Don’t partners need the freedom to pursue business where they can? Isn’t that what the firm is ceaselessly urging them to do? How can you encourage them to obsess over business development and then say no when that’s exactly what they try to do? Isn’t this the essence of “entrepreneurial?”
No, it’s the essence of business development.
Right about now you may be thinking that I’m picking a fight over semantics, but to me words—and the conscious considerations and unconscious attitudes that flow from them—matter.
Just today I had the chance to ask an old friend whose opinions I value what he thought of the concept of entrepreneurial lawyers. His immediate response: “They’re not entrepreneurs, but they’re jealous of their sexy high-tech clients who can wear chinos to work.”
A harsh characterization, perhaps (my friend isn’t known for mincing words), but he has a point, which will be my final one.
In the corporate world, everyone knows what firms, and leaders of firms, are truly entrepreneurial and which, as successful and renowned as they may be, are long since past that stage. Henry Ford was an entrepreneur; Alan Mulally is not. So too with Thomas Edison and Jeff Immelt, Thomas Watson, Jr. and Virginia Rometty. Legendary today are Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, Chuck Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, and I could go on.
So what was this all about?
It was all about the power of words, and how certain words can tend to be conversation-stoppers and to slam shut the gate on further thought.
I started by telling you how I did an inattentive low altitude flyover whenever I heard a lawyer invoke the word “entrepreneurial” as a self-descriptor. I was mistaken; I should have paid more attention.
Do not permit it to end the conversation. Insist on their specifying how the firm’s strategic objectives factor into their personal (autonomous) game plans. Hold them accountable for business development, if you will, but insist on truth in labeling.
Or you could always invite them to start a software company.
Although I don’t think most firms that call themselves entrepreneurial fit this mold, it’s possible for a firm to be entrepreneurial in how it solicits and prices new business, but for this model to succeed in any firm larger than a very few lawyers, the firm internally must be corporate rather than entrepreneurial. In other words, what allows a firm to be entrepreneurial with its clients is having rules and procedures in place to carry out goals that the firm management articulates and communicates to its staff. A firm of two dozen lawyers or more that lets them all market and price willy-nilly is a confederation and not a true organization.
Perhaps the word is not perfect and perhaps its always difficult to use only one generic word to describe a concept, which is why lawyers love definitions. As long as a particular firm has a clear and shared understanding – that they are also able to articulate to clients and other stakeholders – of what that firm and those partners mean by “entrepreneurial”, I do not see an issue. The same applies basically to any word used to describe the values and culture of a firm. At my firm the point is not a partner’s individual entrepreneurship from the perspective of risk-taking. It is the entrepreneurial _spirit_ of all partners combined in a mission to deliver, with focus and in line with our strategy and values, maximum profit over a sustained period of time. Its the difference between being at a job and being an owner-leader. And, yes, any outsider can be cynical and pick apart any value or culture statement at any law firm, in particular in the current climate, yet that speaks more of the worldview of the person in question than actually provides any meaningful input, analysis or critique of the firm in question.
Bruce, you know the saying “It takes one to know one”? While I don’t think I would describe law firms (the institutions and their cultures) as entrepreneurial, I definitely meet lawyers and law firm leaders that I consider to be entrepreneurs. My tests are whether they demonstrate an investment mentality and whether they take risks with their money or time in pursuit of improved returns. I see lawyers increasingly investing in their relationships with clients and taking risks on the outcomes of matters. I see law firm leaders securing the support of their partnerships to invest in future-proofing their firms. In disclosure, I am in the business of serving lawyers at firms and corporate legal departments. While I realize that it is fashionable to knock the lawyer as entrepreneur, I simply must report that my personal workday is filled with lawyers taking risks and investing in the future. I am not a lawyer, but I am an entrepreneur in the legal sector. I have raised over $100m of institutional capital in building businesses in the legal sector. I have personally put over $10m of personal capital at risk in the legal sector. My first business was a virtual data room software business (now Merrill DataSite); my second business was an LPO, Integreon; and my current business is a legal service provider, Elevate.
I personally believe that this “entrepreneurial” Idea is more about slick marketing and just the trend the whole world seems to be in trying to brand everything.
I agree with @MidRange guy
You cannot be “entrepreneurial” until you’ve developed something that can bring clients value. A business needs to be stable and have the resources to try and be “entrepreneurial”.