The long-awaited results (speaking for myself, at least) of the famous
first-ever "Adam Smith, Esq." Reader Survey are now in, and
I hasten to share them with you, dear reader, as audience participation
was extremely strong, and gratifying. My version of Excel
had steam coming out of its ears over the long weekend, but the results
have now been thoroughly sliced, diced, and charted, if not yet pivot-tabled.
Are
the results reliable or accurate? My crack panel of market research
experts (that would be Janet) advises that, if the question is whether
the responses are likely to constitute a representative cross-section
of the actual readership of "Adam Smith, Esq.," the answer in all likelihood
is yes—it should be accurate.
Why? First, the absolute
number of responses was gratifyingly high. My stats server
reports that lately the site has been enjoying about
50,000 visitors per month (this means hundreds and hundreds of thousands
of "hits," a different measure), and while the survey
scarcely got that many "visitors" (for one thing, you can visit here
more than once a day but the survey locks you out, other than to make
changes, once you’ve responded), it got a more-than-decent response.
Second, it was up for a month and thus exposed to a random cross-section
of visitors. Finally, and most importantly from a "research design"
perspective, there is no plausible reason to think those willing to
respond have a different profile than those who didn’t.
So, without further
ado:
Question #1: Who You Are
I’m pleased at the high proportion of people living and
working in law firms, as it is to the enhancement and enlightenment of
their world that this site is, when all is said and done, devoted. And
among "other," what roles were specified?
- precisely 25% of all "other" are legal industry consultants;
- we have a more than respectable smattering of CIO’s, heads of knowledge
management, headhunters, judges, and law professors (not so many law
students, evidently—perhaps
the issues we cover seem remote to them?); - along with the self-deprecating sprinkling of "interested reader–not
a lawyer," "just interested," and "just a private (so-called) citizen,"
and finally my very favorite; - "ESQ Wife." (Please do not be desperate, ma’am.)
Question #2: Where You Are
So about 77% are here in the USA and, according to my site-stats
server, if you can believe IP addresses you’re concentrated in the Northeast
and California. With respect to those in "Asia" who were asked
to specify where they are, the top answers were:
- India
- Korea
- Phillipines, and again my very very favorite (maybe even better than
"ESQ Wife"): - Kyrgyzstan (!)
Question #3: If You’re in a Law Firm, It Is
Again, I’m gratified to see that what I view a my day to
day core target audience—the AmLaw 200 and firms of similar size
abroad—is
well represented. And lest those of you in regional or single-office
firms, or even solo’s, feel left out, please be assured that I try to
cover issues such as leadership, strategy, and cultural considerations
that cut across all sizes and shapes of firm. What about "Not in
the US?":
- About 20% of this segment is each in the UK [top
20 UK firms well represented], Canada, Australia/New Zealand, and India. - The remainder are simply far-flung including Chile and the broadband-friendly
Finland and Norway.
Question #4: How Do You Read "Adam Smith, Esq."?
So I credit you for candor–"purely by chance," while trailing
all other choices, makes a non-trivial showing. I don’t know why,
but my intuition going in would have guessed RSS feed penetration would
be higher. The good news here is you seem by and large to be loyal. Thank
you! Sincerely.
Question #5: What You Wish I Would Write
More About
No pie charts on this open-ended question, which 31.7%
of you actually took the time to respond to. Some of the highlights/themes
that emerged from this "visitor request" opportunity, in no particular
order other than that all were mentioned more than a few times:
- technology, especially as it impacts the economics of the practice
of law; and [the lack of] technology training - the differences between US and UK/European firms
- leadership and cultural issues, including lateral recruitment and
entry-level associate hiring, development, and retention - flaws of the billable hour system and alternative billing in general
- knowledge management–"what else!"
- along with a truly gratifying number along the lines of "n/a, doing
good," "keep it varied," carry on–you’re doing fine," "is just right,"
and the blushworthy "anything you want – you have great insights."
But I would be remiss not to leave you with our champion in this category,
which wins going away:
- "tax law and how to smuggle money out of the country."
Question #6: What You Wish I Would Write Less About
30.4% of you responded here, and of those responses 40% were to the
effect of "nothing," including a generous reader who volunteered "I cannot
think of a thing you shouldn’t write about ;-)"
Of the 60% who had a recommendation, many duplicated issues that (I
hope!) others had cited under #5, including technology, KM, alternative
billing, and leadership issues. Much as I try to be responsive,
dear readers, this presents a difficulty; I think I shall probably continue
to try to keep the content varied, although I will take your collective
counsel reflected under #5 to heart.
Do we have a winner in this category? Indeed we do—a reader
who, having seen "Adam Smith, Esq." branded in the banner as "…an inquiry
into the economics of law firms," requests that I spend less time on:
- "law firm economics."
Question #7: The Most Pressing/Frustrating Legal Business
Issue Facing You/Your Firm
44.6% of you responded to this, indicating perhaps a distressing degree
of pain. Interestingly, the single most oft-cited problem issue
can be reduced to one word: Management. Although
it was expressed in different ways from various perspectives, some of
the representative comments here included: "work overload [because
of] lack of efficient management;" "total hands-off management style
that causes chaos for associates and paralegals;" "lawyers who are managers
thinking they can direct people;" lawyer managers finding/using time
to actually do the management part of their job;" "poor quality of life
for associates/poor management by partners;" "indecisiveness/inaction;"
and finally, one that constitutes perhaps the cardinal sin, entitling
the offender to immediate admission to Dante’s innermost circle of Hell: "lack
of vision from the top."
A strong theme also emerged centered on the difficulty of achieving
cultural change. "Figuring out how to shepard
[sic] change in the legal profession" expressed it most clearly, but
it also arose in what might be called the obverse, such as: "The
complete inability of old school lawyers (who constitute 95% of all decision
makers) to grasp technology-related issues as it relates to litigation. It
is debilitating!"
A group of ever-present issues also made a strong showing here, including:
- marketing and business development;
- work/life balance, the relentless pressure to amass billable hours,
and the haziness of padding and client expectations; and - profitability in general, usually expressed as a desire for more
revenue or, as one pithily put it, less "COST."
Interestingly, certainly to me, was that knowledge
management came up
repeatedly. It sounds as though firms know they need it.
But the most intriguing by far speaks to tectonic changes that may be
taking place in the structure of the industry at large: A surprising
number of respondents worried about the consolidation
trend among law
firms, expressed variously as:
- "Uncertainty as to the future for mid-size (AmLaw 200 but not 100)
firms, especially outside NY;" - "[being] national, specialized and staying profitable and independent;"
- "staying competitive without having to bulk up in size like everyone
else;" - "growth (industry consolidation);"
- "how to respond to globalization;" and lastly, a comment evidently
from the UK about client-generated pressures in the brave new world
of "panels" and "preferred providers:" - "variable growth as a result of increasing tenders; you are either
on the panel with lots of work (and needing to quickly hire staff),
or suddenly off the panel with corresponding overstaffing."
All in all, a basket full of serious, thorny, deeply challenging issues. I
humbly give you all enormous credit.
The final question, asking for the "unvarnished truth" in terms of other
editorial comments/suggestions/critiques, I will save for a separate
post. Stay tuned.
