Page 39 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (q)
P. 39
eventually end up with opportunities or challenges that neither their usual external informal
networks nor the internal management team can solve. These issues usually have one or more of
the following attributes:
The topic is too big: The expertise within the management firm simply isn’t broad or deep
enough to resolve the topic. For example, the management team knows that knowledge
management is an ineffective way to drive down costs, and the practice heads and management
team have done all they can do within their level of expertise. Consulting firms that are subject
matter experts in a given area can fill in the missing expertise.
The topic is too politically sensitive: The expertise may or may not exist within the firm,
but too many of the partners involved in developing a solution either can’t sufficiently separate
their own interests from those of the firm or will be perceived by their other partners as having an
axe to grind. For instance, changes to how partners are remunerated or how their performance is
measured and assessed often falls into this category. This requires consulting firms that not only
have the subject matter expertise, but are also experts in stakeholder management and process
design. This leads to designing partner involvement interventions that achieve a resolution passing
the required voting threshold.
The topic is too important to handle in-house: The expertise may exist, and the topic
may not be all that controversial, but the risk of getting it wrong is so great that external validation
helps weld partners to a decision that they will comfortably implement. For example, a firm has
been approached by a larger firm that seems like the ideal merger partner, the financials look good
— but there is lingering doubt about whether the combined platform really will increase profits or
whether the partners of both firms really are as culturally — behaviorally — compatible as the
initial meetings and cocktails suggest.
There are too many topics: The management team knows there are many facets to a single
challenge or too many opportunities to pursue. For example, the firm has experienced sliding
margins for the last five years, its market is contracting, and prices (rates and structure) are under
increasing pressure. Do we have a profile problem, a business development problem, a pricing
problem, a problem with our culture that our partners don’t sell enough, a cost problem, a people
problem, a partner underperformance problem, some of the above, or all of the above? This
scenario requires less of a deep subject matter expert, but rather a business consulting team that
understands how law firms work, with an analysis methodology that achieves a hard diagnosis,
and helps management break down and prioritize the challenge.
Management capacity is too limited: Sometimes the challenge and the path to resolving
that challenge are both clear, but the firm simply doesn’t have a sufficient number of bodies to
carry out the actions required. Depending on the nature of the challenge, a consulting firm can
serve as a stopgap by seconding one or more consultants to turn the situation around and to then
hire someone to be employed by the firm.
24
networks nor the internal management team can solve. These issues usually have one or more of
the following attributes:
The topic is too big: The expertise within the management firm simply isn’t broad or deep
enough to resolve the topic. For example, the management team knows that knowledge
management is an ineffective way to drive down costs, and the practice heads and management
team have done all they can do within their level of expertise. Consulting firms that are subject
matter experts in a given area can fill in the missing expertise.
The topic is too politically sensitive: The expertise may or may not exist within the firm,
but too many of the partners involved in developing a solution either can’t sufficiently separate
their own interests from those of the firm or will be perceived by their other partners as having an
axe to grind. For instance, changes to how partners are remunerated or how their performance is
measured and assessed often falls into this category. This requires consulting firms that not only
have the subject matter expertise, but are also experts in stakeholder management and process
design. This leads to designing partner involvement interventions that achieve a resolution passing
the required voting threshold.
The topic is too important to handle in-house: The expertise may exist, and the topic
may not be all that controversial, but the risk of getting it wrong is so great that external validation
helps weld partners to a decision that they will comfortably implement. For example, a firm has
been approached by a larger firm that seems like the ideal merger partner, the financials look good
— but there is lingering doubt about whether the combined platform really will increase profits or
whether the partners of both firms really are as culturally — behaviorally — compatible as the
initial meetings and cocktails suggest.
There are too many topics: The management team knows there are many facets to a single
challenge or too many opportunities to pursue. For example, the firm has experienced sliding
margins for the last five years, its market is contracting, and prices (rates and structure) are under
increasing pressure. Do we have a profile problem, a business development problem, a pricing
problem, a problem with our culture that our partners don’t sell enough, a cost problem, a people
problem, a partner underperformance problem, some of the above, or all of the above? This
scenario requires less of a deep subject matter expert, but rather a business consulting team that
understands how law firms work, with an analysis methodology that achieves a hard diagnosis,
and helps management break down and prioritize the challenge.
Management capacity is too limited: Sometimes the challenge and the path to resolving
that challenge are both clear, but the firm simply doesn’t have a sufficient number of bodies to
carry out the actions required. Depending on the nature of the challenge, a consulting firm can
serve as a stopgap by seconding one or more consultants to turn the situation around and to then
hire someone to be employed by the firm.
24
