Much like many of us, I have observed the disorderly and brawly fight over the past few weeks between Armin Laschet, the prime minister of North Rhine-Westphalia and Bavaria Premier Markus Söder. Both have been fiercely contending to succeed Angela Merkel. Frau Merkel's grand transition plan had already derailed before after her initial handpicked successor, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, unexpectedly called it quits early last year. Merkel, who has been chancellor for almost 15 years, announced in 2018 that she would not run again when her term expires in 2021. At that time, she stepped down as party leader and endorsed Kramp-Karrenbauer as her successor. But her attempt at securing an orderly transition of power -- as well as her own legacy -- appears to by now have failed in all respects. The way in which Angela Merkel’s tenure draws to an end holds several valuable lessons for law firms. Merkel, who has for a decade been Europe’s most influential and respected leader, turned ineffective and weak in her last term. On the international stage she failed in leading Europe to push back against President Trump and internally came under heavy criticism for how she handled the pandemic, leading to public apologies on 24 March. Her approval ratings have dropped to an historic low and her party might well lose the next elections. Angela Merkel should never have accepted her last term and now sees her legacy in tatters. (read my recent article on this topic here) The second lesson is about leadership succession where it seems that many leaders keep making the mistake of trying to appoint their own successor. Except perhaps for some dictatorial regimes in dark parts of the world, these attempts typically lead to failure. It seems to be a common characteristic of those who have been in power for too long that they want to reach beyond their ‘grave’. For Merkel this attempt turned into an unworthy public fight for her succession, further adding to the stains on what should have been a superstar legacy. 4-Step approach for law firms Also for law firms the transition from one managing partner to the next can be a disruptive and unsettling process that amplifies divisions that exists within the partnership. In this article we will highlight 4 steps guiding law firms towards a smooth transition of power. 1. What type of managing partner is needed at this point in time? Law firms keep constantly evolving and different moments in time bring different challenges and different demands for its leadership. This is no different from corporate leaders in the business world. The next CEO is hardly ever a carbon copy of the one before. Like leadership transitions in the corporate world, law firms should start early on by making a profile of the next leader. What are the qualities that are needed to lead the firm successfully through the next term? Surprisingly few law firms actually consciously think about the desired leadership profile at all. 2. Preparation and talent pool Despite the fact that the legal industry has grown into a multibillion business, the leadership has very much remained at a mum & dad store level. Outside the business of law it will be hard to find other business sectors making so much revenue, which are managed by untrained unprepared amateurs. Even compared to other forms of professional services that use the primus inter paris management model, few are from the start as ill equipped as lawyers are. Almost all the qualities that make a great lawyer (i.a. meticulous attention to details and an aversion to risk spring to mind) become a huge hindrance when it comes to managing the firm. Given the interest at stake it would make sense to structurally offer business- and leadership training to the partners in order not only to help them prepare for a potential future leadership role, but also use the insights gained to manage and grow their own practice in the meantime. 3. The selection and nomination process Regardless the preparation as described above, you don’t want the process of electing the next managing partner to be as unsavory as the recent events in Germany. As illustrated by these recent events, you don’t want to have the departing managing partner steering his/her own succession. The responsibility for selection and nomination process is best left to the board or an ad-hoc committee appointed by the partnership. You might also want to avoid campaigning by opposing candidates as this will invariably highlight differences and fractures in the partnership and may in the end turn the looser and his/her supporters bitter. The most successful processes are well prepared with many bilateral consultations behind the scenes and in the end only one candidate that is guaranteed to have a broad majority support. 4. A well-managed transition As long as law firms are managed by ill prepared lawyers, it will take at least six months for the new managing partner to settle in. New managing partners typically have no clue, are starting from scratch, making the same mistakes and reinventing the wheel just like the managing partners before them have done. We see this happening time after time and so much momentum, time and energy are lost. Basically those first six months are just status-quo and/or destruction. Destruction being for instance replacing the heads-of-staff only to find over time that the new ones are not really different from the ones before. The solution to this is not as one might think a longer transition period during which the old and the new managing partner work side by side. This period should preferably be as short as possible, just long enough to transfer the files and effectuate the authorizations. The most structural solution would be to put in place step-2 and create a large pool of potential leaders that have been professionally educated and trained in all aspects (financial, strategic, organizational, communicative and more) of management. For the time being the best advice would be to assign a professional management coach to help the new managing partner to avoid pitfalls and to be up and running, productive and effective in the shortest amount of time. It will come as no surprise that this is a service we offer.

Right now we are over one year into the pandemic. For most lawyers, working from home has become the new normal. The office remains just a distant memory. While today for all of us, the ‘home office’ is a well-established routine, certain drawbacks remain. In those areas where daycare or primary schools remain closed, young parents continue to find themselves juggling family and work. Others might have to share limited home resources, such as a quiet working space and internet connection, with other members of the household. "burnout cases are steeply on the rise" The pandemic has ushered in an era in which lawyers, for one reason or the other, are working erratic hours as lines between home and work have blurred. With nowhere to go, no commute, no business lunches and no watercooler-break moments, lawyers find themselves sitting behind their screens for hours at end pretty much every day. This might be great for productivity, but it turns out it is perhaps not so great for the mental wellbeing of lawyers. Reported burnout cases are steeply on the rise. On 2 April LinkedIn, a social network company, announced that it would give all its 15.900 full-time employees a paid week off starting April 5. This immediate measure was taken to fight the high levels of burnout. One week earlier, Citigroup (a bank) CEO Jane Fraser banned employees from internal video calls on Fridays in an effort to improve staff well-being. The final day of the working week is now named " Zoom Free Fridays," Fraser said in a memo to staff. She also declared May 28 a company-wide holiday, called "Citi Reset Day." The bank is also encouraging its 210.000-person workforce to avoid scheduling meetings outside of normal working hours. These are just two random recent examples of businesses addressing the mental well being issues connected to prolonged structural working from home. Give me a break I don’t think that I am aware of any high-end law firm giving it’s fee-earners such a break. So far law firms have mainly responded by raising associate bonusses and not by capping workhours. Partners, counsel and associates alike are finding themselves working longer—or in some cases, weirder—hours as geography evaporates in a remote era but time zones don’t. This is something I find myself experiencing first hand. Days starting early with calling China and ending late with Latin America or the West Coast are not exceptional. The ability to work literally all over the world from behind my desk has great advantages, but also takes its toll. No more moments of disconnecting during long haul flights. This is no different for lawyers, who are expected to be always available and responsive. Many clients, also working from home, are not sticking to ‘normal’ business hours and are expecting instant response from their lawyer at any time of day. Complicating the issue is the fact that transactions are seeing a massive boom as corporations and funds unlock liquidity they’ve stored up since the early days of the pandemic. Looking at our clients seeing productivity levels today of 150% or more across M&A is not uncommon. While transactions have a demanding rhythm even at the best of times, the 24/7 working individually from home situation amplifies the stress and the perceived workload. Doing an ‘all-nighter’ happens so much easier than before now you don’t physically have to go home from the office. Not so long ago China’s 996 working schedule was frowned upon, now many of us would jump at the opportunity. Two speed firm Closer examinations show that workload levels are not evenly distributed across all practice areas. Where transaction practices typically are extremely busy right now, some other practices are closer to normal workload levels. While temporary uneven workloads within one firm also exist in normal times, WFH is now amplifying the situation. The notice that some lawyers are at 150% or more and doing all-nighters, while others structurally have a more normal work-life balance, is creating tensions within law firms. These tensions are amplified because almost everyone is on edge and easy irritable as a consequence of the stress created through the pandemic. Effectively there is a two speed firm. This will not be attainable if it lasts. If not addressed in a proper manner, law firms might risk permanent damage. How to mitigate the risks Looking at the market, we are already seeing an increased mobility of lawyers, both partners and associates. These are the early signs of damage inflicted by the two speed workload. This lateral movement is the consequence of on the one hand law firms that are franticly trying to hire more transaction capability to handle the work, and on the other hand dissatisfied partners and associates that feel ‘angry’ that in their present firm the workload is not evenly distributed. Simultaneously we see a double digit outflow of associates pursuing job opportunities that offer a better work-life balance. "we currently see a double digit increase in associate outflow" In part the present asymmetric workload distribution is a direct consequence of over-specialization and the way in which practice groups and teams are structured. From a rational point of view, it makes little sense that associates and even trainees ‘belong’ to one partner and one practice group. Certainly lawyers with less than 3 year of experience should structurally be trained in more than one practice area, enabling them to jump in where their contribution is needed most. Today this is hardly possible, which might turn out to be a costly mistake. To change this we must change the way in which associates are recruited. This should preferably be done on a firm level and not on the level of an individual partner or practice. Secondly we should avoid over-specialization and give young lawyers a much broader training and education. Doing this will not only improve utilization, but will also foster better cross-collaboration between teams and practices. "technology could help improve efficiency and ease the workload" The afore mentioned serious risk of burnout is more difficult to address. The world of high-end lawyers can be extremely demanding. There can be no question that deadlines must be met and the work must be top-notch. Where basically the clients’ demands are what they are, I know from experience that the stress induced by a high workload is largely the consequence of poor project management, poor collaboration and poor communication. Fortunately these are factors that can relatively easy be addressed. Employment of fairly basic technology could significantly help further reduce workload and increase efficiency. Furthermore a mandatory ‘lunchbreak’ of two hours works quite well, specially if this is implemented as common practice throughout the firm. This creates some downtime without interrupting business in any meaningful way. Encourage people to take a walk during this break, it helps!

