“Managing up” in law firms

/0 Comments/in , , /by

One of the interesting things about practicing law is that, until relatively recently, little discussion occurred about how to advance in practice beyond becoming a top-notch practitioner.  While I have no doubt that other skills  have always been required (the ability to communicate well, to lead well, etc.), it’s quite clear to me that more is needed now.  Client development skills, certainly, but also the desire to advance as a professional and as a key member of a team, whether that team is staffing a case or running an office/firm.  And “managing up,” a concept discussed with respect to corporate careers but rarely so in law firms, is a first step.

I’ll start by defining “managing up” as the strategies and skills that a more junior attorney can apply to develop a strong working and collegial relationship with more senior lawyers.  This isn’t a concept limited to associates or to new lawyers, though; it’s something that any lawyer working with a supervising attorney should consider — even if the supervising lawyer is, for some reason, less senior.  You’ll recognize some of the aspects of “managing up” as skills and strategies that smart lawyers develop and use.  My hope is that by using the term “managing up” to encapsulate them, one concept can be used to describe quickly a variety of behaviors and considerations.

Many books and articles have been written on managing up, so it would be impossible for me to write a blog post that would approach the subject fully.  So, I’ll address it on a conceptual level, with some concrete ideas and suggestions, and perhaps flesh it out further over time.

When considering how to “manage up,” one question rises above all others: what will be most helpful in this situation to the supervising lawyer?  And that question breaks down into a number of sub-questions, such as:

*  What will best serve the client?
*  What is the client’s ultimate goal?  Think beyond the immediate to what really matters for this client.
*  What best serves the supervising lawyer’s style?
*  What does the supervising lawyer really need, and will the client pay for that?  If not, how can you adapt?
*  What does the supervising lawyer need to know?
*  How can I advance what the supervising attorney is trying to accomplish?
*  What can I do to best contribute to this team in a way that the supervising lawyer will appreciate?

For example, a litigation client’s ultimate goal is to protect its legal interest while doing minimal damage to an important business relationship, that client will likely approach the litigation differently than if the goal is to cause maximum pain to the other party.  To serve the client, and also to serve the supervising lawyer, most effectively, you need to know about the ultimate goal as well as the immediate goal of winning the litigation, and you need to know at what point the supervising lawyer will be acting from the primary motivation of each goal.  Similarly (and I expect every lawyer will already know this), it’s important when drafting a letter for a supervising lawyer’s signature to write the letter in her style, not yours — and to discover that style by checking previous letters she’s written or  by asking her assistant.

A good, quick rundown of “managing up” strategies is found in the table of contents for a book titled Managing Up.  I can’t vouch for the book (I haven’t read it), but I like some of  the chapter titles.

So, questions for you to consider: how might you manage up?  What would be appropriate methods of doing so?  And how might you advance by taking these steps?

Law and the tightening economy

/2 Comments/in , , /by

This week’s article AmLaw 200 Managing Partners Issue Fog Advisory for 2008 provides a clear snapshot of some of the challenges facing law firms and lawyers these days.  According to the article, a “substantial number” of managing partners (25% of those polled) are “uncertain” about their firms’ prospects in 2008, largely due to the slowing transactional market and a drop-off in new litigation.  A secondary factor cited by one blunt firm leader is the perception that firms have stretched their resources to their limits: “We can’t beat the donkeys any harder.”  Nevertheless, 92% of leaders surveyed responded that they expect their firms’ profits per partner to rise next year.  These leaders are tightening the reigns on their donkeys in several ways, according to the article:

*  Making (unspecified) structural changes.

*  80% expect to hire fewer partner-track associates or to bring in a higher
percentage of contract and staff lawyers over the next 10 years.

*  2/3 plan to shift the partnership balance at their firms even farther away from
equity partnerships, either by de-equitizing current partners or by building up
the ratio of nonequity partners among future hires.

*  61% expect to experiment with alternative billing arrangements.  However,
other interviews suggest that these experiments are almost destined to fail.

*  99% plan to raise billing rates, with almost 2/3 planning to do so by more than 5%.

