I’m back from the two-day "Future of the Global Law Firm" symposium at Georgetown Law School, which was organized by Prof. Mitt Regan of Georgetown, Prof. Larry Ribstein of the University of Illinois, and myself. You may read other coverage of this elsewhere, as in attendance were Aric Press of The American Lawyer, Leigh Jones of The National Law Journal, David Lat of AboveTheLaw, and other reporters.
But herewith the "Adam Smith, Esq." report:
We had about 130 attendees, roughly one-quarter academics and legal scholars and three-quarters practitioners and senior law firm leaders, from the US, the UK, Canada, and Australia. Seven panels over the course of Thursday and Friday through lunch tackled:
- The emerging dynamics of global competition.
- Ownership and capital structure, including the possibility and the desirability of outside (that is, non-lawyer) investment in law firms.
- Ethics and professional values.
- Perspectives from corporate law and finance.
- Organizational and cultural dynamics, and
- Lessons from other professional service firms.
Among those attending were:
- Ralph Baxter, CEO of Orrick, who delivered the keynote Friday morning
- Ted Burke, CEO of Freshfields, who delivered the keynote Thursday morning
- Stuart Popham, senior partner of Clifford Chance, who spoke after dinner on Thursday
- Practitioner/panelists included:
- Richard L. Weisman, Partner;former Managing Partner, China offices, Baker &
McKenzie - Mark Kirsch, Chair of Global Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Clifford Chance
- Stephen Denyer, International Development Partner, Allen & Overy
- Andrew Grech, Managing Director, Slater & Gordon
- Steven Mark, Legal Services Commissioner, New South Wales, Australia
- Osama Rahman, Ministry of Justice, United Kingdom
- Yours Truly
- Anthony Davis, Lawyers for the Profession Practice Group, Hinshaw & CulbertsonLLP
- Steven Krane, Chair, Law Firm Practice Group, Proskauer Rose;Chair, American Bar
Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility - JeffreyHaidet, Chairman, McKenna Long & Aldridge
- William Perlstein, Co-Managing Partner, WilmerHale
- Lee Miller, Joint Chief Executive Officer, DLA Piper
- James Jones, Senior Vice-President, Hildebrandt International
- Christopher Simmons, Managing Partner, Washington Metro Market,
PricewaterhouseCoopers - Ward Bower, Principal, Altman Weil, Inc.
- Richard L. Weisman, Partner;former Managing Partner, China offices, Baker &
- Academics who presented papers included:
- Peter Sherer, Professor, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Predicting
the Future of Large US Corporate Law Firms: AmLaw 2025 - Stephen Mayson, Professor, Legal Services Policy Institute, College of Law of England
and Wales, London, Global Law Firms: A Strategy Looking for a Market? - Laurel Terry, Professor, Penn State Dickinson School of Law, The EU’s Professional
Services Competition Initiative: Is the EU Very Far Behind Australia and the UK With
Respect to Publicly Traded Law Firms? - Christine Parker, Professor, University of Melbourne Law School, Australia, Peering
Over the Ethical Precipice: Incorporation, Listing, and the Ethical Responsibilities of
Law Firms - Elizabeth Chambliss, Professor, New York Law School, Law Firm General Counsel: The
Paradox of Institutional Success? - John Flood, Professor, University of Westminster School of Law, Future Directions in
the UK Legal Profession: Life After the Legal Services Act 2007 - Larry Ribstein, Professor, University of Illinois School of Law, The Law Firm as Firm
- Gordon Smith, Professor, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University,
Form, Function, and Fiduciary Law - Timothy Morris, Professor and Director, Clifford Chance Centre for the Management of
Professional Service Firms, Said Business School, University of Oxford, Navigating the
Process of Innovation in Professional Service Firms - William Henderson, Professor, Indiana University School of Law, Are We Selling Results
or Resumes? The Underexplored Linkage Between Human Resource Strategies and
Firm-Specific Capital - Andrew von Nordenflycht, Professor, Segal Graduate School of Business, Simon Fraser
University, The Demise of Professional Partnership? The Emergence and Diffusion of
Publicly-Traded Professional Service Firms - Roy Suddaby, Professor, University of Alberta, School of Business, Post-
Professionalism: How Multidisciplinary Accounting Firms are Reshaping Professional
Institutions
- Peter Sherer, Professor, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Predicting
If I were rationed to just one word to encapsulate the conference’s theme, it would be: Change.
