About these ads

The Key for Law Firm Growth and Survival for the Coming Years is Contingent on Mastering Collaboration


TEAMWORK WINS - NARA - 515550

Image via Wikipedia

                                                                            

                                                                             Jerome Kowalski

                                                                             Kowalski & Associates

                                                                             December, 2011

 

In the 1967 Academy Award winning Mike Nichols film, “The Graduate” a young Dustin Hoffman starred in his breakout leading role as Ben Braddock, a recent college graduate, who was floundering about trying to figure out what to do with his life after graduation. Early in the film, Braddock’s parents hold a graduation party for Ben, during which friends and family offer Ben all sorts of career advice. In one famous line, a family friend takes Ben aside and whispers “Ben, all I have to say to you is one word: Plastics” and then walks away,

As we contemplate what will doubtless be a challenging 2012, I have one word to say to all of you:  Collaboration.

In 2010 the concept of the year was “Alternative Fee Arrangements” and value billing. In 2011, it was LPO’s and outsourcing. Plastics, AFA’s and LPO’s have stayed with us since they each emerged as the flavor of the month; so too will collaboration.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of attending The National Law Journal’s Managing Partner’s Breakfast, which was led by a panel consisting of Tom Mills of Winston & Strawn, Alice Fisher of Latham and Elizabeth Stern of Baker & Mackenzie, each of which served as their respective law firms’ Washington offices managing partners.

All generally had some serious concern, but guarded optimism for 2012.  Panel Moderator, NLJ Editor in Chief David Brown asked many probing questions. Interlocutor Brown based much of his probing predicated on Citibank’s foreboding report on law firm profitability for the third quarter of 2011.

Each panelist separately presented his or her own version of the same theme:  Their firms were engaging early and often with their clients and were being proactive in both anticipating their clients’ needs, objectives and issues were on every level. The key to success was adopting a collaborative mode on every front.

Liz Stern of Baker & Mackenzie put it best, when she said the old model where lawyers were simply like taxi drivers with their meter running. “The meter is running, but the taxi driver doesn’t really care where you’re going,” Stern said. “It’s about getting your fare.”  That model, Ms. Stern said, just doesn’t apply any longer. Lawyers need to understand why the client is embarking on the journey, what the most efficient route is to that destination and arrive at an understanding as to what a reasonable fare is for the journey, predicated on the value of the journey is to the client. Client and law firm need to reach a shared understanding of each of those issues and the only way to do that is by engaging early and continuing to engage as the journey proceeds.

Collaboration must be conducted both horizontally and vertically.  Client collaboration is if course essential, as is collaboration among the law firm partnership. In addition, I would suggest that further collaboration among other stakeholders, such as LPO’s, e-discovery vendors, staffing companies and other law firms serving these same clients. Clearly, a strong hub and spoke system is required with the client at the hub. Those who master collaboration on each of these fields will emerge as the winners in 2012.

Collaboration begins of course with the direct attorney client relationship, bearing in mind that given the shift in supply and demand, clients are fully empowered, as never before. Legal services are now being acquired through the prism of purchasing agent mentality.  Under that lens, the purchasing agent often first makes a “make or buy” decision; and more often, making is less expensive than buying.  Thus, we have seen a rather universal growth of legal departments and a reduction in budgets for the outside legal spend. As Jones Lang general counsel Mark Ohringer recently said, “I am law firms’ biggest competitor.” Said Ohringer “If I could have 100 percent of the work not done by law firms, I would.”  Ohringer  currently keeps 75 percent of his corporation’s legal work in-house or sends it to non-firm vendors.

Recognizing this reality, law firms need to engage proactively with such general counsel and collaborate with non-firm vendors demonstrating through such proactive engagement that the firm, working collaboratively with general counsel could provide better value and more favorable total pricing. Failure to engage here, is that general counsel of the mind set of Ohringer may well succeed in keeping all work out of the law firms. Such general counsel are primarily interested in getting the job done better, cheaper and faster.  That mindset does not denote a universal fatal allergy to outside law firms. The antidote to this allergy is engagement and collaboration.

Mark Hermann, chief litigation counsel at AON and a former BigLaw lawyer recently wrote a compelling essay concerning one of his company’s outside law firms regularly assigning a litigation partner to handle work for his company and Hermann consistently found this partner’s work sub-par.  The law firm just didn’t get it and it appeared that the relationship was becoming strained. Hermann explained that greater enragement and collaboration was necessary to maintain the relationship. He even laid out in direct terms how law firms should engage:

 First, have disinterested lawyers — partners not involved in representing the client — solicit candid feedback from clients. Solicit that feedback mid-year, so the conversation doesn’t conflict with an annual year-end review. During that session, listen carefully to what the client says. (Hint: “I rate the quality of your firm’s work as just below middle of the pack” is not praise.) Ask the client what your firm can do to improve (or expand) the relationship, and heed the advice you receive.

Second, impose real quality control on partnership decisions. A client that has a bad experience with just one of your partners may mistakenly choose to condemn your entire institution. This makes the quality of your partnership awfully important. Try to apply uniform criteria, applied equally across all offices, when you make partnership decisions. Hire lateral partners sparingly (because you probably know little about the true quality of those folks’ work).

