There is pretty widespread agreement that firms have the capacity and capabilities to cross serve current clients. It’s not news that many firms are burdened with excess capacity. Expanding relationships with current clients is one way to address this issue. Other ways are less welcome, but in some cases necessary.
|
% Strong agree/agree |
We have the capacity to cross serve clients |
| All lawyers |
76 |
| Management |
89 |
| Business professionals |
73 |
| >500 lawyer firms |
73 |
| <100 lawyer firms |
93 |
And, not surprisingly, people largely agree that management supports collaborative efforts.
| % Strong agree/agree | Management supports collaborative efforts |
| All lawyers |
76 |
| Management |
89 |
| Business professionals |
85 |
| >500 lawyer firms |
73 |
| <100 lawyer firms |
93 |
These are the high water marks when it comes to collaborating on cross-serve opportunities at law firms; when we get into the necessary components of collaboration things begin to fall off the rails…..
Respondents’ reported understanding of the capabilities of lawyers within their firms or of the needs of their clients were, at best underwhelming and in fact a bit alarming. These are the two sides of the same coin of cross serving.
This lack of basic information is underscored by respondents’ much lower understanding of where the client’s needs intersect with their firms’ capabilities. Without this knowledge, it is not possible to effectively cross serve clients. Just can’t.
| % Strong agree/agree | I understand the capabilitiesof the lawyers at my firm | I understand myclient’s needs |
I understand the intersection of my client needs and the capabilities of my firm |
| All lawyers |
84 |
81 |
48 |
| Management |
100 |
94 |
78 |
| Business professionals |
54 |
38 |
38 |
| >500 lawyer firms |
72 |
78 |
39 |
| <100 lawyer firms |
99 |
72 |
60 |
NB: In many such research projects, people tend to give themselves a higher mark than may be warranted, so the reality is likely worse than reported.
Moreover, there is pretty poor coordination between practice areas and offices when it comes to collaborating on cross-serve opportunities. To state the obvious, this is at the crux of cross serving. One relatively simple way to encourage better coordination between practice areas and offices is to track the “export” and “import” of work across practices and offices. And a cliché, but often true; what gets measured happens.
| Good coordination% Strong agree/agree | Between practice areas | Between offices |
| All lawyers |
41 |
36 |
| Management |
56 |
39 |
| Business professionals |
23 |
30 |
Perhaps most damning is what appears to be a significant lack of trust within law firms; you’ll note that none of these are even passing grades.
| % Strong agree/agree | High degree of trust betweenlawyers at my firm | I’m confident others will serve clients as well as I do |
| All lawyers |
41 |
49 |
| Management |
67 |
68 |
| Business professionals |
48 |
30 |
| >500 lawyer firms |
42 |
42 |
| <100 lawyer firms |
47 |
46 |
I’m hoping (hoping) that this is more of an indication of a lack of familiarity with others at the firm; if there truly is a lack of trust and disbelief that others will serve clients as well as they will – then cross-serving/collaboration exhortations and programs are pretty much toast and we should just go home. Getting to know others at your firm and what they’re capable of (as well as making sure others know what you do) does require a time commitment.
This cannot be accomplished only by the MP or other managers visiting offices or hosting video “town halls.” Those are necessary, but not sufficient. One of our favorite MPs of a global US-based firm describes this as a “contact sport;” lawyers taking the effort to meet individually or in small groups, working on firmwide initiatives or presenting opportunities to relationship partners on key clients.
When it comes to executing on a cross-serve program, the results get even more dismal. I’ll spare you the gory detail, but suffice to say:
- few believe there’s a good plan to pursue cross-serve opportunities,
- not many believe there are clear goals for such an undertaking,
- and most feel there is little follow up on these kinds of efforts.
Perhaps not surprising is that few believe they are adequately incented to pursue cross opportunities. Certainly good citizenship and firm-first undertakings should not devolve into mere transactions, or quid-pro quos. That said, tangible contributions to the financial health and sustainability of the firm should be recognized.
(Note the outlier; those at firms with fewer than 100 lawyers – we’ll get to them later.)
I questionyour hypothesis on why lawyers don’t sufficiently learn client industries, ask for feedback, or do project management. Saying these and other skills (or activities) are “just too obvious – and therefore, not perceived as being very important by lawyers” let’s lawyers off the hook.
How do we assess your hypo versus others, for example, that law school really only trains lawyers for one or two skills and they struggle with the rest? Anecdotally and by way of example, I’ve met many a lawyer who is seemingly allergic to numbers.
Hi Ron –
Thanks for your comment. I’ve struggled for a long time to understand why some in Law Land eschew so many standard business practices. Your hypo about law school may also have credence. What others could there be?
Janet,
Thanks for sharing your result.
Just my two cents about why some in law firms eschew business practices.
A quick look at core classes in the respective disciplines for each may be telling.
Law School Core classes (More or less):
Evidence
Contracts
Constitutional Law
Criminal Procedure
Property Law
Torts
Civil Procedure
Legal Writing
MBA Core Classes (more or less):
Accounting
Operations
Organizational behavior
Business statistics/quantitative analysis
Functional financial management
Human resource management
Marketing
Corporate governance
Which skill set is better suited to run a large professional services firm? And which profession owns a law firm (and, by extension, top of the org chart)?
For me, it is not the same answer for both questions.
Would your findings support the idea that without the infrastructure and hierarchies of a large firm lawyers have an easier time collaborating and trusting each other?
That would be consistent with what I see within new firms and partnerships.
I’m surprised that a small majority of lawyers from larger firms cite a lack of intel and effective client communications. I assuming that access to these kinds of resources would be two of the key reasons to continue work within a large firm.
Hi Jeremy –
This is interesting. I can’t see how infrastructure would impede collaboration – but maybe I’m missing something. Perhaps new firms/partnerships are still in a “honeymoon” phase?
I agree with your comment about the (potential lack) of resources at larger firms.
Very interesting data – thank you. I have done a quick blog…
https://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/big-law-dont-you-believe-your-own-hype/
Would be interesting to think about this more.
Hi Richard –
Yours is a very thoughtful piece. Thanks.
Did you have sufficient data to compare the types of responses you received with the type of compensation structures in place? I would expect true cross-pollination to flourish more in firms that have more of a lockstep system. Why would a partner in Practice Group A spend time innovating new solutions for a client whose origination only enriches the partner in Practice Group B?
Hi Matt –
Good question. Unfortunately was not able to cross tab that info. I suspect, in the absence of other factors, what you suggest is true. That said, as we know lockstep-ish systems are on the decline (more so in the States, but we’re also seeing lockstep fray around the edges at UK firms). There are firms where lawyers collaborate for the overall good of the firm. And, at others there are factors in the comp system that encourage and reward collaboration.
Janet,
Thanks for the thoughtful piece. Just a few observations on cross-selling from the trenches:
– So true on management/rank and file disconnect. I feel like most senior management reads the data on cross-selling (i.e. its good, you should do it to keep clients) and then loudly proclaims “let’s get some cross-selling in here!” and then seems to act as if their job is done. Which is met with about the reaction you would expect (and your numbers show).
– While it certainly has its benefits, I think don’t cross-selling is a blunt instrument that can be used across the firm by every single lawyer. Some practice areas lend themselves better to these types of initiatives than others. Some geographies work better based on the needs of the local market. And some personalities are more disposed to this than others (remember, we’re managing human capital here). Effective cross-selling (i.e. actually turning ideas into revenue) requires a substantial investment by the lawyers involved. As part of planning, management’s job should be pick and choose where to to deploy a finitie resource, non-billable partner-level time, where it is most effective. Some practice areas/geographies will benefit from investments in deeper internal specialization and market knoweldge rather than cross-selling campaigns.
– The most successful cross-selling efforts I’ve seen are where there is clearly identified client need. So the front end homework really needs to be done to qualify leads (probably by the relationship partners). And firms need to pay for that time. If you are just sending your lawyers out to call on current clients and proactively pitch for work in this envrionment, no matter how talented your colleagues are, that’s usually met with a tepid response by in-house lawyers.
Just a few thoughts.
Hi Skeptic –
First, thanks for your kind words.
I completely agree with you; cross-selling is far from a universal panacea.
And, you said the magic words: “as part of planning.” Indeed an effective, robust business plan for a firm would consider the options you suggest and take into account the factors you mention.
That said, many firms don’t truly have plans. We often hear firms state that their approach is “opportunistic” – which is, in my view, a fancy way of saying they have no plan.
Planning isn’t so easy, as, for one you note – resources aren’t infinite. But planning is necessary (and SOP in Corporate Land where I come from) for the long-term health of any organization.
Dear Janet,
Many thanks for originating, compiling and examining the information.
We can all agree that collegiality and collaboration are behaviors, also that almost all behaviors are learned. Where in the process of the development of the lawyers in a given firm will the learning have happened? Who are the mentors, and how are they rewarded for the teaching? What incentives for collaboration are available (and apparent) to young lawyers. What are the models of collegiality and collaboration (or their converses) that are on display?
Much research in cognition shows that effective learning is an active process. It must be organized with intention, and resources applied.
Hi Mark –
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. (Somehow my response to you didn’t appear – so I’ll try again!) You are of course right. That said, the results from the survey aren’t all that optimistic on this score. Only 22%of partners responding felt their firm had sufficient training and tools. Sadly, only 10% of associates agreed. BUT 67% of management felt their firm did. Which may mean things won’t be changing any time soon.