Brian Ritchey, the new primary voice of More Partner Income has an interesting post today that examines the strategies law firms use to increase profits.  The top strategies identified (based on a survey of midsized firms conducted by the Remsen Group) are (1) increasing fees and (2) increasing marketing and business development.  Cost cutting and improved efficiency are the next most effective steps, with only 7% citing an increase in billable hour requirements.  After examining the results in more depth, Ritchey provides his summary of steps likely to produce more profit:

• Better efficiency in workflow – lower the days to bill and days to collect fees;
• Discontinue “lock-step” compensation increases to the extent your firm uses this to compete;
• Adopt and adhere to a written, achievable strategic plan;
• Measure your key performance metrics:
o Effective rate upon collection of fees;
o Realization both at billing and collection;
o Productivity (billable hours or equivalent);
o Operating Margin;
o Leverage – either by headcount or billable hours;
• Market to your strengths – don’t be afraid to ask for business.

While there’s a lot to be said about the uncertain economic forecast and the likely belt-tightening underway, in a sense, it isn’t new at all.  I see two key questions: what can you, the individual lawyer (whether associate or partner) do to secure your place at the table, and what can firms do.  One area of overlap is in business development efforts, and that’s where both individuals and firms should be focusing now.  (Again, this isn’t news… Just affirmation of what’s been clear for quite a while now.)  If you’re hoping to maintain and grow your role within your firm, bringing in new business or cross-selling the current clients is the best opportunity.  And I’d also suggest that firms would be wise to shift some of their associates perks from luxurious indulgences to training and support designed to help their associates (and partners) achieve business results that will profit both the firm and the individual lawyers.

And how about for the associates who may be feeling like the real donkeys in this picture — fungible billing units, probably being asked to bill more with even less promise of achieving equity partnership, at least in large firms?  Business development is the key to increasing the chances of hitting equity.  And I continue to suspect that bright lawyers working as solos or in small firms have an unprecedented opportunity to woo clients from large firms, as discussed here and here.

What’s the most important step you can take?

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Only 34 days remain in 2007, including weekends and holidays.  Before we know it, the books will close and another year will have passed.  What’s the most important step you can take today to ensure that you’re well-positioned as you move into 2008?

  • Business development: Perhaps you could set aside a couple of hours to evaluate your business development plan for 2007 and to lay out your strategy for next year.  Or you could make some appointments to take important contacts to lunch, for coffee, or whatever is appropriate.  If you’ve noticed that there’s something in your way concerning client development, invest some time now determining what you need to do to be more productive.  At a minimum, set aside a few minutes every day to take some marketing action.
  • Time management: How are your hours?  If they’re low, what do you need to do to get appropriate work?  (Perhaps see the business development ideas!)  Are you billing for the time you’re actually working, and are you using that time well?  Do you need to update your methods for filing, time tracking, or scheduling?  Perhaps it’s time to check in with your assistant and see what ideas he or she has for using time more effectively.
  • Professional development:  This is often a great time of year to pick up CLE.  Or check out some of the new publications in your area of practice or on practice management.  But first, check your progress on the development plans you set for this year.  What can you do to close out this year with a success?
  • Career:  If you’ve been considering a move, this is a good time to put out feelers and position yourself.  You may not have an opportunity to interview until the new year, but putting yourself “on the market” now will be beneficial.  If you’re mid-search, you may find this a busy period as employers try to wrap up hiring decisions before the close of the year.If you’re planning to stay in your current position, what can you do to improve your performance?  How successful have you been this year, and what changes would be helpful as you move forward?  The holiday season is also an opportunity to show your gratitude to support staff and colleagues who have made your professional life work well and perhaps brightened your days: don’t miss your chance.
  • Work/life integration: Are you happy with the amount of time and energy you’re putting into your personal life?  Do you need to rearrange your schedule, get some help on the home front, or turn off your BlackBerry while you talk with your spouse/partner/child?  Are you putting in time on the activities that will increase your energy, such as exercise and getting sufficient sleep?
  • Other:  If there’s an area that needs attention, you know what it is.  Spend some time putting it right, whatever that may mean.

Taking these steps will help you to realize or exceed the goals you’ve set for 2007 and carry you forward into 2008 with momentum.  Choose the most important action in the most important area and do it this week.

Change your mind, change your practice(s).