As some of you may know, my wife and I are avid art collectors. Recently we were able to acquire a work by Graham Sutherland (UK, 1903-1980). Such was Sutherland's standing in post-war Britain that in 1954 he was commissioned to paint a full-length portrait of then Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill. That painting (pictured above) was intended to hang in the Houses of Parliament after Churchill's death. The presentation ceremony at Westminster Hall was recorded by the BBC. Churchill profoundly disliked the painting which he deemed too realistic and unflattering and he almost refused to attend the presentation ceremony. Legend has it that he took the painting home and burned it. These events have even been depicted in the 2016 Netflix series The Crown, the ninth episode of the first season, entitled ‘Assassins’. Winston Churchill is the stuff that legends are made off. There is probably not a single person who doesn’t immediately recognize his picture and doesn’t know about his achievements during the Second World War. After having been the Leader of the Opposition between 1945 and 1951, he became Prime Minister once again in 1951. He was already nearly 77 when he took office and was not in good health following several minor strokes. On the evening of 23 June 1953, Churchill suffered a serious stroke and became partially paralyzed down one side. At the time Sutherland painted the portrait, Churchill was nothing but a shadow of his former self. The only person failing to recognize this was Churchill himself. Sutherland’s portrait is actually both accurate and merciful. Founding Partners These well documented historical events contain some striking similarities to the struggles that some law firm founding partners have to go through. Much like Churchill during the wartime, founding partners have often shown exceptional leadership that brought their firm ‘from rags to riches’. Like Winston Churchill, founding partners are recognized and admired for their great achievements. But also like Churchill, many founding partners find it difficult to recognize when is the time to step back. Unfortunately, like Winston Churchill, many founding partners carry on, when they are actually overdue. From experience I know too many founding partners who in the end leave their firm with a feeling of frustration, leaving behind a stained legacy of troublesome final years. Departure Planning and Departure Management are two disciplines that are all too often completely overlooked. Do it right and you will be remembered as an admired visionary, do it wrong and you will be remembered as a ‘pain in the but’ that became a barrier to the firm's further growth and development. Strong leaders, weak partners It is extremely hard for a tree to grow in the shadow of a big tree. It is extremely hard for a partner to grow in the shadow of a great founding partner. Too often, strong leaders create weak offspring. Many founding partners initially had to go through hell and high water to get their firm off the ground. Often they had to overcome difficulties and take personal risks to get the firm where it is today. Successfully navigating hard times and building a successful law firm often commanded a ‘blind obedience’ and a ‘no discussion’ culture. Sadly, I have seen from close by, several examples where it happened like this and where the founding partner unintendedly maneuvered himself into the position of ‘supreme leader’, with no-one to fill his shoes. Once the founding partner was no longer there, remained a void that could not adequately be filled, leaving the firm adrift. The eternal managing partner Monday 5 April 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a legislation clearing the way for him to remain in power until 2036, when he will be 83 years old. To date Putin has already been running the country for more than two decades. Apparently he is not planning on handing over the reigns any time soon. You don’t want to become the Vladimir Putting of your firm. November 2019, I published an article ‘There are 4 types of managing partners, where is yours?’ You can find the article here. One of the four archetypes in that article I dubbed ‘The Eternal’. As where typically Managing Partners, serve a maximum of two 3-4 year terms, the eternal managing partner intends to be the managing partner for the rest of his/her career. The eternal managing partner will never return to (full) practice. Typically the eternal managing partner has little or no practice left and technically cannot even return to being an ordinary rank and file partner. There are situations where experience can actually become a hindrance. Experience will often stand in the way of innovation and transformation. The eternal managing partner over time often develops into a conservative caretaker. It also is that same experience that creates a high threshold for potential successors. How to not end like Winston Churchill No law firm leader starts his tenure with the desire to unglamorously end it like Winston Churchill. Whether you are a founding partner, a managing partner or even a practice group leader, it is a mistake to surround yourself with ‘yes men’ and loyal followers. No law firm leader should aspire to lead for more than two terms of 3-4 years each. Founding partners no exception. Having a limited time window might actually spur to action, rather than being a caretaker. Any effective managing partner should aspire to leave the firm better than it was before. A ticking clock is typically a good reminder and incentive. Any great law firm leader should have a vision and be decisive, but at the same time avoid becoming that tree that will let no young sprouts flourish and independently grow strong in its shade. Don’t try to extend your term by grooming your crown prince to be your successor (as Putin did with Medvedev). Allow for a pool of talent to grow instead and leave it to the partnership to decide on who should be at the helm after you have left the bridge. TGO Consulting offers assistance and advise on Law Firm Leadership Development & Transition.

Earlier this week I started to read an article in the American Lawyer with the heading ‘How a Firm's "Vision" Results in Real Growth’. As it turned out the title was just ‘clickbait’ and the article was written by two consultants trying to sell their services. Perhaps I should have known better by now. There is a number of consultants out there selling ‘mission- and vision statements’ as a silver bullet to get partners in a law firm aligned. In reality it doesn’t work like that at all. Getting the partners aligned and to act in the common interest, is one of the hardest things to pull off in a law firm. Management will act under the fictitious assumption that what is best for the firm, will be best for the partners and vice versa. Not unlike national governments strive to act in the best interest of their country under the assumption that this will be what is best for its citizens. It turns out that for law firms the interests of the firm and the interest of the individual partner are frequently not aligned and this is exactly what is at the origin of lots of frustration. The lone wolf In the distant past all lawyers were sole practitioners. Later lawyers began to share a building and some resources, but they remained fundamentally sole practitioners. It is only in the past decades that the ‘corporate’ business model was widely adopted by business law firms around the world. With the corporate business model the discrepancy between management and the partners started to become visible. Management set out to centrally manage, whilst the partners mentally remained vigorously independent. I have highlighted this inherent tension in a recent article that you will find here: Balancing control versus autonomy (tgo-consulting.com) Partners can have a strong tendency to act as ‘lone wolfs’ as it comes to developing and maintaining their practice. This is partly rooted in history, but also a direct consequence of how in law firms partner performance is measured. Despite initiatives and incentives to get partners to cooperate, individualism mostly prevails. As this is clearly not in the interest of the firm as a whole, we will try to examine what drives such self-serving behavior. The mobility and insurance aspect It might sound counterintuitive, but partners in law firms frequently feel vulnerable and exposed. There is little security in partnership and it is quite common that partners deep down permanently fear being kicked out. One might be inclined to think that this as such is not necessarily a bad thing, as it will motivate the partners to work even harder in order to secure their position. As it turns out, more than motivating partners to go the extra mile, it drives them to individualism and selfish behavior. “As long as I have secured my position, I couldn’t care about the rest” I would call this behavior out of self-insurance. This could lead to partners hoarding clients and files in their own name in situations where another partner would actually be more entitled or better suited. It leads to partners objecting to any change in the firm that might weaken their position. It is one of the driving motivations for partners to be either as invisible as possible or make a lot of noise. It is a reason to object to a new partner that could potentially become a competitor for work. The possibility of being pushed out creates strong defense mechanisms that are working against the interests of the firm, but it is not only fear that creates this kind of reflexes. Opportunity is a second and powerful driver of selfish behavior. Today many partners want to retain the freedom to make a lateral move to another firm. Retaining the freedom to move is in a way also a form of insurance, but not a defensive one as described above. Partners know that they will only be able to move when they have a strong and portable book of business. Business that they should share as little as possible with other partners in their firm. Partners that have a lingering thought that perhaps they want to make a lateral movement, will also be not willing to invest in their present firm and thus blocking investment proposals that might be necessary for the future development of that firm. Retirement on the horizon In many law firms, the partners that are roughly within 3 years of their retirement are a force to be reckoned with. Often the opinion leader and the rainmakers, fall within in this category. When retirement becomes visible at the horizon, a smooth succession is absolutely in the interest of the firm. Yet persuading partners to transfer their practice in a controlled an early manner proves to be extremely hard to do. This has everything to do with the self interest of the partner that is about to retire. As I have written about this before, I will not go into details in the context of this week’s article. You find a link here: Retirement: What if stars go out with a bang? (tgo-consulting.com) Partners that are mentally preparing for retirement, are often found reluctant to approve investments that the firm has to make, as it will cost them cash right now and they will no longer be around when the investment starts to pay off. Again a well-known example where self-interest of partners is harmful for the firm as a whole. Weak offspring We have already touched upon this when elaborating the ‘insurance aspect’, some partners purposely create weak offspring. They surround themselves with industrious associates that have a high tendency to serve, but at the same time have limited ambitions. These ‘work bees’ are a tremendous help for the partner as it comes to running his (her) practice, but they come with the peace of mind that when they eventually are made partner they will not out-shine and/or out-perform the partner. Work bees will always remain work bees, and for the partner there is safety in that. It goes without saying that for the firm as whole, this is not so great… The chocking effect of enlightened self-interest There is a limitation on how long this article can be before you will stop reading. There are many more examples of normal everyday situations in law firms all over the world where the self-interest of the partners is standing in the way of greatness and growth of the firm. The aim of this article is to help recognize and identify the situations in which this is happening. It also aims to raise the level of self-awareness as where your own behavior is concerned. Serving self-interest is deeply rooted in our human DNA. The only way to mitigate its most harmful effects is to create a strong culture where the group is more important than the individual. As such this is part of the path to maturity for the legal industry. It is a necessary step on the way from sole-practitioner to institutionalized corporate organization. We would be happy to guide you on that journey.

I remember back in 2003 being in the United States and sitting at a dinner table next to the main guest of the evening, which was a man in his mid-forties. This man was the author of a book with the title ‘Rainmaking made Simple’. I still have a personalized and signed copy somewhere in my library. Our conversation of that evening to be honest, I do not recall. What I do recall is feeling somewhat overwhelmed by a man who claimed he could turn every lawyer into a rainmaker. Obviously I had not actually read his book at the time. "Rainmakers are the unicorns in a harras of horses" In the legal industry, rainmakers are the stuff that legends are made of. Rainmakers are if you may, the unicorns among a harras of horses. In a law firm partnership, the rainmakers are the partners who create the most revenue compared to the others. The partner who is considered a rainmaker in one firm, could be considered just an average partner in another firm, depending on the average REP in that firm. This highlights that rainmaker is very much a relative nomination, rather than an absolute condition. One can only get the label ‘rainmaker’ by comparison. This simple fact already debunks the myth that rainmakers have the magical ability to create business out of thin air. Rainmakers cannot actually make it rain. Still it is their assumed super-skills that give them their status within their firm and commands respect from the partners who are aware that they themselves do not have the ability to make it rain. "The rainmaker in one firm, could be just average in the next" Let’s dissect the rainmaker a bit more. The reality is that the majority of rainmakers once inherited a great practice from a partner before them. They did not start from scratch with an empty book of business like many young partners have to do these days. The predecessors, often also the mentors, of today’s rainmakers built a practice back in the days when the legal industry showed double digit growth. When they retired they left all of their business to their protegee. Many of these former protegees are considered today’s rainmakers. Except that they did not build their own fortunes, but started out with a sizable inheritance. Oddly enough, many rainmakers have forgotten about their received legacy and over time started to believe that it is all down to their unparalleled abilities. Perhaps not. A second category of rainmakers is those who once landed an extraordinary big mandate that brought them a lot of revenue over several years. This most commonly happens in litigation. I know several examples of partners who did not have a remarkable practice, but one day landed a litigation that became very big and continued over several years. The revenue from the litigation gives these partners clout in their firm and the matter itself helps raise their profile in the market. The fact that they perhaps got the matter only because other lawyers in the market were conflicted is typically not remembered. "many rainmakers simply inherited a large book of business" Now that we have established that rainmaking is not an absolute condition and could be heavily depending on preexisting conditions or sheer luck, it is time to drop the ‘unicorn’ myth. Partners we consider rainmakers are not fundamentally different from the partners that are just seen as average partners. Debunking the myth is important because as long as rainmakers keep their mythical status, other partners will keep thinking that for them, being mere mortals, growing their practice substantially is unattainable. It is not. One of the issues is that being seen as a rainmaker comes with attractive perks. Typically rainmakers are considered the opinion leaders, which as such is based on a peculiar misconception that having more revenue in one’s name automatically implies having a superior strategic vision or better management skills. This frequently leads to situations where the rainmaker gets his way, while following the ideas of another partner would actually have been smarter and have produced better results. So putting rainmakers in powerful positions, just because they bring in most revenue could actually harm the performance of the firm as a whole. "being a rainmaker comes with attractive perks" As a rainmaker, being in this very special, powerful and respected position could become very addictive. As a consequence some rainmakers will do everything they can to defend that position. You don’t want to know the number of rainmakers I have seen that purposely create weak offspring, fearing that if they promote strong lawyers, this young lawyer could over time become better then they are. “The rainmaker is dead, long live the rainmaker”, well you would certainly want to avoid that, wouldn’t you? This is yet another perspective from which a rainmaker could actually be a liability for the overall performance of the firm. This article is by no means intends to chastise or attack the rainmakers. What I want to highlight is that principally rainmakers are not different from other partners in any meaningful way. This implies that also rainmakers should not be treated differently and that there is no reason to consider the opinions from rainmakers more valuable than the opinions of other partners. Due to the nature of the practice, most rainmakers can be found in Finance, M&A and other types of large transactions, or in Litigation. It is near impossible, regardless your qualities and skills, to become a rainmaker in a full service firm as an Employment partner. The files simply are not large enough. In a well-functioning partnership the voice of all partners should be equally heard and be taken seriously. Partnerships that want to be successful, should put in place a program from the first day a trainee joins the law firm, until the day of retirement, through which all lawyers are permanently and structurally trained on the 7 core skills above. Only lawyers who have a score of 8 out of 10 or more on all of the 7 aspects should be admitted in the partnership. In a strong partnership every partner should be a rainmaker in his or her own way.

At increasingly shorter intervals, I get asked by law firms or large inhouse legal departments to have a conversation on diversity. As diversity is increasingly on the agenda, it seems the right time to take stock and to give the topic some meaningful context. 'The Wind Blows From The West'. For the most part the whole discussion on diversity started in the United States and blew over to Europe. In this context it is important to recognize that compared to Europe, the US is an entirely different society. Racial segregation was still very much a thing of the present in the 1960-ties. I remember listening to a recording of an interview with Muhammad Ali in which he recalls that even after winning the Olympic Gold Medal in 1960 he was refused to enter a fancy restaurant in downtown Louisville, his hometown. Historically, this kind of practice is reasonably recent and it is still very much a part of living memory in the US. In the past decades serious efforts have been made to improve the position of African Americans, but there is still a long, long way to go. The emphasis on diversity and inclusiveness in the legal industry reflects this. In Europe we do not have a recent history of racial segregation, partly because non-Caucasians have traditionally always been an ‘invisible’ minority. Also economic opportunities are much more equally distributed in Europe. In principle everyone is granted the same access to education and social security. On top of that, ever since WW2, Europe is hyper-sensitive as it comes to keeping records on race, sexual orientation or religious believes. All of this explains that the topic of diversity in Europe is incomparable to the United States, making it impossible to put both in the same mold. What about women Monday 8 March 2021 was International Women’s Day, and it came as no surprise that this week we have seen a great number of news items on how women are represented in the Boardroom and in other Governing Bodies. (You will find interactive statistic here on Bloomberg). Looking at the data it is immediately apparent that on the topic of gender equality still a lot of work needs to be done, both in Europe and in the United States, as well as in most other regions around the world. Business is still dominated by (white) males. The Business of Law no exception. Zooming in on the Business of Law, it appears that there is a significant disparity between lawyers in private practice and lawyers inhouse. Inhouse have a significantly higher percentage of women in senior roles. In private practice the division between men and women tends to be 50/50 for junior lawyers, with sometimes even a slight overrepresentation of female associates. These numbers dramatically change as it comes to the Equity-Partners. Even in the egalitarian Nordic countries women are vastly underrepresented in the (equity)partnerships. Too often I have heard the argument that being a partner in a law firm is a brutal profession, which requires 24/7 availability and comes with a lot of stress. This argument seems to suggest that women simply are not up to the job and shy away when offered the opportunity to become partner. This seems like an odd argument and to see if it holds stake, let’s compare with another extremely demanding profession which also requires 24/7 availability and high levels of stress. In December 2019 The Washington Post published an article that in the medical profession overall, male doctors still outnumber female doctors, 64 percent to 36 percent, according to 2019 data, but this was about to change as more than 60 percent of physicians under the age of 35 are female, while just under 40 percent are male. In the next-highest age bracket (35 to 44 years of age), women are the dominant gender as well – just slightly – coming in at 51.5 percent. It seems that the legal industry has ran out of excuses… Cognitive Diversity What once started as a quest to give African American equal opportunities in the United States, has grown into an ever expanding movement to prevent every conceivable minority from being discriminated against in a public or work environment. The main objective is no longer promoting emancipation, but preventing discrimination. Today companies are under pressure to create a class of gender neutral toilets for those who do not identify as man of woman. The most recent discussion has become toilets for transgenders, people who changed sex, as they seem to be not accepted in the toilets of their new ‘gender’. Today we have a global WOKE movement of extremely vocal activist people who are hyper sensitive to all they consider discriminatory or not politically correct. All things diverse are firmly on their agenda. "Today’s law firms are too homogeneous" It goes without saying that law firms should behave as decent companies and therefore not discriminate and actively work to create equal opportunities for everyone. This is just how organizations are supposed to behave. For law firms it would however be an incredible missed opportunity to only focus on gender and ethnic emancipation. The most important argument for more diversity has nothing to do with politically correct behavior. Diversity is needed to provide a better product. Today’s law firms are too homogeneous. Most lawyers whether male or female, straight or gay are from the same social and educational background. They share the same believes and tend to approach things from the same perspective, regardless of their gender or the color of their skin. Law firms have become echo-chambers of a shared vision of the world. No explaining needed that this is risky. In the decade to come law firms will need to increase cognitive diversity. As the world around us becomes more complex, law firms need lawyers and other professionals with different backgrounds, different personal skills and above all different beliefs and visions on society. On 2 January 2020 the infamous former Downing Street top-advisor Dominic Cummings published an article in which he argues that the Government should hire more “weirdos and misfits” as well as people that don’t have the traditional Oxford/Cambridge educational background. Although I do not necessarily share Cummings’ vision on politics and on society in general, I do support his views on what it takes to create an excellent and capable team.

With the start of the global pandemic one year ago, a radical new concept was suddenly introduced. I doubt if anyone of you would have ever considered the possibility of forced closure of restaurants and shops and forced confinement to home. Nevertheless the concept of ‘Lockdown’ took the world by storm and people just had to adjust to it. Being confined to home fundamentally changed our working, shopping, viewing and payment behavior. Even the Queen of the Netherlands has been spotted browsing a popular online shopping site. While webshops are indispensable during a lockdown, navigating them could be a daunting task as many have a plethora of choice, making it difficult to decide. You can buy hundreds of different types of shower gel for example, or shampoo. While some choice is good, our mistake is thinking more of it is always better. We tend to think, ‘Somewhere out there is the perfect X,’ and our job is to find it. This is a misconception that often leads to the inability to come to a decision and/or dissatisfaction once a choice has been made. Perhaps you should have chosen an alternative option after all. Cognitive dissonance this is called. But a law firm is not a webshop Modern Romance is a book (by A. Ansari – 2016) that argues that many people end up perpetually single because they’re overwhelmed by the unlimited choices on today’s dating apps and keep-on searching for the perfect match. This is a mistake, the perfect partner does not exist from the onset but is created through real-life interaction over time. There will always be an inherent risk of picking what turns out to be the wrong person. The dynamics in a partner group at a law firm are often remarkably similar. Just like online shoppers or singles using a dating app, lawyers tend to assume that there is such a thing as a ‘perfect choice’. This idée fixe is a common cause of partner groups being unable to take executable decisions on strategic matters. The possibility that there might be a better option combined with the quite extreme risk-averse nature of a lawyer frequently leads to not taking any meaningful decision at all. This is called analysis paralysis and it is caused by considering too many viable options while thinking only one of those is the best. Books about heaven In our book Death of a Law Firm (Bosman/Hakanson – 2015) we describe a cartoon from The New Yorker that cleverly depicts the preference for contemplating things, rather than doing them. The cartoon shows a perplexed person standing before the choice of two doors. One door says ‘HEAVEN’. The other says ‘BOOKS ABOUT HEAVEN’. The fact that the person is hesitating when confronted with these choices is funny because we all know there is some truth to this absurd conundrum. We recognise that a lot of people may be tempted to read books about heaven rather than actually experience it. This especially applies to lawyers. If we just read up on it a bit more, do some extra research or hire that guru consultant, then alternatives on what we can do will become clearer. Let us read up on heaven before we go there. What few understand is that not taking action is in itself very harmful. For a start, many possibilities actually come out of action. Taking action is what creates possibilities that did not exist before. Like in the dating app, what becomes the right choice is effectively a product of a continuing interaction. Playing it safe is actually harmful Frequently I get asked what the difference is been highly successful law firms and the rest. Unsurprisingly, there is not one single most important distinguishing characteristic. There are more, but the ability to take important strategic decisions while having a certain tolerance for risks and imperfections, certainly is one of them. At the not-so-successful law firms partner groups get bogged down in endless discussions amongst themselves on pros and cons of basically every single decision that matters for the future success of the firm. I have been present at many of such sessions and so doubtlessly have you. Like vultures partners prey on a proposal and rip it apart until nothing meaningful is left. As a result invariably nothing much changes. The idea that there could potentially be a better option, paralyses the decision making process. If you do what you did, you get what you’ve got. The law firms that are the most successful, are the ones that manage to focus on the things that really matter, take decisions and keep moving forward on execution. With this comes the ability to accept that perhaps there is no such thing as ‘the perfect choice’ and that more than one option could be turned into a success. Create, execute, learn, improve, over and over again, that should be the mantra instead of discussing every initiative or idea to death. After a while most consumers have adapted to the overload of online choice and have accepted that there is no such thing as the perfect garment, book, Netflix-series, car, house or even shampoo. They just buy what feels right and make the best of it. The small group that still suffering from choice-paralysis ends up with the same old clothes and greasy hair.

On 10 February, Gartner (NYSE: IT), a global research company, published a report called ‘Predicts 2021: Corporate Legal and Compliance Technology’. This report is for Gartner clients only. Researchers found that by 2024, corporate legal departments will replace 20% of generalist lawyers with nonlawyer staff. This will allow legal departments to do more with scarce resources. From 2018 to 2020, the percentage of legal departments with a legal operations manager (responsible for technical staff) grew from 34% of legal departments to 58%, with much higher use of the role among Fortune 500 companies. Legal technology spending has increased 1.5 times from 2.6% of in-house budgets in 2017 to 3.9% in 2020. Gartner predicts legal technology spending will increase to approximately 12% of in-house budgets by 2025, a threefold increase from 2020 levels. At the same time, some departments at large enterprises are increasing the percentage of in-house specialist full-time employees (FTEs) to replace law firm expertise and control costs. Haven’t we heard all of this before? So this comes down to clients saying they are going to reduce their legal spend by embracing automation of legal processes, hiring non-lawyers that do work that does not require the attention of a trained lawyer and at the same if needed, hire additional lawyers to do part of the work that is today outsourced to external law firms. If all of this would really happen, this would certainly impact law firm revenue. The question is: will it happen? In 2018 while working on my book ‘Data & Dialogue’, we did a detailed data-analysis on how companies spend their legal budget. We used about a million itemized data on individual fee-earner level and we found that the average Fortune-500 company could easily save about 25% on external legal spend, without changing law firms or renegotiate rates. The 25% savings could be achieved by better preparing the documents and information law firms need, in combination with a more efficient communication. Just providing the law firm with all information at once in a structured and accessible way, not changing the scope of work and having an efficient and streamlined communication, would reduce cost by 25%. That is a lot, but still it did not happen. Ever since the Financial Crisis of 2008, companies have been vocal on the need for law firms to become less expensive. Regardless, rates have consistently grown over that same period. It seems that companies don’t put their money where their mouth is, so why would it be different this time? This time it will be different As we all know, the Covid-crisis has tremendously accelerated the speed of development and adoption of new technology. Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, famously stated that he had seen more innovation in the first three months of the crisis, than in the whole three years before. Not only the speed of development changed, but also the speed of adoption. With lockdowns disrupting supply chains, and work-from-home orders preventing employees to gather in an office, companies have been making huge investments in automation, as being less dependent on humans makes work processes more robust. Automation, this time is no fluffy future vision, but is already being implemented in the real world. It is already happening, also in the legal department. The graph above represents the TGO Value Matrix©. It shows that for a company the willingness to spend money on a lawyer will depend on A) the anticipated Return on Investment (will it help the company make money or prevent a loss) and B) on the availability of lawyers with the right experience in that market. As the TGO Value Matrix© shows, there are actually two different ‘legal markets’ that each have their own dynamic. Top left is the market for strategic work, where there is high Return on Investment for the client and a limited availability of lawyers with the right experience. Bottom right is a totally different market, where the ROI is low or not there at all, and where lawyers with the required experience are readily available. It is this second market that is going to be noticeably affected by companies (clients) investing in automation and in taking more matters in their own hand. This is the area where traditionally the mid-tier law firms are operating. Winners and Losers I have no reason to believe that the trends Gartner is reporting are not realistic. My own observations and conversations corroborate most of what is in their report. The larger inhouse legal departments are increasing the use of clever software and are actively taking more work in-house. This is already being noticed by law firms in the market. In 2020 in the ALM 100-200 law firms performed considerably less well than the ALM 1-50, compared to 2019. This trend will continue and spread. The winners will be the elite law firms who focus on the strategic work (upper left in the TGO Value Matrix©), the ‘losers’ will be the ones that largely or completely depend on work in the lower right corner of the TGO Value Matrix©. Step by step the pressure on their revenue will increase as the workflow partly starts to dry-up. If your firm is heavily depending on this segment of the market, the time has come to recalibrate your strategy before the market will do it for you. Unless you don’t work or want to work for Fortnune-500 companies or other large clients that is.

You might be surprised if you knew how often the I get asked about what I think is the best governance structure for a law firm. It seems like many partners are searching for a Silver Bullet as it comes to how to best manage their firm. The mere fact that I get asked so often, is already a clear indication that there is that lingering feeling that law firms are not managed in an optimal way. So are law firms really poorly managed? Looking at it from a distance the answer should clearly be no. Few businesses succeed in making so much money without investment as law firms do. Delivering such high yield, law firms must clearly be doing something right. Looking at it more closely, it turns out that there is much room for improvement. Law firms have largely become successful ‘despite’ their management instead of ‘thanks to’ their management. The legal market has been so buoyant for the past decades, that it is almost impossible NOT to make more money than the average university graduate with the same years of experience. The ‘Herding Cats’ Myth “Managing a Law Firm is like Herding Cats” as the saying goes. This popular ‘wisdom’ can be heard being used ad nauseam by Managing Partners (especially former Managing Partners) and Law Firm Consultants. In effect it has become used so often that people have started to believe it is true. Well, it is not. It is just a lousy excuse for poor management. (Former) Managing Partners use it to justify why they have achieved so little, and consultants use it to sell their services and also to explain why they didn’t contribute much. The road to better management starts with denouncing the ‘Herding Cats’ myth. Effective Law Firm Management is absolutely possible (and necessary!). Many Law Firms are ‘Managed by Fear’ When I say law firms are 'managed by fear', I certainly do not mean the fear of brutal and unpredictable leadership. It is not that Managing Partners are managing their firm like Joseph Stalin used to rule Russia. On the contrary: it is not the partners that fear the Managing Partner, it is the Managing Partner who fears the partners. Managing Partners commonly fear falling out with the powerful partners in the firm. Their fear is that when they rub partners up the wrong way, powerful partners will either call for the Managing Partner to step down, or might themselves take their book of business and leave the firm. This in turn could cause the other partners to demand the Managing Partner to step down and ultimately even be asked to leave the firm. Permanent subconscious fear of being demoted can prevent Managing Partners from effectively leading their firm. They become expensive caretakers instead. Don’t Micro-Manage Perhaps Jack Welch (1935-2020), the legendary former CEO of General Electric can be considered the architype of a boss. Mr Welsh was a notorious micro-manager. He famously said: “I’ve managed a lot of people, and one thing I have found is that the staff was more productive and attuned to how and what we needed to get done when I was closely involved with them”. Being lawyers, many Managing Partners feel the same and they resort to micro-management. Driven by the fear of being held responsible for mistakes that are made elsewhere in the firm, and at the same time being convinced like Jack Welch that others will greatly benefit from their insights and infinite wisdom, some Managing Partners put a disproportionate amount of time and energy in micro-managing every aspect of the firm: marketing, HR, IT, knowledge management, you name it, the MP knows best. Having a Managing Partner, who is by definition a career lawyer, micro-manage the firm is a poor use of resources. On top of that, all the time, effort and energy spent by a Managing Partner on micro-management, can not be spent on leading the firm to a better future. Micro-management is often a form of escapism, and an excuse for not leaving the firm in a better position at the end of the tenure. Leadership Needed Many lawyers make a lot of money almost by accident. Partner incomes North of Half-a-Million are the rule, rather than the exception. It does not look like this is going to change anytime soon. The business of law will remain extremely profitable for the foreseeable future. It is not that law firms are not doing well; they are not doing well enough. Those who cannot keep up, are bound to spiral downward. There is an urgency to do better in order to attract, grow and keep talent. In the world of big law, there is a race to the top. The income gap and the gap in quality of clients and mandates between the firms who succeed and those who don’t will increase. To have a living chance of surviving this race to the top, a firm needs a leader and not a caretaker. An Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove Coming back now to the initial question: “what do you think is the best governance structure for a law firm Jaap?” It will come as no surprise that the answer will be “it depends”. That is not because I am a lawyer, but because effectively it does not matter whether a firm has just one Managing Partner, or a Managing Partner and a Senior Partner, a Managing Partner and a Board, or an Executive Committee. The only thing that does matter is ‘Leadership’: Is the management capable to effectively lead the firm? Leadership implies the capability to overcome resistance-to-change among the partners. Leadership entails the courage to face the possibility of strong opposition, to press ahead with the strategy while keeping the partnership together. Leadership means focus on the things that really matter and not shying away from ‘fighting’ with powerful partners if needed. An effective Managing Partner should be an 'Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove' and not a ‘Push-Over-Pussy’ hesitant to take the lead. I am fully aware that there is much more to be said on this topic and that for the sake of clarity I have had to skip some nuance to get my point across. I will elaborate more on the topic in the weeks to come. Don’t want to wait?, drop me an email and we can discuss what is appropriate in your specific situation.

Back in the days, within a few months after I had graduated with honors for Law School, I applied for a junior management position at a blue chip company. Part of the recruitment process was a one-day talent assessment. Part of this assessment was a job simulation in which I had the role of a manager who has to fire a senior employee that had been with the company for more than 20 years. Fresh from university, with all relevant employment law still top of my head, I worked my way through an imaginary checklist and bluntly told the employee that he was fired. It will come as no surprise that I failed the test and did not start my career at that company. Rightly so. By only focusing on the legal aspects of the employment termination, I had completely ignored the human aspect of firing someone who had been with the company for two decades. My approach lacked the empathy that is needed in real world situations. Although I did not get the job, this experience taught me a valuable lesson and I have never made the same mistake again. He who focuses only on the legal aspects runs the risk of totally missing the point. How clients select lawyers Lawyers like to believe that clients come to them because of their superior knowledge of the law. In reality this is seldom the case. For clients, knowledge of the law is a given, just like every doctor is expected to have the medical knowledge. Clients select a lawyer not because of legal knowledge, but because of knowledge of best-market-practice as it comes to distribution of risks, and because of the lawyer’s human skills. Now that we at TGO Consulting have had some extra time at hand because of the global travel restrictions, we thought it would be interesting to employ an algorithm and analyze client feedback and comments from the Chambers directory. We ran all ‘Chambers Review’ sections on individual lawyers (as published by Chambers on their website), through the algorithm. It looked for word-combinations that were describing legal-skills and those that were describing 'human-skills'. It turned out that in a whopping 80% of all comments, clients were praising a lawyer for 'human skills' rather than legal skills. A typical client feedback was 4 times more likely to look like this: "X is a very calm lawyer who is focused on the clients' interests. He's practical, solution-oriented and understands the industry", than: “X is a brilliant lawyer that has a great knowledge of the law” Distribution of Risks Clients don’t hire lawyers to explain all legal roadblocks. Clients hire lawyers to help find solutions that will bring their business forward. Most contracts contain serious imperfections as any litigator will tell you. The point is that a ‘perfect’ contract probably will never get the signature from both parties. Propelling your client’s business in the real world will always mean making compromises. The best lawyer from the client’s perspective is the one that has the best knowledge of industry standards and market best-practices as it comes to a fair distribution of risks between parties. This is not predominantly a legal issue. This is not only applicable to transactions, but equally to litigation and advice. A large part of litigation has a ‘strategic’ component and is meant to make a statement more than expected to actually be winning in court. The majority of cases is settled between parties before a verdict has been reached. Even legal advice is expected to deliver practical solutions, rather than an overview of obstacles down the road. We need a change in paradigm The difference between highly regarded successful lawyers and the ones that are just average is, as demonstrated, not in the knowledge of the law. It is in understanding the business environment of the client, and understanding the strategic interests of the client, the knowledge of industry standards and best-market practice as it comes to distribution of risks. Successful lawyers help propel their clients’ business forward. Successful lawyers are perhaps business enablers more than anything else. May I ask you to reflect on this for a moment. Understanding this will mean that in order to become more successful, some things will fundamentally have to change: Recruitment needs to select on other criteria than focusing on the highest marks. Once onboarded, lawyers will need to be educated and trained in a different way. The internal communication will need to change and focus on the wider economy and on sharing best-market-practice, rather than legal updates and case law. Partner criteria will need to be different. These insights will lead to a change in paradigm. From legal centric to client centric. Not as a platitude, but as the origin and the core.

Over the past few weeks I have had several conversations with a law firm that got it into their head that they need to merge. The situation is that in Q4 of 2020, as a consequence of an internal power struggle, the firm has lost almost its entire Banking & Finance capability. Obviously the decision of the team (partners + associates) to set up camp elsewhere, had a history in the making. For months there had been internal discussions, but without avail. Once the team had decided to leave, a new internal discussion started on how to fill the sudden Banking & Finance void. At this point in time, a merger with a smaller boutique, was thought to be the solution. My point this week is not this particular situation, as it is specific for this firm. No, what I would like to highlight is the incredible amount of energy wasted on internal discussions that did not bring any new business, or helped improve the market position of the firm. On the contrary, I would say: focusing inward, rather than outward left the firm weaker than it was before. Keen to focus on internal issues If you would take a step back and look at it, it is actually quite surprising that law firm partners spend so much time discussing internal issues. As partners experience permanent pressure to perform and grow their book of business, one would expect this to be the number one topic on their agenda, but it isn’t. Ninety-nine percent of the time clients and business are not on the agenda at all. So, let’s explore why partners rather talk about internal issues, than about the clients that bring them commercial success. The ownership syndrome At the vast majority of law firms, the partners are technically the owners. For many, that actually translates to behaving like a business owner and wanting to be involved in all the decisions. In the past this would go as far as partners wanting to have a voice in what printers to buy, and what brand of coffee to select. Although this level of detailed involvement has fortunately become the exception, most partners still want to have an active say in the day-to-day management of their firm. Needless to highlight that most of the time this does not make sense. Being lawyers, partners are by no means experts on printers or the professional market for coffee. Focused on details and potential risks By nature of their profession, lawyers are the masters of spotting – potential – risks. As often there are risks in the details, there is also a strong focus on details. Overarching this, is the concept of perfection and doing it right the first time around. All these great qualities make perfect sense in the day-to-day practice of a lawyer. Missing a tiny detail could eventually mean a lot of trouble or losing the case. Being focused on details and micromanagement day-in day-out, it becomes difficult to put that attitude aside when it comes to managing the firm. That is why often in partner meetings discussions have a level of detail that will not be found in the boardroom of any company. Practice is a most individual thing In any regular company, the clients are the client of the company and not of an individual employee. Sure, I have a personal account manager at my bank, but in the end I am the client of the bank and the account manager is replaceable. I would say that even for my accountant that is the case. I like my accountant a lot and we have a great relationship, but if one day he decides to leave, I will most likely stick with the firm. For lawyers this is different. Mostly clients are the client of an individual partner, rather than a client of the firm. This is also how the relationship works in the mind of the partner. The partner feels a strong personal responsibility and therefore no inclination to discuss this with the other partners. Outside the comfort zone Becoming a partner in a law firm comes to a certain degree with parting with doubt. Having the final responsibility representing the client in a matter, requires confidence and a steady hand. Partners work under professional conditions that vis-à-vis the client, the opposing party or the court, leave very little room for doubt. As a consequence and as a sort of ‘defense mechanism’ partners tend to avoid situations where they are not certain. Clients and Business Development are among those topics. In general it is hard to have an open, honest and meaningful discussion with a group of partners on how to grow the business. The topic is out of the comfort zone and it comes too close to the individual performance of the partners. Potentially highlighting differences in reputation and commercial success. Therefore partners tend to avoid going there. You should really change the conversation topics From time to time, I ask law firms what percentage of partner meetings time is spent on clients and markets versus time spent on internal issues. Unsurprisingly 99% of the time in partner meetings is spent on the latter. After reading the article, I hope you would agree that this practice is valuable time being not well spent. Discussing internal matters does nothing for improving the reputation and the financial success of the firm. Having partners decide on the printers will not lead to better business (or even better printers). Like in the example in the intro, internal issues can be huge drains of energy without any meaningful material returns. It is time to start focusing the energy outward instead of inward. Time to start discussing market opportunities, instead of the flowers on the reception desk. Smart companies are rigorously focused on long term commercial success and their internal discussions reflect that. It is time for law firms to do the same, and focus on market opportunities and exchange information and insights on clients, best practices and rumors from the grape vine. Adopting this practice is guaranteed to make you money. Hopefully, if I would ask you in one year's time, you would say that you spend at least 80% of the time discussing market opportunities.

After a repeated recommendation of a friend, last Tuesday I finally watched the first episode of ‘Industry’. Industry is a British television drama-series produced by the BBC. It premiered November 2020 on HBO and BBC-Two. The series follows a group of young graduates competing for a limited set of permanent positions at Pierpoint & Co, a fictitious London Investment Bank. I cannot say that I particularly liked the episode, but it depicts the reality of entering the competitive world of Investment Banking quite well. Talented young graduates seek to pursue a career that elevates them into the well paid realm of high-pace high-flying dealmakers. It is not about the work, it is about being part of that world. The same holds true for most young graduates that want to pursue a career in Big Law. It is not just about being deeply interested in legal stuff. It is probably even more about becoming part of the world of high-end law and all that comes with it. For talented young graduates, Big Law is an appealing place to work. Offices are glamourous and on prime locations in major cities. Big Law lawyers are smartly dressed, go out for lunch in fancy restaurants, and have all sorts of perks like a gym or dry cleaning service in the office. The world of Big Law is an aspirational lifestyle for many. Compared to most other organizations, law firms also have a relatively young population. Thanks to the pyramid system, the average age of the lawyers hovers around 30. You will not find that at a bank or a large corporate. With many people in the same young age group, law firms are a great place to hang around. Most are not settled with a house and kids, so there is a lot of ‘work hard, play hard’. Joining Big Law is perhaps more buying into a lifestyle, than anything else. Those graduates, who are predominantly content driven, become academics, work at the courts or the legislator, go in-house or join a small law firm. Now that the lifestyle has gone Last Friday, it was surprisingly the fourth time since early December, that I was approached for career advice by a senior associate from a Big Law firm. Not that I knew any of them, and also their firms are not my client. It is just what happens if you are well know in the market. Giving career advise is not our business and we do not charge. This however is not the point that I want to make. All four were highly successful and on a clear partner track and all were seriously contemplating quitting their lucrative job and leaving the world of Big Law. Four conversations in six weeks, that is not a coincidence. This is a clear sign that something bigger is going on here. For every lawyer that contacts me, a total stranger, there must be hundreds more that are going through the same internal doubt and struggle. Any of these could work at your firm today! The four lawyers are unrelated, as they work in different countries, in different law firms and in different practice areas. What they had in common was that they had been working from home for most of the year. Working from home deprived them of the perks and the lifestyle and had forced them to solely focus on the legal work itself. So instead of going to the office, do some work, have some meetings, go out for lunch with colleagues or clients, discuss some matters, go for after work drinks or to they gym (or both), they were now sitting behind their computer screens for 10 hour per day. After nine months, this had now put serious doubt in their minds if they wanted to be a lawyer after all. If you take away the lifestyle and the colleagues to hang out with, it turns out that being a lawyer is a tedious and boring profession. The pandemic has left the world of Big Law somewhat standing naked. Law firms are at serious risk of losing valuable talent, as it’s the lawyers with a broad interest and above average social skills, which are most prone to feelings of doubt. So, what should law firm leaders do? Last Monday, 18 January, was Blue Monday. This is the day that is generally considered the most depressing day of the year. All the end-of-year festivities are behind us. Outside it is dark and depressing, and the New Year’s resolutions have already failed. This time, the situation is even more desperate than usual. Most of Europe is in a harsh lockdown, with the free movement of its people severely restricted. Our political leaders warn us that with the mutations of the virus, even with the vaccine this miserable situation will likely continue to last for weeks or months to come. This may be a totally depressing outlook for most of us, it is especially hard on young people who are not settled with a family and depend on friends and colleagues for their social contacts. Perhaps this year it is not just Blue Monday, but Blue January instead or even Blue Spring (I admit that that sounds like a contradiction, but you get my point). The moment at which things might return to ‘normal’ is being pushed further down the line all the time. Law firm leaders cannot change the way things are, so like everyone else we have to live with the situation and try to make the best of it. The first thing law firm leaders should do right now is to acknowledge the ‘lifestyle aspects’ of becoming a lawyer. This means recognizing the reality that young people did not join the firm out of a strong desire to develop a deep knowledge of the law. So bring back that feeling of 'glamour', lifestyle and ‘brotherhood’. Sitting at home becomes miserable after a while. Why not support your usual lunch spots and arrange for 'business class lunches' to be delivered to your associates’ homes once or twice a week. To replace after-work drinks, send a bottle of champagne on the Friday afternoon. Offer a personal trainer. Do whatever you need to do to maintain the illusion of a ‘Big Law lifestyle’. “Send a bottle of champagne on the Friday afternoon” It is not good for anyone to sit behind a screen for ten hours a day for months. Law firms should 'force' their associates to take a two hour lunchbreak and go out for a walk. Being outside, having some exercise and being away from work will boost morale and productivity. If permitted, associates should be encouraged to take such walks with one or more colleagues (number depending on Corona regulations in your situation). I have taken up daily mid-day walks myself and I can testify that it really works! “Take a two hour lunchbreak and go out for a walk” As I have outlined many times before, people are the most important asset of a law firm. For Big Law, human talent is key to survival. What you want are not the introvert legal nerds, but the sociable people with a broad interest that goes beyond the law. It is exactly this group, the ones that you need to keep, that suffer most under the current restrictions. It is time to recognize this problem and to do whatever you can to prevent your talents from pursuing another career.

