Question:
I am a partner in a twelve attorney commercial litigation law firm in Palm Beach, Florida. There are five partners in the firm. We are contemplating merging with another firm in the area of similar size. We have done our due diligence and have come across a possible non-starter – the compensation system. Our compensation system is totally objective – formula-based very close to an eat-what-you-kill system. The other firm has operated under a subjective system and they are pushing for the firm to operate under this type of system. We would appreciate your thoughts and enlightenment concerning subjective-based systems.
Response:
Subjective-based systems are the most commonly used approach to setting partner compensation, especially in larger firms. More and more firms your size and larger are moving to subjective systems as a result of the failure of other systems to account for the full range of contributions that partners make to the law firm. Subjective systems can take on a variety of forms but the central theme of such systems is that they rely on a subjective assessment of partner performance, without reference to specific weighting of factors or a set formula. This is not to say that subjective systems lack structure or predictability, or that they don’t consider objective financial data. Successful subjective compensation systems include these elements and more.
Subjective compensation systems vary widely. Here are some of the most common elements found in subjective systems:
In additional to subjective compensation systems some firms used hybrid systems that employs objective (formula) and subjective components.
Subjective systems are not for all firms. They will fail with out strong, trusted, leadership. In very small firms it is difficult to structure a compensation decision making body.
It sounds like your firm and the firm you are thinking of merging with may come from two very different cultures. Subjective systems work well for firms that are “firm first” firms but not for lone ranger firms that often operate under eat-what-you-kill systems. If you firm is not a long ranger firm and your are in fact a “firm first” firm or aspire to be such you may be able to adapt to a subjective system. However, you may need a post-merger phase-in period. Another comprise approach might be a hybrid system.
Click here for our blog on compensation
Click here for our blog on mergers
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner and a member of our three-member executive committee. Our firm is a twenty-five attorney litigation defense firm in Kansas City, Missouri. We handle matters such as personal injury, medical malpractice, professional malpractice, products liability, and health care law. Each attorney handles and manages his or her own cases and operates in isolation of the other partners in the firm. Other than attending a quarterly partnership meeting there is little interaction among the partners. We have been discussing whether we should form practice groups. We would appreciate your thoughts.
Response:
Practice groups can be excellent vehicles for enhancing communications, attorney and staff skill development and training, practice management, and marketing. Practice groups should share the mission and vision of the firm as well as goals of enhancing services to clients by developing the skills of the members of the group in a particular legal specialty or industry niche and developing business for that particular group. Practice groups should not operate as isolated islands but should be structured and integrated with the firm. Specifically, functional practice groups should:
Practice groups can be structured around legal specialties such as personal injury, product liability, and professional malpractice. Other practice groups can be structured around industry niches such as energy, health care, etc. In cases where a firm has a very large client a practice group can established for that specific client.
While practice groups can have their advantages, I have found that in many firms they are dysfunctional. They do not meet on a consistent basis, have no goals, or direction, poor leadership, and seem to accomplish little. To be effective practice groups must:
I believe a practice group would be a logical direction for your firm. You might want to start slow and try a “pilot” test group where there appears to be significant interest and see how it develops.
Click here for our blog on governance
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in a six lawyer firm in Jackson Mississippi. There are three partners and three associates in the firm. The firm is a insurance defense litigation firm. Our firm has been at its present size for many years, revenues have been flat, and profits have been shrinking. The partners have been discussing the pros and cons of growth and we would like to significantly grow the practice. A couple of our insurance company clients have asked us to open offices in other states and we are giving this consideration. Initially, we would open two other offices and we anticipate that this would require us to hire six additional attorneys. We appreciate any thoughts that you have.
Response:
This is a huge step and I suggest that you give it careful thought. Here are a few of the issues you should consider:
These are just a few of the issues that you will need to consider. Do your homework and due diligence on this before you jump feet first.
Click here for our blog on strategy
Click here for our blog on profit improvement
Click here for our blog on offices and facilities
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am new non-equity partner in a sixteen attorney firm in Phoenix, Arizona. My equity partners are telling me that I now have to do more than generate billable hours and perform quality work for clients. They now expect me to begin bringing in clients. I am not sure where to start.