/3 Comments/in , , /by


We cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them.
— Albert Einstein

This is one of my favorite quotes.  It is, at least for me, a truism that I must change my perspective, my way of thinking, my approach to a problem before I can possibly solve the problem.  Another great quote on this topic is, If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.  I understand that many 12-step programs use that statement to explain “insanity” in the context of the program.

What does the mean in the context of practicing law?  Plenty.  With regard to career advancement, if you’ve been taking the approach of being a reliable, industrious, somewhat reserved workerbee and you notice that you keep getting passed over for the big cases you’d like to work on, the answer probably isn’t to do more of the same and hope for a different result.  If you’re constantly running ragged, wondering how you can connect with your spouse and/or children in an hour or so at the beginning or end of each day, it’s a safe bet that you won’t shift your actions until and unless you shift your perspective.  Want a new job?  You’ll have to pull some time and attention away from what you’re doing now to make the time to launch a job search.  And if you believe that client development is something that you’ll begin “later,” you likely won’t recognize client development opportunities that may come your way — because chance favors the prepared mind.

To make a change requires stepping outside the situation long enough to identify a problem and then to make a mental shift that will help in solving that problem.  How the shift happens is individual to each person.  But creating and then using a shift relies on several basic principles.

1.  The shift must be authentic.  If your partner, your supervisor, your doctor, or anybody else tells you to make a change and you don’t buy into it, there will be no shift.  Remember the punchline to the joke asking how many psychiatrists are needed to change a lightbulb?  One, but the lightbulb has to really, really want to change.  No psychiatry here, but if you don’t really, really want to change (or at least really, really believe you need to change), chances are good that you’ll keep on doing the same old, same old.

2.  Maintaining the shift means keeping it in the forefront of your mind.  If you’re trying to make a habit of arranging lunch with one potential client a week, put that on your calendar where you see it daily.  If you’re trying to incorporate some stretching into your day so you don’t feel like you’re 90 years old when you hobble away from your desk at the end of the day, set an alarm that go off periodically.  If you’re wanting to improve your efficiency in the office, use time management tools that keep your eye on efficiency.  Holding onto a shift in perspective means keeping it in front of you visually and/or aurally, because it’s often all too easy to slide back to the old, familiar approach.

3.  Reaping the benefit of the shift requires action.  While it’s important to recognize a problem or a situation that can be improved, that’s empty if it’s a recognition without follow-through.  If you want more balance in your life, take some action, even if it’s small.  Claiming a 15-minute walk for yourself in the afternoon will not only provide some balance but also will remind you that you’re seeking balance.  (Put it in your calendar and keep that commitment, too!)

4.  It’s easier to maintain a shift, and to design and implement the actions that the shift calls for, with support.  Tell your spouse that you need to set aside 3 hours on Saturday morning to catch up on work.  Tell your secretary that you plan to eat lunch away from your desk one day this week.  Work with a coach to provide accountability as you set out on your client development plans.  If you decide you’re going to make a change, you probably have about a 40% chance of succeeding.  If you decide to make a change, tell someone what you’re going to do, and commit to doing it by a certain deadline, you have about a 95% chance of succeeding.

What shift do you need to improve your practice and your life?

Relationship or one-night stand: How law firms view associates (and clients)

/4 Comments/in , , /by

As those who frequently reads this blog know, I’m a proponent of planned disengagement from work to facilitate full engagement while working.  Tomorrow will be a regular working day (complete with client meetings and the regular Tuesday Shorts on the blog) but the rest of the week will find me cleaning, cooking, and spending time with my family.  So, you’ll find repeats of some past blog posts that you may have missed the first time around.  Today’s post follows on the heels of Friday’s review of David Maister’s Strategy and the Fat Smoker with a discussion of one of Maister’s articles that’s also featured in the book.

David Maister wrote a fascinating article titled, “Do You Really Want Relationships?”  He suggests that lawyers generally say we want relationships with our clients, long-standing interactions that tend to lead to more work in the future, more referrals, fewer challenges on billing, and more effective working relationships.  This, Maister describes as the “romance” view.  However, in practice, lawyers often act on the transactional view of client relations — “one-night-stands” — in which there’s little commitment beyond the immediate project, little trust, and an understanding on both sides that it’s “us” versus “them.”  Do read the article for a fuller discussion of this very interesting topic; it’s a terrific eye-opener.

What I want to talk about today, though, is a short section of the article that discusses viewing firm personnel in the relationship or transactional mode.

“Are you saying,” they ask me, “that I need to show an interest in my subordinates as people and care about their career ambitions?”

“Only if you want them to respond to you,” I reply.  “If your subordinates feel that you are prepared to work at a relationship with them, ensuring that both sides benefit, then they will give you more of what you want.  That’s human nature, not a political or religious point.

“But if they think that you, their superior, are just trying to get out of the deal more of what you want from them?  Harder work, more billable hours, whatever?  Then they will respond in kind.  They will view you as you are viewing them: useful only to the extent that they can get out of it when they want in the short run.

“There will be no long-term loyalty and no commitment to the larger interests of the firm, because you have set the patten that this is truly a temporary transation, not a relationship.  If you treat people as THEM, as objects, or as ‘other,’ they in turn will treat you instrumentally.”

And that, my friends, is the crux of the associate retention problem in big firms.  Maister nailed it, in my opinion.  Associates view partnership as a distant, likely unattainable goal, perhaps even a goal they don’t want to attain.  Firms offer money as the short-term benefit, “greedy associates” are born, and associates become eager to move on to the high bidder, to the firm where they can get the most short-term benefit, figuring that at some point they’ll end up in a firm where they can and will make partner — but that’s down the road after they’ve switched firms a few times.  (Of course, there’s nothing that will motivate a lawyer toward money like facing $100K or more in law school debt, but that’s another thread.)  According to a NALP study cited in “Law-Firm Life Doesn’t Suit Some Associates” (which I discussed here a couple of days ago), 60-62% of entry-level associates have left their firms by the end of the fourth years.

What can law firms do to encourage good associates to stay?  Create a sense of mutual loyalty.  Pay attention to associates’ professional development, career satisfaction, and concern for the person.  Make sure associates know that they’re not fungible, that they’re part of a team, that they contribute to something important.  Help them recognize meaning in their work — and I’m not talking the do-gooder kind necessarily (though that often keeps lawyers working in public interest despite low pay, lack of resources, etc.), but the kind that comes from practicing an an area of law that fits, taking on advancing responsibilities, receiving appropriate guidance that promotes professional growth.  Say “thank you.”

If law firms do even some of these things, I suspect that associates who fit in the firm will be motivated to do their best and that they’ll want to stick around.  Am I wrong?  I’d love to find out.

Law, leadership, and the brain

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Thanks to Stephanie West Allen’s Idealawg, I’ve been mulling over a couple of interesting articles that connect neuroscience with the law and with leadership.  First up is a Wall Street Journal article titled, Except in One Career, Our Brains Seem Built for Optimism.  Research suggests not only that the human brain is predisposed to an optimistic view of the world, but that the effect of moderate optimism is quite beneficial… Except in law.  From the article:

The influence of optimism on human behavior is so pervasive that it must have survival value, researchers speculate, and may give us the ability to act in the face of uncertain odds.

Medical evidence is suggestive. Optimistic people at risk for skin cancer are more likely to use sunscreen. Optimistic coronary artery bypass patients are more likely than pessimists to be taking vitamins, eating low-fat foods and joining a cardiac-rehab program five years after surgery — and living longer, studies show.

“If even half the time our actions work out well, our life is going to turn out for the better,” Dr. Phelps said. “If you are pessimistic, you are unlikely to even try.”

Indeed, the researchers suspect that the breakdown of this brain network may contribute to clinical depression. All in all, Dr. Seligman said, optimists tend to do better in life than their talents alone might suggest.

Except lawyers.

Surveying law students at the University of Virginia, he found that pessimists got better grades, were more likely to make law review and, upon graduation, received better job offers. There was no scientific reason. “In law,” he said, “pessimism is considered prudence.”

David Giacalone of f/k/a offers an interesting rejoinder that suggests a lawyer will be far more effective if he or she expresses both optimism and pessimism: “To be truly good at issue-spotting and at giving excellent advice (as a good consigliere must to survive), you need to be able to envision both good and bad outcomes, and all those in between.”  Amen.

