David Maister started out his ALM session for the Law Firm Leaders Forum by saying that all law firm strategic plans are the same! They’re all correct, but not unique. The bottom line problem is that, like a drunk, there is no will power on the part of law firm leaders to hold partners accountable for their failure to reach the goals of the strategic plan.
CNN just released a poll that suggests that most Americans are angry, worried, and stressed out about current conditions in our country. The legal profession is not immune to these forces. Law firm leaders from small, mid and large sized firms gather for a two day program designed to provide guidance on what the law firm of today needs to do in order to stay competitive in a changing economy. The sponsor of the program is ALM (now IncisiveMedia).
During times of economic crisis, law firms need to be even more careful with the economics of their practice, according to writer Shannon Nelson of Law360.
Law Firm Leaders Forum takes place Wednesday and Thursday, October 22 – 23, 2008 at the Westin Hotel, New York.Dan DiPietro from Citi Private Bank and David Maister will, among others, head the cast for Wednesday.
Peter Zeughauser and Greg Nitzkowski, of Paul Hastings, will, among others, present on Thursday. I have the pleasure of participating in a segment on Thursday as well.
If you’re in New York then and reading this post, let me know. Perhaps we can get together.
Partnership: Be careful what you ask for. As my mother used to say, "… you just might get it."
Myles Lynk, Professor at Arizona State University, spoke at the ABA‘s Law Practice Management Section‘s conference in Tucson. His topic was "Choice and Opportunity–Race, Politics and the Practice of Law.
I was having a conversation with Marc W. Matheny, a sole practitioner in Indiana, today. And the conversation turned to voice mail messages.
The message I’ve heard a number of lawyers leave on their machines says that they do not accept ex parte notices on this line. I had never thought about this before, but I pose the following question for your consideration: How is it that you can refuse to be served? If you were personally served with a summons and complaint, can you refuse to accept service? During my 25 years as a practicing lawyer, I can’t remember an instance when refusal was permitted. I admit that it’s been awhile since I practiced, perhaps the rules have changed.
If your phone number is your normal business contact point, and if phone service for ex parte matters is acceptable in your jurisdiction, how can you tell the other party that you refuse to accept service just because youir answering machine is on?
This poses an interesting question for me … and one I suggest lawyers address with their local court rules before relying on the sufficiency of the voice mail statement concerning service. At the very best, you will be fighting a battle about the sufficiency of the service rather than the merits of the matter … and this is usually not productive either for the lawyer or the client.
Allison Shields asks a fascinating question, “What do the Flying Wallendas have to do with strategic planning?” This was in response to my blog post reflecting an earlier conversion among Allison, Aviva Cuyler and me.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Allison’s conclusion: “If your firm hasn’t started the strategic planning process, now is as good a time as any to begin. Your strategic plan can begin by focusing on where your firm is now, what challenges it faces and what resources are available to meet those challenges and anticipate what might happen in the future and begin scripting a response so that you can act instead of panicking.”
Last night, during a break at the ABA Law Practice Management Section’s Fall conference, I watched an MSNBC commentator talk about the presidential campaign and the candidates’ strategic plans, or lack thereof. Then, I went to dinner with Allison Shields and Aviva Cuyler. We talked about the strategic planning process of law firms. We agreed that very few law firms we’ve seen have such a plan in place. During our conversation, I recalled a managing partner telling my large law firm Managing Partners Roundtable meeting just this week that his firm created a strategic plan about a year ago and had projected several scenarios, one of which was an economic downturn … and what his firm would do if such an event occurred. He said his firm is doing fine today, still staying close to their strategic plan.
Another law firm laid off a large number of folks. This is depressing. I think there is a better way.
Coincidentally, I read yesterday about Toyota in the Wall Street Journal. Toyota’s sales are decreasing; they’ve closed a plant. They did not lay off workers. Rather than giving them paid leave, as GM and Ford have done on occasion, the workers come into the plant and take education courses to improve their skills and to do deferred maintenance. When it is time to reopen the plant, their workers will be even better skilled and the plant will be even more efficient. This is part of the Japanese philosophy of continuous improvement. Most importantly, Toyota employees feel a greater loyalty to the company.
Large law firms hire new lawyers, then terminate senior lawyers. One managing partner termed this technique as "culling." But, each lawyer laid off cost the law firm between $250,000 and $500,000, according to every managing partner I’ve talked to. This goes right to the "bottom line." Firms looking to cut expense in order to improve profits should look no further than their hiring and firing practices!
Rather than fire experienced lawyers, why doesn’t the law firm offer new education opportunities for its lawyers and its staff? New lawyers don’t know how to "find the courthouse." Experienced lawyers know not only where the courthouse is, but they also know the culture of the law firm. There is much they already know, and for which the law firm has already paid. It’s a lot less expensive to educate experienced lawyers in a new practice area than it is to train a brand new lawyer.
And, they would improve the morale of those in the firm, increasing the loyalty to the firm. This would result in better service to clients as well as increased profits.
What is wrong with the current picture? Why is it that law firm management has yet to understand what American industry already knows? I have heard a number of explanations, but none of them make sense to me. Perhaps you can help me on this.
Will lawyers actually see their “second season,” their “red zone” of life? Will the 400,000 lawyers projected to retire within the next 10 years have to work or will they be able to retire? Will lawyers be just like others in our country today who are seeing their “nest eggs” dwindle by at least 50% in just the last few weeks?