Finally, think about how you can encourage clients to switch lawyers, rather than firms, when clients are unhappy with the service they’re receiving. If it were easier (and less embarrassing) to replace the lawyers working on a team, then firms would not lose clients unnecessarily.

We have all read about the explosive success of Clearspire. Clearspire’s success is not merely that it is a virtual law firm, with minimal expenses. It is built on an elaborate custom digital platform which provides for real time, full time collaboration among its lawyers and in real time among its clients.

 

            Some other vital areas for collaboration:

  • Understanding fully the strategic goals and objectives of your clients by engaging in detailed face to face regular discussions with them.
  • Recognize that some of your clients work will be downsourced to smaller firms.  Offer the clients your availability to collaborate with these firms so that they can take advantage of your pool of built up knowledge and experience so that the smaller firm can work more efficiently. And, yes, offer to share your work product with them. After all, the client already paid for this work.
  • If you are one of the smaller firms that is the beneficiaries of the downsourcing, ask the client to assist you in collaborating with other firms with which it has worked so that you are not reinventing the wheel.
  • In some engagements, a law firm will essentially function as a general contractor, with clients directing the law firm to subcontract work to a variety of vendors.  There are many moving parts and disparate players in these engagements.  For the law firm/general contractor to succeed, its principal function is not only to direct and supervise the work of the various subcontractors, but to also share full time, real time collaboration.
  • Build a strong collaborative relationship with LPO and e-discovery vendors, making sure that the clients is very much part of this process. Insist on full time and active collaboration and choose an appropriate real time extranet platform for such engagement.
  • Recognize that general counsel’s office is overloaded and offer a program of secondments.   Liz Stern of Baker & Mackenzie explained how her firm has effectively established a global system of regular secondments that has stood her firm in good stead for many years.
  • Build up your extranet capacity. Engage your clients on the extranet. Get them to utilize the extranet for real time collaboration and feedback. Ask the clients if your extranet platform is adequate.
  • Monthly bills should be a further platform for client engagement and collaboration. Every monthly bill rendered should be accompanied by a letter that describes the objectives the firm had set out for the preceding month for the matter, the steps the firm had taken to meet those objectives, the results and the objectives for the next month. Even where the matter is undertaken on a fixed fee or an AFA, these monthly letters are essential.
  • Engage the clients regularly on discussions regarding bills you have rendered, preferably through either a relationship partner or a non-lawyer professional. Identify issues early and address them collaboratively with the client.
  • Collaborate internally on all strategic goals. Make sure your partnership is fully engaged on all key strategic decisions. Tom Mills of Winston and Alice Fisher of Latham made it clear that all lateral acquisitions are strategic, based on firm leadership and partner consensus.  Latham apparently has most of its laterals visit each of its domestic offices and sometimes each of its foreign offices.
  • Be sure that the legal work the firm is handling is fully integrated with those best suited to do the work are handling the work.  That means that originating partners should not assign work only to members of his or her own “team.” Rather, practice group leaders should guide the assignment of work. Do not allow partners to create silo practices.
  • Keep the partnership fully informed and engaged in the firm’s strategic goals.  Share both the good news and the bad news in real time. Fiats emanating from behind smoke and mirrors breed resentment and distrust,
  • Build consensus.

Plastics were indeed a boom industry in 1967.  Collaboration will be a boon to those who master  the art in coming months. Those who fail to adequately collaborate both vertically and horizontally and vertically do so at their own dire peril.

© Jerome Kowalski, December, 2011.  All Rights Reserved.

 

Jerry Kowalski, who provides consulting services to law firms, is also a dynamic (and often humorous) speaker on topics of interest to the profession and can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com


About these ads

LPO’s Have Become Legal Project Outplacement Firms: They Are Outplacing Legal Work from Traditional Law Firms


हिन्दी: ताजमहल English: Taj Mahal, Agra, India...

Image via Wikipedia

 

                                                                             Jerome Kowalski

                                                                             Kowalski & Associates

                                                                             October, 2011

 

 The guild rules designed to govern the practice of law and create barriers to entry by unlicensed professionals have been completely trammeled.

As the legal spend continues to decline, competition for the ever diminishing budgets for outside counsel continues to fiercely escalate.  Today, we again address the stiff competition coming from offshore legal project outsourcing.  Frankly, United States law firms, the American Bar Association and regulatory agencies governing bar admissions and the unauthorized practice of law seem completely clueless as to what is actually happening in the marketplace.

The LPO industry is a growing behemoth.  Still barely in its infancy, LPO’s will likely reach revenues of $2,500,000.000 next year.  That may seem a pittance compared to he $180,000,000,000 revenues derived by law firms, but revenues for LPO’s continue to grow exponentially, while law firm revenues remain largely flat.

LPO’s initially entered the market by focusing on the processing end of legal work.  As Jeff Carr, general counsel of FMC Technologies, has frequently noted, legal work falls into one of four buckets:  Processing, counseling, advocacy and content.  LPO’s got their noses into the tent by offering to handle the processing component arguing, quite correctly, that US law firms were ill equipped to handle large volume processing efficiently, while LPO’s, staffed by low paid foreign lawyers and aided by state of the art technology, could perform these services at a small fraction of the price of large law firms, allowing these law firms to focus on the other more lucrative buckets, for which these firms were far better suited.

At the outset, LPO’s marketed their services to law firms, offering to serve as their subcontractors. Law firms, in turn, often simply “marked up” the fees charged by LPO’s, on the rubric that the firms were assuming some level of supervision and risk and, well, it was a pretty easy way to make a couple of extra bucks. In short order, sophisticated clients, dealing with sophisticated LPO’s,  entered into direct contracts with LPO’s, having general counsel use the services of LPO’s directly.  Corporations, the ultimate consumers of LPO services, used their economic prowess to extract favorable pricing from LPO’s and often then directed their outside law firms to utilize the services of LPO’s with which the corporate clients had favorable pricing arrangements.  These LPO’s were essentially “designated subcontractors.”

LPO’s are well capitalized and are investor owned. These two factors provide LPO’s with enormous advantages over law firms.  Their technology tends to be light years ahead of that typically  used by traditional law firms.  They are not bound by much of the expensive baggage weighing down traditional law firms, like expensive midtown office space or paying off outmoded technology  cquired years ago.  I have had the privilege of meeting and working with some of the world’s best LPO’s.  I’ve uniformly found the leaders of these LPO’s to be exceptionally bright and astute business leaders.

But, even as the ABA Ethics 20/20 Commission dawdles with merely tinkering Model Rule 1.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct by making some minor revisions and expanding the Rule’s comments to provide the guild’s belated imprimatur to the LPO industry, the facts on the ground have created new realities.  Perhaps only an idealist might believe that the Model Rules are designed to do anything more than create artificial barriers to entry.  Any realist recognizes that free market forces rendered the attempt to be of no moment.

The fact is that LPO’s are working hard to get in to each of Jeff Carr’s four buckets. At a recent Global LPO Conference, much of the discussion by LPO leaders was about inroads they were making in these buckets.  One LPO leader chaired a panel in which he encouraged the industry to re-brand itself, since calling the industry Legal Process Outsourcers created the misimpression
that it was focused only on processing.  I, for one, view the industry as simply providers of legal services.  Period.

Another LPO leader boasted about serving as a processing outsourcer on multi-district related litigation in which the lead counsel and the corporate general counsel concluded that the time was ripe to file some 61 motions for summary judgment in related cases across the country.  Lead counsel estimated the cost of preparing these motions to be in the area of $1,500,000.   The LPO offered to prepare these motions for approximately $350,000.  The motions were in fact ultimately prepared in India and revised and edited by lead counsel; the client saved nearly $1,000,000.  Welcome to the advocacy bucket.

These alternate providers of legal services have for long been preparing routine corporate, real estate and financing documents.  Welcome to the content bucket.

And these providers of legal services have been providing basic and sometimes even advanced legal research to support both general counsel and outside counsel in their counseling functions.

The fact is that the only areas in which these providers of legal services are precluded from active participation are in connection with actual court appearances and signing legal opinions. The workaround here is rather obvious and likely inevitable.  All that an LPO needs to do is to establish a U.S. law firm, populated by duly admitted American lawyers, which will own the equity of the law firm (obviously to circumvent the bar against non-lawyer ownership of law firms), and have these captive law firms contract with the LPO to have the latter handle all of the firm’s “processing” requirements – inclusive of every one of the four items in the bucket, save for court appearances and the signing of legal opinions. Control over the nominal U.S. law firm would be maintained by the LPO, which will have the captive law firm sign a promissory note for the funds it has advanced to capitalize the firm. (After all it has sometimes been said, not completely in jest, that the largest owner of law firms is Citibank, the premiere lender to law firms, which has some 650 law firm clients and 38,000 lawyer clients).

My friend and professional colleague, Bruce MacEwen, writing as Adam Smith, Esq., recently noted that the LPO’s are “smart, stocked with top talent, well-funded, strategically astute, and not the least bit afraid to break some china.”   My only disagreement with Bruce is that these folks won’t be content to simply break some china.  I believe they are planning on walking away with the china closet.

At the end of the day, traditional law firms will need to consider developing their own LPO, aligning with an existing LPO or, perhaps finding some different lines of work.

One final cautionary important postscript:  LPO’s typically carry about $5,000,000 in E&O insurance. In a world where we already have one claim pending against a prominent law firm  redicated on errors allegedly committed by its LPO subcontractor in connection with a matter that may involve some $380,000,000, Quite clearly, LPO’s need to materially beef up their coverage, law firms and general counsel need to examine any LPO’s coverage and law traditional law firms should use their own expanded insurance coverage as an important marketing tool as they will increasingly compete toe to toe with these alternate providers of legal services.

In all events, as Paul Lippe of Legalonramp.com so cogently observed, non-traditional law firms may well eat the lunches of many traditional law firms and these traditional law firms must now take notice and action.

©
Jerome Kowalski, October, 2011.  All Rights Reserved.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 201 other followers

%d bloggers like this: