| % Strong agree/agree | Incentives to pursue cross opportunitiesare commensurate with the effort required |
| All lawyers |
30 |
| Management |
39 |
| Business professionals |
23 |
| >500 lawyer firms |
21 |
| <100 lawyer firms |
53 |
OK before we go on, let’s take a little detour; there are a few fun facts I’d like to share – and then we’ll talk a bit about the (really not hard) things firms can do to gin up their cross-serve programs.
First, have you (as have I) wondered if there’s a disconnect between management and the rest of the firm? Well on this topic wonder no more; there is a disconnect. Guess which way it runs? Management is much more bullish than others at their firm. This (mis-placed?) optimism was evinced across a variety of aspects of collaboration at their firms. A few examples where management’s responses were much more positive than others include:
- Knowing the firm and knowing the client and knowing the intersection of client needs and our firm’s capabilities
- We have the skills to pursue cross opportunities
- We have clear goals for our cross-serve efforts
- We provide sufficient training and tools to pursue cross-opportunities
- Lawyers and business professionals are held accountable for cross opportunities
- Etc.
This would suggest, at the very least, that firm management secure a much more clear-eyed understanding of what is actually happening in the trenches – and rather than exhorting (often loudly) about the need to collaborate, put some real plans (with real teeth) in place. Absent that, the exhorting isn’t working and (as we’ve heard at many firms) folks are tired of hearing the same empty calls-to-action.
Also, interesting (at least to me) is that business professionals at firms, including C-suite members and administrators are much more bearish generally on aspects of their firms’ efforts to successfully collaborate. Following are some examples where business professionals are less positive than others:
- Knowing the firm and knowing the client
- We have a good plan to pursue cross opportunities
- These is good coordination between practice groups and offices
- Lawyers and others at my firm are responsive when cross-serve opportunities arise
- Lawyers at the firm are generally comfortable pursuing cross opportunities.
- I believe lawyers and others at the firm have the skills to pursue cross opportunities
As long-time readers know, we believe a good indicator of success is having a strong cadre of experienced professionals, who can expertly and effectively lead the business functions at a law firm. Importantly, these folks can bring a more business-oriented perspective to a firm’s management; they need not only a “place” at the table – but also a voice. They clearly have a different take on collaboration at firms – it might make sense to find out why.
There were some interesting differences in responses from larger firms versus those from folks at smaller ones. Here are a few examples.
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.