Page 239 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (n)
P. 239
Part of this exercise is innovation, by means of product innovation (which is what we know
as creativity) and service innovation. We all love to receive better service, day by day. Clients do,
too. The client’s increasing expertise, coupled with the new service offerings of the alternative
legal service providers, means that John Doe’s focus on client service must target the what and
how of service delivery: which services (legal and non-legal) does the client want to buy, and how
does the client want to receive them.
Regarding product and service innovation, many articles and books have been written on
these issues. There are so many ideas out there to better your client service in order to put yourself
ahead of your competitors. Just go out and start doing it.15 The only stumbling block for John Doe
is persuading his partners to invest in this new buzzword…
Alignment of Partners
It is odd, but whatever type of firm we talk to, they all claim to have and maintain a
partnership structure.
Even those firms that have up to 1,000 partners (who don’t know one another and who
need name tags at their partner meetings in order to differentiate themselves from the service
personnel) hold themselves out as partnerships. We are afraid this is an endless source of
misunderstandings and causes strategic, structural, and cultural mishmashes.
What do we mean by “the partnership model”? It is something very simple: two or more
people joining forces to pursue common goals with a view to achieving profit. That’s it. Very
successful structure, 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. In 2012, Stephen Mayson16
predicted the extinction of this model — quite rightly, from his point of view: As long as partners
do not share a common vision and common strategic goals, they remain in a status of a rather
unorganized group of sole practitioners, with no long-term future. Jonathan Molot’s paper,
“What’s Wrong with Law Firms,”17 is the last nail in the coffin for the partnership model: The
“short-term” nature of the partnership model stifles much needed long-term investment and will
eventually lead to its demise.
But these conclusions must be nuanced: The partnership model is useful but not always
applicable, and the weaknesses of this model are more often connected to the improper handling
of the model rather than to the model itself. Laura Empson’s recent and extensive research into
leadership in professional service firms18 confirms that despite being “smart” people, professionals
often don’t lead in the way we expect them to. The senior partner of one of the world’s leading
law firms is reported as saying that “leadership just sort of happens” — not quite what one would
expect from a successful partner.
Despite its drawbacks, the partnership model remains, according to Empson, the optimal
legal form of governance for reconciling competing interests. We would hesitantly agree with her,
15 See, e.g., Markus Hartung & Arne Gaertner, From Idea to Action, MANAGING PARTNER MAG. (Sep. 2013).
16 Stephen Mayson, Law Firm Partnership: The Grand Delusion, AN INDEPENDENT MIND (Oct. 9, 2012),
https://stephenmayson.com/2012/10/09/law-firm-partnership-the-grand-delusion/.
17 Jonathan Molot, What’s Wrong with Law Firms? A Corporate Finance Solution to Law Firm Short-Termism, 88 S. CAL. L. REV. 1 (2014).
18 See Laura Empson’s extensive research into leadership in professional organizations: LEADING PROFESSIONALS: POWER, POLITICS AND PRIMA
DONNAS (Oxford University Press, 2017).
224
as creativity) and service innovation. We all love to receive better service, day by day. Clients do,
too. The client’s increasing expertise, coupled with the new service offerings of the alternative
legal service providers, means that John Doe’s focus on client service must target the what and
how of service delivery: which services (legal and non-legal) does the client want to buy, and how
does the client want to receive them.
Regarding product and service innovation, many articles and books have been written on
these issues. There are so many ideas out there to better your client service in order to put yourself
ahead of your competitors. Just go out and start doing it.15 The only stumbling block for John Doe
is persuading his partners to invest in this new buzzword…
Alignment of Partners
It is odd, but whatever type of firm we talk to, they all claim to have and maintain a
partnership structure.
Even those firms that have up to 1,000 partners (who don’t know one another and who
need name tags at their partner meetings in order to differentiate themselves from the service
personnel) hold themselves out as partnerships. We are afraid this is an endless source of
misunderstandings and causes strategic, structural, and cultural mishmashes.
What do we mean by “the partnership model”? It is something very simple: two or more
people joining forces to pursue common goals with a view to achieving profit. That’s it. Very
successful structure, 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. In 2012, Stephen Mayson16
predicted the extinction of this model — quite rightly, from his point of view: As long as partners
do not share a common vision and common strategic goals, they remain in a status of a rather
unorganized group of sole practitioners, with no long-term future. Jonathan Molot’s paper,
“What’s Wrong with Law Firms,”17 is the last nail in the coffin for the partnership model: The
“short-term” nature of the partnership model stifles much needed long-term investment and will
eventually lead to its demise.
But these conclusions must be nuanced: The partnership model is useful but not always
applicable, and the weaknesses of this model are more often connected to the improper handling
of the model rather than to the model itself. Laura Empson’s recent and extensive research into
leadership in professional service firms18 confirms that despite being “smart” people, professionals
often don’t lead in the way we expect them to. The senior partner of one of the world’s leading
law firms is reported as saying that “leadership just sort of happens” — not quite what one would
expect from a successful partner.
Despite its drawbacks, the partnership model remains, according to Empson, the optimal
legal form of governance for reconciling competing interests. We would hesitantly agree with her,
15 See, e.g., Markus Hartung & Arne Gaertner, From Idea to Action, MANAGING PARTNER MAG. (Sep. 2013).
16 Stephen Mayson, Law Firm Partnership: The Grand Delusion, AN INDEPENDENT MIND (Oct. 9, 2012),
https://stephenmayson.com/2012/10/09/law-firm-partnership-the-grand-delusion/.
17 Jonathan Molot, What’s Wrong with Law Firms? A Corporate Finance Solution to Law Firm Short-Termism, 88 S. CAL. L. REV. 1 (2014).
18 See Laura Empson’s extensive research into leadership in professional organizations: LEADING PROFESSIONALS: POWER, POLITICS AND PRIMA
DONNAS (Oxford University Press, 2017).
224