Mankind has always had a fascination for ‘Super Humans’. People just like you and me, but with some extraordinary power. The Greek had Heracles, the Baby Boomers had Batman and our children have Harry Potter. What these characters have in common is that on first sight they are just like us, ordinary people. Only if the world is in danger they come out and protect us from evil. Being at the core human, makes them relatable and enables us to fantasize that perhaps we also could be special. Such mythical creatures are also present in the Legal Industry. Here they are called Rainmakers. At first sight they seem to be just like all the others but when it comes to creating revenue, you can see their Super Powers. Like magnets they seem to be able to attract prestigious clients and big mandates, and that is how they come to the rescue of their firm. Rainmakers have the ability to create reputation and profit out of thin air. Thanks to this ability Rainmakers have mythical status and are highly sought-after as lateral hires. Typically a lawyer is not outgoing by nature. If asked, most would prefer to work on client files, rather than having to go out and find new clients. Perhaps deep down, they would like to be more confident and sociable, but like the children who fantasize about being Super Humans, they know that they are not. That is why they envy and admire the Rainmakers, as they represent what they would wish they could be. Rainmakers, sometimes not quite what it seems Partners whose revenue is in the upper 10% of their firm, are commonly considered Rainmakers. This would suggest that the fact that they have high revenue is predominantly thanks to their amazing reputation and/or acquisition skills. In reality this is not always the case and requires closer examination: Some ‘Rainmakers’ have simply ‘inherited’ a large part of their practice from a partner before them. Unless they cannot live up to the standard, those clients will typically remain loyal. Building one’s practice on a high quality 'inheritance' is much easier than building from scratch. Succeeding a renowned partner will also be a definitive advantage in building a reputation. Some ‘Rainmakers’ just got lucky once on landing a very large mandate, maybe because another lawyer was conflicted. This is especially known to happen in litigation. Some ‘Rainmakers’ go to great lengths to get files put in their name. Sometimes ‘Rainmakers’ claim that they are the Client Partner even if other partners do the actual work. Sometimes ‘Rainmakers’ are tempted to open a second file in the same matter which is then under their name. These ‘Rainmakers’ are very protective as it comes to their Book of Business. Some ‘Rainmakers’ purposely create weak offspring by appointing their ‘helpers’ to partner while expecting them to keep serving in their practice. We know of many instances where ‘Rainmakers’ did never make partners that were better or equally good as themselves. Some ‘Rainmakers’ only allow new partners to be appointed in their practice area on the condition that they will not compete and focus on a different segment of the market. As you will understand, above are just a few examples to illustrate that not every lawyer who is perceived as being a ‘Rainmaker’ actually possesses the ‘magical skills’ required. Just like a Las Vegas magician is not a sorcerer like Harry Potter. Fear and the Stockholm Syndrome Within their firm, Rainmakers have a very special position. That almost invariably includes having an important voice if it comes to the management of the firm. Rainmakers rarely act as Managing Partner, but behind the scenes they want to pull the strings. This as such might seem logical, but it actually does not make sense. The qualities that make a Rainmaker are different from those needed to define the strategy or to manage the firm. So why is it that Rainmakers wield so much influence? The naked truth is it is all about fear. The other partners feel inclined to accommodate the Rainmakers on all their whims, simply because they are afraid that otherwise the Rainmaker might get upset and might decide to leave the firm. Putting Rainmakers on a pedestal is in a way a form of the Stockholm Syndrome. In our practice, over time, we have come across examples of Rainmakers that had shown atrocious behavior. Committing fraud, Me-Too, misuse of firm property, it all happens. The partners know about this, but prefer to turn the blind eye. This illustrates the lengths to which partners are prepared to go to keep the Rainmaker on-board. Afraid as they are to lose the revenue, profit contribution and the reputation. Obviously the majority of Rainmakers is not at all guilty of any ethical or legal misconduct. Still some among this group might be found guilty on bullying other partners or behaving like a dictator during Partner Meetings. Again, the other partners tend to refrain from taking action out of fear of displeasing the Rainmaker, who then might leave. All this to illustrate that the relationship between the firm and the Rainmakers is ultimately ruled by fear. No need to explain that this is an unhealthy situation. How to mitigate the downside of Rainmakers? Management guru Tom Peters is probably the most famous consultant McKinsey has ever produced. His influence on the firm was enormous and helped raise McKinsey’s profile beyond its wildest dreams. Yet in 1981 Tom Peters was asked to leave. His contentious departure has been well documented. McKinsey had a rule that The Firm is more important than the individual. When Tom Peters became a 'Prima Donna', McKinsey did not hesitate to ‘kill’ its most celebrated Rainmaker. Turned out that ‘firing’ Tom Peters did not harm the firm, as we all know today. Also Tom Peter has done quite well for himself. So for law firms, the first step is to recognize the Stockholm Syndrome and to overcome the urge to allow the Rainmaker to behave as a spoiled celebrity. Law firms could learn from McKinsey in recognizing that The Firm is more important than the individual. Don’t be afraid to part with a Rainmaker that is causing Thunderstorms. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, consciously mange the quality of your partner group. The ability to attract mandates and clients should not be an exception. It is a core requirement for every partner. Law firms are still focusing on legal competencies as it comes to nominating new partners. It should be recognized that commercial and relationship skills are far more important. Lawyers should be trained from the day they start, to develop those skills. When the average quality of the partner group increases, the Rainmakers will gradually disappear, as every partner becomes a Rainmaker. Being a Rainmaker should become the rule, not the exception. Then the creature will lose its mythical status. This is part of what we advise on for a living. Do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss: bosman@tgo-consulting.com

Comes December, come familiar rituals. Every year law firms have to approve a budget for the next year, promote new partners and, every couple of years elect new management and discuss partner compensation. Part of this annual recurring ‘circus’ is requiring partners and practice groups to produce a business plan. This may sound like a sensible thing to do, but it is not. I do not recall ever having met a single partner that is looking forward to producing a business plan. Here’s what typically happens: the Managing Partner, the Practice Group Leader or Business Development sends out a template for the business plan, to be completed before a certain date. Partners have no clue how to deal with this and it is about the busiest time of the year, so they just leave it. When, after several reminders, the deadline approaches, they ask their assistant to pull up the business plan from the year before, make a few alterations and submit. A few weeks later, all the plans are discussed. Lawyers are highly skilled in discussing things that have been put on paper, so the discussion of the plan is navigated without any hick-ups or consequences. Shortly after everyone gets back to work as usual as if nothing has happened. A useless ritual performed once again and home-free until the next year. Just like they did it back in the days in the USSR Remember the Soviet Plan Economy? Under Joseph Stalin's close supervision, a complex system of planning arrangements had developed since the introduction of the first five-year plan in 1928. For every enterprise, planning ministries defined the mix of economic inputs (e.g. labor and raw materials), a schedule for completion, all wholesale prices and almost all retail prices. The planning process was based around material balances—balancing economic inputs with planned output targets for the planning period. On the whole, the plans were overoptimistic, and plagued by falsified reporting. In short: in theory plan-economy may have sounded like a great idea, but in the real world it did not go well. Every time I see a law firm requiring it’s partners to produce a business plan, I cannot help thinking of the Soviet Plan Economy. You will have to admit that the similarities are striking: a pre-defined mix of economic input (billable hours) and retail prices (rates), with planned output targets for the planning period and the resulting plans being over-optimistic. Requiring partners to produce a business plan, provides a rational false sense of control. Businesses are supposed to make business plans, that’s what we are taught. Law firms are businesses and should also make business plans. Never mind that these plans are almost invariably a mix of wishful thinking and a clear lack of market intelligence. Just like in the good old Soviet times, partners are required to put on paper how they are going to produce let’s say 2.5 million in revenue and what new clients and markets they are going to develop. Sound remarkably similar to “We are going to produce 10 million tons of potatoes that we are going to sell in South East Asia”. For the Soviets we know, this notoriously did not work well, so how has this been working for you so far? So if not a business plan, what should you do? Let’s start with highlighting that your firm should have a strategy. A strategy that clearly outlines where the firm wants to be after a period of five years. The strategy should describe at a minimum, what type of clients, what markets and what type of matters the firm is looking for. Preferably the strategy should also set clear targets and milestones against which progress can be monitored. This strategy is valid for let’s say a period of five years and should not be changed in the meantime unless a true Black Swan event occurs (which usually is not the case). Once you have a viable and realistic strategy, everything else is execution. Execution is a permanent process and not an annual ritual. This indicates that instead of the annual business plan, it makes more sense to work with quarterly targets for every partner and every practice group of which the execution is permanently monitored and evaluated. Execution and evaluation should be a joint orchestrated effort and not individual actions that could well be scattered all over the place. Law firms do not need business plans, they need a strategy and a permanent framework for execution. This execution needs to be supported by data. This would be accurate and up-to-date data on progress, and current data on external economic and business developments. Every month partners should sit together in small groups and discuss where they are and what should be done and/or could be improved in the month to come. At the end of every quarter there is a formal meeting with all the partners to take stock and define goals for the next quarter. Business development originates in the strategy. It focuses on the execution needed to reach the strategic goals. It is a permanent process that needs to be deeply embedded in the day-to-day workflow of the partners. The execution should be closely monitored and supported by internal and external data. No other method will help you reach your goals and targets, certainly not copy-pasted business plans done once a year. That is a pointless habit, that you should stop repeating as of today. If you need help with setting this up, or with your strategy or the execution thereof, drop us a note, we are happy to assist!