Response:
I often advise attorneys that while what you know is important what you want to be known for is more important. Just having your name known is pretty useless unless it is known for something. An outstanding personal injury plaintiff lawyer – not just a good lawyer. In law firms it is the reputation for expertise that matters, not just the reputation. Therefore, a successful marketing program must project and demonstrate expertise. This can be accomplished in the following ways:
While biographies on the website are important, prospective clients and referral sources are looking for proof of expertise. Articles, authored books, presentations, and client testimonials provide such proof.
One of the best and reliable ways of providing such proof is the article. In a byline article, you don’t have to say that your are an expert – the fact that you wrote the article, discussing a particular legal topic, says it for you. Its your expertise on display whether the article be in a print publication or posted on your website, blog, or other location.
An article is one tool that you can use where you have control – you can say what you want to say and say it in your way. In most cases, if an article is acceptable to a publication, an editor won’t change the thrust of it.
For most legal and business trade journal publications that accept articles you do not have to be a well known writer to write an article that will be accepted by these publications. You simply have to know what you are talking about. Editors will help with the formatting, style, and syntax.
If you retain the copyright to your article you can re-purpose your article and use it on the firm’s website, reprints, firm brochures, and as a future chapter in your first book.
Click here for our blog on book writing
Click here for our blog on marketing
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a new firm administrator with a thirty-five attorney litigation firm in Los Angeles, California. In my accounting department I have seven staff members handling a variety of tasks. My partners are concerning that we are inefficient and over staffed. I am having a hard time finding where to start so to get a handle on this issue. Please provide any information that you are willing to share.
Response:
There are questions that you must ask yourself in order to analyze the work distribution of your accounting department. Such questions as the following will help you in knowing what to look for:
Before you can analyze your accounting department you must be able to see clearly, in one place, all the activities of your accounting department and the contribution of each employee on each activity. A work distribution chart is the easiest and best way to arrange these facts in simple form. A properly made work distribution chart will help you determine if the largest time of your staff is devoted to the major function of your department. (Operations list down the left rows and staff names listed across the columns) It may indicate that more time is being devoted to other functions than is necessary. A function or task may require a more detailed study, as might be indicated where total hours seem unreasonable. You may discover that your accounting department is spending too much time on relatively unimportant or unnecessary work. Misdirected effort appears on the work distribution chart when staff are involved in tasks not contribution directly to the mission of the accounting department.
Here is an overview of the process:
Click here for our blog on human resources
Click here for our blog on profit improvement
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the firm administrator with a ten attorney firm in Long Beach, California. I really enjoyed reading your blog – Law Firm Compensation – Bonuses for Staff, dated December 27, 2016.
I really like your approach of tying bonuses to measurable outcomes. Have you used other approaches other than percentage of salary? Can you give additional examples of specific goals that would be appropriate for a bookkeeper, office manager, or firm administrator?
Response:
Research and experience tells us that employment expect the following five things from management:
The problem with staff employee is quantifying and measuring performance so that bonuses are not “Santa Clause” bonuses. A bonus system tied to measurable goals/objectives can, as outlined in my earlier blog, eliminate the problem of bonuses being considered by employees as an entitlement.
Other approaches that some of my law firm clients have used is to develop a limited laundry list of goals with a specific dollar amount tied to each goal for specific positions such a bookkeeper, firm administrator, etc. Typically, there is a cap on how much can be earned per year – 5% – 10% of salary. At the beginning of each year the employee selects the goals that they plan on working on for the upcoming year, obtains approval from his or her supervisor, and both parties sign off on a goal plan for the year. The goals must be SMART goals. Bonuses are paid as goals are completed.
Here are some additional examples:
Bookkeeper
Firm Administrator
The key to the goals is that they are important to the firm and are measurable.
Click here for our blog on compensation
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in a law firm in Walnut Creek, California with four other partners and three associates. We are a general practice firm and our clients are primarily individual clients. I have a good relationship with my other partners. I have decided to leave the firm and join a larger firm in San Francisco. I have notified my partners in writing of my intention to leave and they are supportive of my decision. Therefore, I anticipate a amicable withdrawal. Since this is the first time that a partner has left the firm for any reason we are not sure what the next step is. Please share with us any thoughts that you have.