Lawyers are notoriously poor at coping with change: Indeed, recent psychological research indicates that change is not just hard, but actually causes physical and mental discomfort. (One managing partner recounted being faced with a near insurrection among half a dozen partners when he had the temerity to relocate their Washington, DC office by all of one short city block. I must confess that that may set a new bar for resistance to change.)
Yet change is in our futures, like it or not. More than once the observation was made that from the invention of the Cravath System around the turn of the 20th Century through about 1985, the profession looked remarkably stable, but that the last 20 years have seen revolutionary changes and the next decade promises further departures at least as radical as those we’ve just experienced.
Among the overall trends driving change are
- Segmentatation, meaning the increasing gap between firms able to win the highest-level, most complex work for the most demanding (and price-insensitive) clients, and other firms forced to compete on the basis of price and increasingly high client expectations for service quality, responsiveness, and consistency. Once price becomes a material part of a client’s selection criteria, unfortunately, firms have put one foot on an escalator that goes in only one direction. And segmentation is driving the evolution of our industry not just at the top, in AmLaw 25 land, but at every level of the industry, including regional firms, boutiques, and even "the 22 lawyer firm in Vienna, Virginia."
- Globalization. It’s no longer the exceptional corporation that has substantial business abroad, it’s the exceptional corporation that doesn’t. This trend is not going to reverse or decelerate. 20 years ago the percentage of lawyers working at NLJ 250 firms who were in overseas offices was just a few percent. Today it’s nearly 17% and grew 11% in just the last year alone.
- Consolidation. 20 years ago the AmLaw 50 accounted for about 6% of all private, for-profit law firm revenue in the US. Today they capture over 25% of that revenue.
Other themes?
Scarcely a panelist failed to mention—or concentrate on—the "war for talent" and the challenges posed to the traditional law firm career ladder by Gen Y. (Yes, the usual caveats were added about how it can be misleading to generalize about an age cohort, since individual differences always outweigh broad demographic brush-strokes, but the point is universally acknowledged nevertheless.)
A particularly painful reality on this landscape is that, for about the past 30 years, essentially 50% of law school graduates have been women, yet throughout most of that time span, the number of female partners in the AmLaw 100 has hovered at a fairly constant 15-18%. Finally, I believe, firms are going to face up to the reality that they need to take fresh approaches to the dilemma created by the fact that the prime child-bearing and family-starting years happen to coincide quite nicely with the path-to-partnership tournament years. Proposals for innovative "off-ramp" and "on-ramp" programs were floated, some potentially in conjunction with forward-looking law schools (like Georgetown) to "de-couple" those time frames.
But the overall tone of the symposium was the simultaneous thrust of excitement and challenge balanced against the uncertain and the unknown.
Would outside equity ownership be a boon or a curse?
Why exactly do law firms need capital? Aren’t we labor-intensive businesses, not capital intensive (A: As currently conceived, we are. But why is the current static model necessarily the model for a dynamic future?)
What has been the history of other professional service firms that have invited outside investors?
Will outsourcing and globalization in general (permitting work to be done in the lowest-cost jurisdiction, be that IT and HR support, or paralegal or e-discovery services) supplant the model of teams of extremely high-priced and highly educated professionals operating out of Class AAA space in the center of the world’s financial capitals?
Will we lose the partnership ethos? (Laura Empson of Cass Business School gave a particularly nice presentation on this at lunchtime Thursday, positing that useful ways of thinking about partnership might be as analogous to The Three Musketeers, to Henry V’s famous "band of brothers" speech before the Battle of Agincourt, to a buccaneer pirate ship, or, at last, to "Gone With the Wind.")
Can the partnership ethos survive outside the legal form of a partnership? (Yes, seemed to be the consensus—albeit challenging to do so.)
Would outside ownership actually threaten ethical behavior in law firms? In this connection, three salient points were made:
- We see no evidence of publicly owned companies in other industries behaving unethically as a pattern: No airlines cutting corners on safety, no pharmaceutical companies cavalier about product tampering, and, to be sure, no one questioning Goldman Sachs’ advice since their IPO.
- Could the pressure to achieve profits from passive, minority-interest outside shareholders possibly be greater than the competitive pressures to achieve maximum PPP from the press, and to retain and attract talented partners?
- And lastly, note this well: In the famous flameouts of Enron, Worldcom, et al., the "whistleblowers" with integrity were inside the corporations, not in external auditing or law firms. If anything, this data point suggests that professionals in publicly held firms do not surrender their ethical obligations at the door.
Should we be optimistic about the overall global demand for law? I believe we should. After all, don’t globalizing corporations require more, not less, legal advice? (As strange as it may seem to say, could we need, in a word, more lawyers?) The "rule of law" is not, after all, self-executing.
Clients are becoming more demanding, to be sure, but it’s misapprehending the situation to think it’s all about fees or price; rather, it’s about actually comprehending the clients’ businesses. In a sense, isn’t this development "back to the future," back to a day when lawyers intimately knew their clients and were institutionally close to them in ways that are unusual today? More than a few name-brand law firms, according to their managing partners, are investing more in institutionalizing the client relationship than they are in any other recent initiative, even to the point of creating a "client relationship" dimension as a third organizational dimensional matrix on top of the familiar two of practice groups and geographical footprint.
The value of human capital–the "war for talent" again–has never been higher. But it’s now beyond partners and associates to non-lawyer staff and C-suite executives. Among all these groups, lawyers included, it’s no longer enough to be merely technically excellent. Today’s clients and today’s environment call for people with high levels of "emotional intelligence" and right-brain capabilities. If this is right, we need to re-think the ideal profile of a partner (and I believe strongly that it’s right).
Also, if we value human capital, what’s to fear from "outsourcing?" Isn’t that just another way of saving a generation of associates from the equivalent of being consigned to working in the textile mills of e-discovery? (Whenever politicians rail against NAFTA or other free trade agreements, I always wonder which voters are out there desperately hoping their children have the opportunity to grow up and go to work in a textile mill.) Perhaps young associates should be exposed to one and only one tour of duty in e-discovery, but we know for a fact that too much of that is why on average they leave after 2.5-3.0 years. Wouldn’t you?
Finally, as to the future, my own belief is that assuming the Legal Services Act comes into effect as currently scheduled in the UK, the inevitable flow of money from some firms that will take advantage of outside investment (and there will be some firms) will sluice into the US. Trying to stop the flow through prohibition and regulation will only lead to feckless, disruptive, and pointless excursions into attempted micro-management of global law firms’ capital structure, an effort unrealistic at its core and doomed to swift failure. If you doubt money’s vibrant ability to find its own level, I have three words for you: "campaign finance reform."
At the point where bar associations here, sclerotic and paleolithic as they are, are forced to confront a new marketplace reality, they will actually have no alternative but to respond in ways that recognize and accommodate that reality, and to get over their hundred years’ war against genuine competition in the profession. And, it is my devout hope, they will awaken to the need for a "level playing field" in our global economy.
On this point, the insanity of firms’ being potentially subject to 51 different jurisdictional bar authorities in the United States was, without exception, roundly denounced. GE (for example) gets to choose whether it wishes to be incorporated in Connecticut, New York, California, Delaware, or somewhere else entirely. Why shouldn’t Latham have the same choice?
The conversation on this topic, brief as it was, focused on acknowledging the blisteringly obvious antique anomaly of "presence-based" regulation. The only interesting note to add is that corporate clients would presumably be roundly in favor of unitary law firm bar regulation since it would at once obviate the need to hire duplicative local counsel in jurisdictions far and wide for no commercial, economic, or strategic purpose.
Do we have all the answers?
I’ve never been at a conference before where so many readily admitted to so few answers. But that’s the way entrepreneurship and innovation proceed. Not by knowing to a fare-thee-well what all will work, by specifying it exhaustively in advance, but by experimenting. New businesses are not created by figuring out in advance every possible contingency that could go wrong and only launching then; they’re created by the "ready, fire, aim," mindset. Or, as I said in a prior life as CEO of a dot-com, "mid-course corrections are my middle name."
In my own presentation, I took issue with the assumption that our industry is not capital-intensive by opining that that’s static, not dynamic, thinking, constituting a great failure of imagination. And by analogy I used evolution’s famous "Cambrian Explosion" (great video courtesy of WGBH here) . If you’re not familiar with this, the story is simple:
- For the first 3-1/2 billion of the Earth’s 4-billion years, all nature knew how to produce were single-celled organisms: Algae, fungi, protozoa, etc.
- Then, from about 530-580-million years ago, evolution came upon and exploited the miraculous invention of multi-cellular organisms.
- Every single order of Animalia that exists today was invented during the Cambrian explosion.
- There were a huge number of dead ends, wrong turns, mistaken detours, and fundamentally bad designs (creatures with five eyes)
- But there was a never-before-or-since efflorescence of innovation including such truly useful structures as eyes, ears, scent, and four limbs. (Four limbs, if you’re interested in mobility, are Truly Useful. There’s a reason cars have four wheels.)
Do we know where it’s all going, or where, as some linear extrapolations had it, where we’ll be in 2025 as an industry? Not on your life.
But could you or I imagine such a conference even as recently as three years ago? Not I.
Hope to see you three years hence at the next conference.
Updates: 29 April 2008
Two addenda which have come in since I originally published this. The
first is an article, which is self-explanatory, and the second is an incisive
comment by the General Counsel of a Fortune 500.
|
"U.S. Law Firm IPOs Inevitable, Legal Scholars Say" |
|
|
IP Law360, By Ron Zapata |
|
|
Date: |
4/16/2008 5:36:24 PM |
|
Details: |
With Australia already allowing publicly traded law firms and the |
Second, we have our astute GC’s thoughts:
"Bruce — Sounds like an interesting conference. It’s a shame that
in-house counsel appear to be poorly represented – after all, we are
the reason for existence of most private practice counsel (and ultimately the
source of revenue to support the legal education system). Those attending
have a high degree of interest in maintenance of the current extremely profitable
and robust status quo as opposed to being agents for change. The in-house
community needs legal service providers as we simply cannot in-source all our
work. As such we need our law firms to be profitable. We can move
to a world where law firms are merely suppliers or one where they are partners
and accept risk and reward in exchange for value — but in either case, change
must occur. That change must take place at the law schools which need
to train and produce counselors not lawyers (i.e., more focus on practical
delivery of real world legal services) and at the law firms that must change
their economic model to focus on profits through cost reductions as opposed
to top line revenue growth. We simply must begin a dialogue to focus
on value — and that means achieving the business client’s objectives effectively
and efficiently. Generally speaking, clients are not interested in winning
cases or answering interesting questions of law — we are interested in reaching
our business objectives profitably and with a focus on compliance and stakeholder
value. If there is indeed a war for talent, I do not believe it’s a
war that clients are asking law firms to fight, much less are willing to
pay for.”
As for the relative paucity of inhouse counsel, guilty as charged. As
one of the organizers of the conference, all I can offer in mitigation is that
we wanted law firm leaders to feel free to speak openly about their appetite
for change and we perhaps assumed a little too casually that the presence of
a large representation of GC’s would make people feel defensive or guarded. A
senior representative of the ACCA was there, however, and made some of the
very points advanced by our GC friend here.
I’ll continue to update this as additional commentary comes in.