The second article, It’s All in the Mind,  questions the impact of “neuroleadership,” which it defines as “a blend of certain findings from neuroscience with a set of leadership practices and principles designed to encourage more consultative, creative and empathetic corporate chiefs.”  The article identifies four “elements of brain function that are deemed most applicable to business leadership:”

    • the ability to think more creatively and use intuition by improving attention and changing thinking habits;
    • the ability to interconnect and empathise, which is enhanced when we have lower-frequency brain waves or slow down our thinking;
    • the understanding of how the brain reacts to change and the need for positive feedback to help create and reinforce new ways of operating; and
    • the health effects on the entire body from the brain continually working under chronic stress and with excess adrenaline.

Neuroleadership purports to offer scientific evidence to support tools and techniques for leadership development that might be less palatable in hard-driving business settings absent such evidence: “With many years’ experience of talking to business people about topics such as emotions and spirituality, [Daniel] Byrnes [consultant and lecturer in leadership and change management at Australian School of Business in Sydney] says when the idea can be backed by science it is easier to accept. ‘We can measure this stuff’,’ he adds.”

Howard Gardner, Harvard Graduate School of Education academic and author of the bestseller Changing Minds, has sounded a note of skepticism about the potential benefits of neuroleadership: “I can’t think of anything a leader should do differently because of what we know about the brain.”  Time will tell, but it will be interesting to see how business — and lawyers — react if neuroscientific evidence does indeed support the “softer” leadership skills.

And for those interested in applied neurosciences, I heartily recommend Stephanie West Allen’s other blog, Brains on Purpose, where she collaborates with Jeffrey Schwartz, MD to address neuroscience and conflict resolution.

What would your clients say?

/1 Comment/in , , /by

I’m out of town this week (as I have been most of the last month) and decided this morning to order room service for breakfast.  I ordered scrambled eggs and rye toast.  What I got was scrambled eggs (but no salt and pepper) and wheat toast.  Mildly annoying, right?  I noticed the error, of course, and I’ll remember if I order room service at this hotel again.  I may even remember if in the future I’m deciding whether to stay here again — though probably not the incident, only the lingering feeling that things weren’t quite right here.  But it’s just mildly annoying; I didn’t call room service to complain, I didn’t ask them to fix the error, and I’m certainly not going to pack my bag and check out because of this.  Wondering what this has to do with your clients?

Most of us assume that our clients are satisfied with our service unless they complain.  But, as my story indicates, that may not be the case.  A small error can often be corrected without much effort, but uncorrected it can grow into a negative perception (can’t these people do anything right?) that can endanger the relationship — and perhaps the lawyer would have no idea until matters had gone too far.

The simple fix?  Ask your clients how things are going.  Are they pleased?  Is there anything they’d like to run differently?  Perhaps they do/don’t want to be copied on correspondence, internal memoranda, etc.  Perhaps they do/don’t want to be notified by telephone when something of minor importance happens.  Perhaps they do/don’t want to meet with you face-to-face on a regular basis just to review what’s happening.  Guessing is not helpful, but asking is.  And consider how to pose your questions to encourage honest response.  In other words, “What could we do to work with you more effectively?” might lead to more useful responses than, “Are you happy with the work we’re doing?”�

Bad clients and bad news

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There is such a thing as a bad client…  Tom Kane’s Legal Marketing Blog inquires, Are Bad Clients Keeping You Up At Night?  If you have bad clients (or wonder whether you do), the answer is surely yes.  Tom draws from a post on the Bootstrapper blog to help identify bad client characteristics and to suggest how to fire them.  (And if you conclude that a client isn’t a bad client, but an unrealistic one instead, consider these ideas for managing the representation to decrease the chances that your unrealistic client will morph into a truly bad client.)

What would Churchill say?  Maybe instead of dealing with a bad client, it’s delivering bad news that’s keeping you up.  An article, by Arthur D. Burger of Jackson & Campbell, uses Churchill’s 1940 speech reporting that the Germans had defeated the French army to illustrate how lawyers might responsibly and effectively communicate bad news.  In short: be frank about the news (especially if the news is the result of an error the lawyer made) and offer a plan that addresses the next steps.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan…  This isn’t a political blog by any stretch of the imagination, but this story can’t go unnoticed.

Office Politics: excluded from the group

/2 Comments/in , , /by

One of the enduring challenges for any professional is navigating office politics.  Regardless of the profession, office relationships can be extremely challenging and rewarding — sometimes even at the same time.  Challenges can come from a variety of sources: simple misunderstandings, failure to appreciate different skills and approaches, resentment about coworker’s work habits, etc.  Office conflict is a fairly common topic in a coaching engagement, and the good news is that it’s generally possible to resolve or at least minimize it.

Through the blogosphere, I was introduced to Franke James (pictured here), inventor of The Office-Politics® Game.  Franke has put together a marvelous board of advisers (including experts in the areas of executive coaching, leadership development, dispute resolution, employment law, PR and ethics) to answer letters.  Bob Sutton recently posted an Office-Politics.com letter and provided input on one of Franke’s responses.  I was delighted when Franke invited me to serve as a guest adviser and sent me a letter to review.  The letter began like this:

I am an attorney — specifically, a prosecutor. My problem is that there is a dominant clique in my workplace, and I have been regularly excluded (implicitly and expressly) from social events. I feel as though I’m in high school again, and my co-workers have formed an exclusionary clique comprised of only the “cool” kids.

It all began when another co-worker attorney — a temporary employee who I’ll call “Tad” — began making comments behind my back.

You can read the rest of the letter, in which this prosecutor describes how he and others in the office (all of whom are about 10-15 years older than the bulk of lawyers in the office) are excluded from group outings and my response here.  And don’t miss Franke’s response, which takes a different approach and adds some marvelous ideas.�

Practice skills: resilience (part 2 — the strategies)

/0 Comments/in , , /by

As promised in Wednesday’s post on resilience, today’s topic is how to be resilient in the face of challenges and adverse events.

I recently worked with a client who tended to get stuck in things that had gone wrong or felt like slights to her. For instance, after opposing counsel accused her of acting in bad faith in the course of a discovery dispute, she found it difficult to pull herself out of that and wanted to over-correct to demonstrate the good faith that permeates her practice. She felt personally attacked, and she felt defensive and angry. Critically, she experienced great stress in dealing with that lawyer and was concerned that her feelings could compromise her representation of her client. After some probing, we came to the conclusion that developing resilience would help her to move through those stages with greater ease. Here are some of the steps we worked through that resulted in a substantial shift in her ability to recover quickly from adverse occurrences.

1. Examine the event and assess what’s really going on. In this example, was opposing counsel offering valid feedback, or was he attempting to knock her off her game to gain advantage? Is there a third possibility? Was my client exhibiting bad faith?  (And if the upsetting event had been a mistake my client made, the task here would be to determine what caused the mistake — miscommunication, undue hurry, etc.) This reality check leads directly to step 2…

2. Put the event in “proper perspective.”  My client concluded that opposing counsel, known for trying to provoke litigation opponents through accusation and displays of anger, made his assertion because he calculated that it would draw her attention away from the case. Given that conclusion, ruminating on the accusation and bending over backward to prove it untrue would give the event more energy than it deserved. More importantly, such behavior could damage the representation and harm the client’s interest. Analytically, then, it made no sense for my client to continue to be upset or to react to the accusation. But it still hurt.

3. Self-reflection.  My client checked in with what she knew to be true. She knew that she was not acting in bad faith. She knew that she seeks to act and speak in integrity, and she knew that she had done so in this instance.

4. Acknowledge the reaction and then choose the response, and/or shift the emotional energy.  Emotions are what they are. They’re neither good nor bad. My client was hurt and upset by the situation, and it was important that she acknowledge that. Having done so, she then had the choice of whether to respond from the hurt and upset or to rely on what she’d uncovered in steps 1-3 and to respond from that knowledge. In other words, she applied problem-solving skills to determine what would be most effective.


In other situations where there’s no actual response appropriate (for instance, if a lawyer has been trying to develop business and is told no by a prospective client), the best action is likely to shift the emotional energy by asking what else is true. Does the “no” mean this lawyer is incompetent? That he’ll never get other business? Probably not. After acknowledging the disappointment, the lawyer can recognize that he’s been retained by other clients and has done well for them, perhaps shift to a sense of gratitude for those clients and that experience, and shift the emotional energy.

These steps facilitate dealing with whatever has happened by (1) acknowledging the event, its cause, and its impact and (2) responding to the event effectively rather than getting stuck in it.  That’s resilience, and that’s a key skill for lawyers.