Page 158 - MASTER COPY LEADERS BOOK 9editedJKK (24)_Neat
P. 158
Leaders in Legal Business
very profitable, no hierarchy, easy to handle. This system has two core attributes: peer group transparency
and peer group pressure. Without this, a partnership is not a partnership; it will then be more of a Barrister’s
chambers (by means of the U.K. system of independent barristers sharing offices and infrastructures) rather
than a partnership.
Obviously, the partnership model has lost its supporters. Both Stephen Mayson and Laura Empson
have predicted the extinction of this model — quite rightly, from their point of view: As long as partners
do not share a common vision and common strategic goals, they remain in a status of an rather unorganized
group of sole practitioners, with no long term future. A recently published book, “Good Governance in Law
Firms,” dealt with all sort of governance systems in law firms, describing why the “old” partnership model
has no chance in today’s environment.4 We tend to disagree: The partnership model is useful but not always
applicable, and the weaknesses of this model are connected to improper handling of the model rather than
the model itself.
Why should this model no longer work in law firms? Actually, it does work; look at the premium
segment of legal markets. For these law firms with, say, up to 100 partners, the traditional partnership model
is the only conceivable structure.
What about the law factories? Law firms with offices all over the world are more like a corporation
and should structure themselves accordingly. While traditional partnerships do not need anything like
genuine management, law factories can’t do without. This has consequences for those who are called
“partners”: no veto rights and no right to deviate from the firm’s strategy. It is not a majority versus a
minority of partners; it requires partners to put the firm’s interests over and above their own personal
interests.
Finally, the business of law firms, be it a traditional partnership or a law factory, has nothing to do
with partnership models: The firm’s IT, HR, marketing, and other service departments have to be organized
and managed like a corporation, even in traditional partnerships.
And this is it for John Doe. Three simple topics to focus upon: market position, client focus, and
structure. This should be the starting point for the firm’s plan to make sure the firm is still there in three
years.
4 Norman Clark, Good Governance in Law Firms, GLOBE LAW AND BUSINESS, 2014.
151
very profitable, no hierarchy, easy to handle. This system has two core attributes: peer group transparency
and peer group pressure. Without this, a partnership is not a partnership; it will then be more of a Barrister’s
chambers (by means of the U.K. system of independent barristers sharing offices and infrastructures) rather
than a partnership.
Obviously, the partnership model has lost its supporters. Both Stephen Mayson and Laura Empson
have predicted the extinction of this model — quite rightly, from their point of view: As long as partners
do not share a common vision and common strategic goals, they remain in a status of an rather unorganized
group of sole practitioners, with no long term future. A recently published book, “Good Governance in Law
Firms,” dealt with all sort of governance systems in law firms, describing why the “old” partnership model
has no chance in today’s environment.4 We tend to disagree: The partnership model is useful but not always
applicable, and the weaknesses of this model are connected to improper handling of the model rather than
the model itself.
Why should this model no longer work in law firms? Actually, it does work; look at the premium
segment of legal markets. For these law firms with, say, up to 100 partners, the traditional partnership model
is the only conceivable structure.
What about the law factories? Law firms with offices all over the world are more like a corporation
and should structure themselves accordingly. While traditional partnerships do not need anything like
genuine management, law factories can’t do without. This has consequences for those who are called
“partners”: no veto rights and no right to deviate from the firm’s strategy. It is not a majority versus a
minority of partners; it requires partners to put the firm’s interests over and above their own personal
interests.
Finally, the business of law firms, be it a traditional partnership or a law factory, has nothing to do
with partnership models: The firm’s IT, HR, marketing, and other service departments have to be organized
and managed like a corporation, even in traditional partnerships.
And this is it for John Doe. Three simple topics to focus upon: market position, client focus, and
structure. This should be the starting point for the firm’s plan to make sure the firm is still there in three
years.
4 Norman Clark, Good Governance in Law Firms, GLOBE LAW AND BUSINESS, 2014.
151
