Retirement for Lawyers

Admin — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:01:00 GMT

Bruce Marcus lays out the case the ABA overlooked in addressing the issue of mandatory retirement. The ABA delegates voted to encourage firms to discontinue the practice, but as Marcus notes, ” …they came up with the lesser solution to the greater problem, which, is, I think, the question of judging a lawyer’s capabilities by his or her age, rather than by capability.”

He then proves his case that older can be (and often is) better. As he puts it, “A stupid lawyer at 30 will be a stupid lawyer at 80. A smart lawyer at 30 will be a smarter one at 80 (which, I’ve been told, is the new 39).”

Being on the other side of 65, I agree with Marcus regarding prospects of improving with age, but there is more than just competence at state here that lead one to ask, if not mandatory retirement, then what?"

Mandatory retirement has been crutch, a mechanism, for achieving the transfer of control and earning from one generation to the next. That transfer has to happen. As I often say, you will eventually leave. The question is, do you walk out, run out or get carried out?

There are two recurring problems, other than professional competence, related to the retirement issue that have to be addressed successfully if a law firm is to have a life of its own. The first problem is the founding or senior partner who is reluctant to give up power and control as the risk grows that illness, disability or death will leave the law firm headless. The second problem has to do with disproportionate compensation. It is a frequent problem. Many maturing partners shift their priorities in their life. They began to devote more time to leisure activities and non-firm activities. The problem isn’t with the diminishing work load. The problem arises as the compensation they are pulling out of the firm becomes disproportionate to the aging partner’s continuing contribution.

No question about it, law firms benefit from retaining their most senior talent—they are often the best rainmaker and there will never be a substitute for experience. But the peaceful coexistence of generations requires an orderly transfer of power and earnings. For midrange law firms, the lack of continuity planning, of which mandatory or voluntary retirement plans are a part, puts survival of the firm at risk and the disproportionate distribution of income usually leads to a revolt or splintering of the law firm.

Bruce W. Marcus is an author, consultant, and pundit for professional services marketing. In addition to his books and articles, he shares his insight and wisdom through his blog, THE MARCUS PERSPECTIVE. His 424-word essay on the ABA mandatory retirement resolution is titled They Labored Like Lions and Produced a Mouse.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Spinning Increases Law Firm Income

Admin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:24:00 GMT

Allison Wolf’s post, the fine art of delegation, is an insightful interview with Adam Pekarsky about the influence of leverage and delegation on partner income. “Spin” is the term Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP uses for work ones pushes down in the organization.

According to Wolf, Pekarsky put it this way: “If partners don’t delegate the lower level work then it’s like driving a formula one race car around a Safeway parking lot.”

Too many law firm partners hoard work to the detriment of long term growth in per-partner income. Wolf makes it clear:

A lawyer who spins down the work keeps the most interesting, highly paid work for his/herself.

The lawyer who spins doesn’t have to write down bills and gets paid at a higher rate.

Another clear message is that partner compensation should emphasize the sum of partner production and spin.

I would expand on Wolf’s message by adding that a firm’s compensation plan is often the reason Why Partners Hoard Work. That, in turn, leads to poor leverage, underutilization of associates and high turnover.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

If Not Mandatory Retirement for Law Firm Partners, Then What?

Admin — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:33:56 GMT

On August 15, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates voted to encourage law firms to abandon mandatory retirement policies. The resolution traveled under two flags, the anti- age discrimination flag and the “graying of the bar” flag.

With regard to the discrimination issue, Law.Com noted that “The issue of mandatory retirement has received particular attention because of a lawsuit pending against Sidley Austin. Law firms are anticipating a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago in an action filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of about 30 former partners against Sidley Austin over whether its alleged retirement policy violated age discrimination laws.”

My guess is that this issue’s place on the agenda is due to the increased number of delegates and partners in general that are nearing mandatory retirement age.

From the standpoint of midrange size law firms, the big issue is continuity. For midrange law firms to have a life beyond that of their current partners, there must be an orderly hand-off from one generation to the other. Mandatory retirement is one method of forcing that hand-off. It isn’t necessarily the best, but those in power are often reluctant to give it up.

In an earlier post titled Continuity or How Law Firms Acquire a Life of Their Own, I suggested alternative strategies assuring the hand-off between generations. Without an orderly handoff a law firm fades away or just survives for at least one more generation through an ugly or quiet revolution. We old guys leave one way or another. It needs to be through a win/win arrangement. Continuity planning is most important to the entrenched partners. Without planning for the handoff to the next generation, it is the entrenched partners and their heirs who lose the value of the legal service business they built (or improved) during their tenure.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Who Says Associates Are Miserable?

Admin — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:40:00 GMT

Not the American Lawyer, at least not the publication’s August 2007 issue reporting on the most recent survey conducted by the National Association for Law Placement.

After reading so many stories about the burnout demands being placed on associates, I was as surprised as you probably will be with the survey’s finding that associate job satisfaction was 3.81 on a five-point scale. Of course, the key here is that the survey does not focus exclusively on the AmLaw 200 group or the high-pressure firms in cities like New York, so it is a good dose of reality with respect to the law firm community at large.

There are, however, certain realities confronting law firms. Most associates entering the practice do not plan on spending their lives in private practice. Only 22.9 percent anticipate remaining in their firm for five years and only about 12 percent expect to become partners in the current firm. Another striking statistic is that in half the cases, the law firms appear happy to see the departing associates move on.

Is this really that bad? One of the great things about earning a law degree and passing the bar is that you are immediately a lawyer. You don’t have to spend years working your way up the organizational ladder to become a professional. That law degree and the time spent in the profession are a spring board for many law school graduates to enter the business world. It isn’t all bad for the law firm. Smart law firms can take advantage of their relationship with alumni to build and retain business. Granted, law firms also lose associates to lateral hires. Likewise, some associates leave to create their own law firm. But even that doesn’t have to be adversarial. Law firms refer business and the law firm that cultivates its alumni relations can be on the winning side of those referrals.

Yes, law firms can look for ways to reduce turnover. They can improve their selection process. But in large measure, law firms have to accept the fact that not all associates plan to make a career of it. Laws firms need practices in place to make the best of that reality.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.

Lawyer Mothers

Admin — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:25:41 GMT

The August 2007 California Lawyer included a lengthy article titled “Mothers {IN LAW}” by Laura McClure that carried the subtitle A new generation of women is changing the way law firms operate.

Whenever I write about this subject, I get e-mail reminding me that the work/life balance dilemma is not a gender issue. When I mention the demand of child rearing, I am reminded that some men now take on that role. Nevertheless, the importance of this issue has grown with the increase of women in the talent pool. And regardless of the exceptions, the role of child rearing still falls predominantely on mothers both married and single.

Why is the issue so important for law firm leaders? It is simple: 50 percent or more of the new lawyers are women. Somehow, some way, law firms have to discover how to become a friendlier place for mothers. I do believe that the most profound quote in the article was that of Jennifer Altfeld Landau, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Sidley Austin. She said, “Of course it’s possible to have it all. The secret is that you can’t have it all, all of the time….”

We are driven by our personal “goals” and motherhood is on the list, along with other goals, for the majority of women professionals. Within any business, each member of the team has a “role” to play. There is a relationship between a person’s goals and the role they are expected to perform. An organization cannot expect people to successfully perform in roles that do not match their goals—you can’t motivate people to succeed in roles inconsistent with their goals without conflict. Likewise, our goals as individuals may not be achievable unless our role in the business is changed. Roles and goals must be in harmony.

That harmony between the motherhood goal and the role expected of mothers in the work force is what is missing in most law firms today. To accommodate talented and contributing individuals, management must be willing to vary the “roles”, the “organizational expectations”, available to individuals. It means that “work flexibility” has to be accompanied by “role flexibility.” To provide work hour and workplace flexibility without a matching “role” is simply a recipe for failure. It does not mean that the role they can play is any less important or that it is not an important role in the enterprise’s pursuit of its objectives.

Carving out a compatible “role” is going to be hard for many firms especially midrange firms. Those that do can tap a highly capable segment of the talent pool. Those that don’t succeed at carving out such roles will be at a disadvantage when it comes to recruiting young female associates. For many midrange firms, their best opportunity for tapping this important segment of the talent pool is to be an inviting and attractive place for full-time reentry into the profession as the demands of child rearing diminish with time.

Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris®. For information about Juris products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income contact Juris National Sales Center:

877/377-3740, e-mail info@juris.com or go to www.Juris.com.