Question:
I am the sole owner of a estate planning firm in Evansville, Indiana. I have three associates that work for me and four staff members. I am 64 and wanting to get started on a succession program – either by forming a partnership with one or more of the associates or with another attorney or attorneys that I might bring into the firm via merger. I have always been on my own so I am a little cautious. I do want to work another eight years or so. What pitfalls should I be looking out for?
Response:
Creating and maintaining a successful partnership takes a lot of work. Partnerships fail for numerous reasons but the number one reason for failure is "poor fit." Poor fit can destroy a partnership before it even gets started. Fit isn't as much about "the money" (financial goals) as it is about personal and professional goals.
As you consider future partners give some thought to the following:
Before you decide to partner with someone it is critical that you determine where you agree and where you disagree on key issues.
Invest the time in getting to know your future partners at a deep interpersonal level and make sure that your personal and professional goals mesh.
If you do a good job insuring that you have a good fit you will go a long way toward insuring a successful partnership.
Click here for our partnership blog
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a solo practitioner in Chicago. I've been offered by another solo to join him as a partner, and was wondering if you could suggest any articles or books I could look at to think about how to structure the partnership. We bill about the same number of hours, but his rate is 50% higher than mine (300 v 200) and he has 20 years on me in age and experience.
Response:
I am a believer in true partnerships as they seem to work best and the compensation system that seems to work the best is where the partners share and share alike the profits based upon their ownership percentage. Initially a percentage is agreed upon based upon the revenue/profit
history and experience that each brings to the firm. If the level of contribution changes over time you talk about it and the percentages are adjusted. You may want to start by looking at your fees and profits over the last five years and compare them to his and use this as a starting point. Consideration should also be given to his experience. Hours don t matter as much as dollars. Then determine that ratio. Often in an arrangement such as this, depending on the ratio, it might be a 60%/40% split. If this is what you agree to then establish your capital accounts in accordance with that ratio (initial firm investment in the form of cash or other assets) and then split profits according to this split. Over the years adjust as needed. If you have a healthy partnership you will be comfortable discussing this subject.
Other approach if you want to be lone rangers would be a formula eat-what-you kill approach.
Here are my blogs on this topics generally:
https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/category/compensation/
Here are a couple specific blogs:
https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/2009/05/
https://www.olmsteadassoc.com/blog/law-firm-eat-what-you-kill-partner-compensation-systems
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am the sole owner of a law firm in Tucson, Arizona. I have 7 associates working for the firm. I have one very senior level associate that I want to consider for partnership. I want to do this to keep him interested (he has been approached by other firms) and I envision him being a cornerstone of my succession plan – 10 years out. How should I start the process with him?
Response:
It sounds like you have found the person – or whom you believe is the right person for partnership. However, just because he has been a good associate does not mean that he will be a good partner – the relationship will be different. But at least he is somewhat of a known quantity since you know him and have worked with him for several years.
Here are a few ideas of where you might start:
Once you can come to terms with some of the above issues craft a suitable partnership or operating agreement that you can both live with.
Good luck!
Click here for our partnership blog
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
Our firm is a 34 lawyer litigation boutique based in San Antonio, Texas. We have 20 partners and 14 associates. I serve as managing partner at the will of the partnership and spend 35% of my time on firm management matters and the remainder of my time practicing law. A legal administrator and accounting manager assist me with managing the firm. While I have the general support of the partnership, maybe because no one else wants the job, I serve more as a filter and still find that I have to run most of the firm's management decisions before the full partnership. Often I feel that my staff and I are second guessed, management decisions take too long to make and are diluted and watered down, and the firm has missed out on opportunities due to our structure or lack of structure. Other law firms that we have competed against for years have passed us by and have grown while we have stagnated. Do you have any suggestions concerning our approach to managing the firm?
Response:
You firms has reached a size where more structure is usually required. The democratic system of all partners being involved in virtually every management decision might have worked when you were five or six attorneys but has now outgrown this structure. Think about how some of your business clients are organized and structured. Ask around and talk with other law firms and accounting firms your size. I think that you will find that they have put in place more structure to support their business models.
I suggest that you:
You should start with general partnership discussion on how the members would like to work together and the kind of firm they want going forward. Are the partners willing to be managed and willing to be accountable to each other and to what extent? Then go from there.
Click here for articles on other topics
Click here for our blog postings on partnership and governance
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a solo owner of a small law firm in Southern Illinois and have been solo for ten years. I have two staff members in the firm. Recently I have been contemplating either bringing in a partner or joining another firm? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Response:
Partnership can offer its lawyers a measure of value independent of the skills, talents, and contributions of its individual partners?
Pros
The advantages that the best law firms have over sole practitioners or groups of lawyers who share overhead include:
Cons
Like anything else in life nothing is free and there are tradeoffs. There can be conflict and interpersonal struggles, large capital contributions, requirements for you to be guarantor on huge firm debt balances, missed paychecks, and loss of independence.
Click here for our blog on succession and retirement
Click here for our law firm management articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I have a general practice firm in Southern Missouri. I am the sole owner and I am 64 years old. There are three associates in the firm and four staff members. I have recently been giving some thought to my future, what to do with the practice, and how to salvage any sweat equity or value from the practice when I am ready to retire. The problem is that I love my work and really want to work forever. Suggestions?
Response:
Succession and exit questions are a hot topic in law firms of all sizes today. I find that in small firms it is not unusual for partners and owners to want to work as long as they can. In fact, in approximately 75%-80% of the firms that I am working with this is the case. Many attorneys enjoy their work and obtain great fulfillment from the work that they do.
The key is to start early and develop a transition strategy and plan. In your situation since you, health permitting, want to practice as long as you can, a sale of your practice is not really your best option. I would think that you need to focus on grooming your associates and gradually, over a phased basis, transitioning interests to them. Get a feel for the value of the practice, put together a firm financial profile and a quality proposal, dress up your financials, and sit down with you associates and discuss your ideas and plans with them. Determine their state of readiness. If they are not interested – keep your succession plans in mind when hiring others and screen for new hires that have an interest in owning a law firm.
As you look toward grooming the next generation keep in mind that you must find ways to get your associates invested in ownership both financially and emotionally. They need to believe that they are part of the firm and that down the road that it is in their best interest to someday own your firm rather than start their own. This will mean gradually giving up some control. You can't have it both ways.
Click here for our blog on succession/exit strategies
Click here for articles on other topics
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a solo practioner in Southern Missouri. I have been in practice for 20 years. I have a very successful practice with an excellent client base. I have three paralegals that I am able to keep busy. I have recently been thinking about whether I should consider joining another law firm. What should I be thinking about and what should I be looking for?
Response:
I believe that the key question is – can a law firm offer its lawyers a measure of value independent of the skills, talents, and contributions of its partners? The answer can only be answered by recalling the advantages that the best law firms have over sole practitioners or groups of lawyers who share overhead and nothing more. These advantages include the following:
Just because a law firm holds itself out to be a firm does not mean that the advantages listed above exist in that specific law firm. If not – you might be better off staying solo.
Click here for our blog on partnership topics
Click here for our published articles
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
Question:
I am a partner in a 14 attorney firm. We have 9 partners and 5 associates. Currently, the firm is governed by all of the partners voting, usually just consensus, on all management decisions. We are thinking about going to a management committee. What suggestions do you have?
Response:
You have reached a size where it is counterproductive for all of the partners to be involved in every management decision. In a recent posting I discussed the difference between management and administration. Click here for the postThere should be a role for all partners in the management affairs of the firm (the partnership) but they do not need to be immersed in the day-to-day administrative concerns. Also, to what extent should a management committee be involved in administrivia.
Successful firms have a good governance and management structure in place and effectively manage the firm. A major problem facing many law firms is the lack of long range focus and the amount of partner time that is being spent on administrivia issues as opposed to higher level management.
A management committee may be the right direction if properly integrated with a governance/management plan for the firm. There is no "best approach" for structuring a law firm. However, keep in mind that there is still a role for the partnership at large and for your office manager or administrator as well. Here are a few ideas to get you started:
Click here for articles on other topics
Click here for our blog postings on partnership and governance
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
For the past four weeks I have been discussing the characteristics of successful law firms and introduced the following basic building blocks that successful firms typically have in place:
Partner relations, leadership, management, and partner compensation blocks have been discussed.
The fifth basic building block is planning. Successful firms have a long range business or strategic plan in place.
Based upon our experience from client engagements we have concluded that lack of focus and accountability is one of the major problems facing law firms. Often the problem is too many ideas, alternatives, and options. The result often is no action at all or actions that fail to distinguish firms from their competitors and provide them with a sustained competitive advantage. Ideas, recommendations, suggestions, etc. are of no value unless implemented.
Well designed business plans are essential for focusing your firm. However, don’t hide behind strategy and planning. Attorneys love to postpone implementation.
Failing to plan is planning to fail.
Click here to read my article on the topic.
I will address each of the other building blocks in upcoming postings.
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
www.olmsteadassoc.com
For the past three weeks I have been discussing the characteristics of successful law firms and introduced the following basic building blocks that successful firms typically have in place:
Partner relations, leadership building, and management blocks have been discussed.
The fourth basic building block is partner compensation. Successful firms have a good partner compensation in place. Partners frequently advise us in confidential interviews that they are more dissatisfied with the method used to determine compensation than with the amount of compensation itself.
How much and how partners are paid are probably the two most challenging management issues that law firms face. Many law firms are struggling with compensation systems that no longer meet the needs of the firm and the individual partners. Failure to explore alternatives to failing systems often result in partner dissatisfaction leading to partner defections and disintegration of the firm.
In many law firms compensation systems have been counter-cultural and failed to align compensation systems with business strategies. As more law firms move toward teams many are incorporating new ways to compensate partners in order to develop a more motivated and productive workforce. Team goals are being linked to business plans and compensation is linked to achieving team goals. Such systems reinforce a culture that significantly advances the firm’s strategic goals.
People tend to behave the way they're measured and paid.
What gets measured and rewarded – is what gets done.
However, be advised that compensation does not drive behavior – it maintains status quo. Motivation requires leadership which can have a greater impact upon a firm than anything else.
Compensation systems should do more than simply allocate the pie – they should reinforce the behaviors and efforts that the firm seeks from its attorneys. Many firms are discovering that desired behaviors and results must go beyond short term fee production and must include contributions in areas such as marketing, mentoring, firm management, etc. to ensure the long term viability of the firm.
Click here to read my article on the topic
I will address each of the other building blocks in upcoming postings.
John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC
www.olmsteadassoc.com