Response:
It sounds like you will be fortunate enough to have an uncontested withdrawal. Leaving a partnership takes planning and foresight. If your firm has a partnership, shareholder, or operating agreement your have a starting point. However, even if you have such an agreement, I have found that in most cases there are still a myriad of issues and details that still have to be resolved. You and your partners will still need to negotiate the terms for your withdrawal and ultimately sign a withdrawal or separation agreement. Your partners may be unhappy about certain issues, or in you leaving, but in the end, will do the right thing either because they have to or because they want to.
While there are a lot of moving parts and details to tend to the major issues that have to be resolved when a partner withdraws from a partnership involve:
I suggested you start by developing a project plan outlining all the tasks and sub-tasks with start dates, target completion dates, dates competed, and to whom is assigned to each of the tasks that are going to have to be accomplished. At the top of the list will be to negotiate a withdrawal or separation agreement that addresses the above issues and minimizes your risks and future liability. Here is a checklist you can use to get started:
Once you have a withdrawal agreement in place you can begin to address some of the other tasks that will have to be addressed. Review your state’s rules of professional responsibility concerning withdrawal – particularly those pertaining to client notification, conflicts of interest, etc.
Click her for our blog on partnership matters
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm is an eight attorney estate planning firm in the Chicago area. Our firm has grown from two attorneys to our present size in four years. We have five partners and three associates. Currently management is handled by a managing partner. The partners have been discussing hiring a legal administrator. We were thinking of hiring someone with experience in managing law firms and a solid background in human resources and bookkeeping/accounting. One of our clients suggested that we hire someone with a strong academic background, MBA, CPA type that has served as the CEO of a mid-size corporation. What are your thoughts?
Response:
I think you are too small to justify hiring a person with this background that is currently employed in such a role. Such a person would be unaffordable and if you could locate such a person your firm would probably be a stepping stone until they find a position elsewhere. If you were able to find someone that is retired and willing to work in a small firm setting that could be a possibility. Another option would be to hire someone that has served as CEO, COO, or CFO of a smaller company – with or without MBA, CPA designation. You could also look for an experienced legal administrator that has worked in a larger firm – possibly with a CPA or MBA. Again affordability will be an issue as well as long term retention. Personally, at your current size I think you should look for someone with BA or MBA degree in business, with a strong background in accounting and human resources, and experience as an administrator in a law or other professional services firm such as an accounting firm, consulting firm, engineering firm. Look for someone that has worked in a firm with 15-35 attorneys/professionals. Be careful of applicants that have worked in very large firms – i.e. 50+ attorney firm for example, as they may only stay a short while in a firm your size and move on to a larger firm when a position becomes available. They may also not be the “hands on jack of all trades” administrator that you need in a firm your size.
Click here for our blog on governance
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in a two partner personal injury firm in Tampa, Florida. We do not have any associate attorneys. Our firm only handles personal injury work. We have been in practice for thirty-five years and have been very successful over the years. However, the last few years have been terrible. Adjusters are not settling cases and the days of three times specials is over. Our case volume is down, the quality of cases that we have in our inventory is far below what we had in previous years, and our revenues are down substantially. Cash flow is awful. We have had to live off of our credit line for the past year. Our main source of business over the years has been referrals from past clients and other lawyers, yellow pages, and our very basic website. We would appreciate any thoughts and suggestions that you may have.
Response:
This is a common complaint that I have hearing from personal injury firms across the country. In some states tort reform is having an impact and insurance companies are getting harder to deal with. Extensive advertising by other law firms is having a major impact. Larger personal injury firms that are doing extensive television and other forms of advertising are doing well. Here are a few thoughts:
Click here for our blog on marketing
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm is an eighteen attorney insurance defense firm located in Los Angeles, California. We have six partners and twelve associates. We represent insurance companies in personal injury and property claims. Over the last five years our growth and our profitability has been flat. We feel that we have enough work to reach our goals but we just don’t think our people are energized. We have a billing requirement of 2000 billable hours but few of our attorneys are hitting them. The partners met a few weeks ago and set for the first time set some goals for 2018. The firm does not have a business or strategic Plan. Do you have any thoughts on 2018 goals and how best we can implement?
Response:
Since you do not have a strategic plan I assume that you have not done any formal planning in the past. Even firms that do have strategic plans often fail to engage and energize their team. Here are a few thoughts regarding your 2018 goals and initiatives:
Click here for our blog on strategy
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC