Professional unease

Stefan Stern’s FT column Pssst . . . get smart and wipe out whistleblowing some weeks ago had a telling quote from Dov Seidman, founder and chairman of LRN, a US based business ethics consultancy. After reporting Seidman’s view that ‘ethical clarity cannot be established quickly’, Stern quotes what Seidman told the Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies,

“Doing the right thing” is not a painless option either. . . I actually think that in many cases doing the right thing is often inconvenient . . . Sometimes that is exactly when you know you are doing the right thing, when it feels so inconvenient.”

I carry around with me a (now dog eared) copy of Practical morality for lawyers by the great Bill Knight, one of the doyens of corporate law in the City. This article is only available by subscription to PLC , which is a great pity as every lawyer should read it. In it he anatomises the dilemma that most of us face at some stage or other in our professional careers, ‘when your client wants to do something which is legal, but in your view highly questionable’, and in the doing of it will be looking to you for help and advice.

As Knight notes

Look hard; this is dangerous territory. One day you’re devising off-balance sheet structures, the next you’re letting the senior executives get rich on them, then you’re shredding documents and, before you know it, you are explaining to your family that you may not be seeing them for some time.

It all seems so easy but sometimes, especially when a valued client asks a favour, and times are hard, it isn’t.

The long view

I posted some weeks ago about cultivating a habit of optimism: something which is increasingly difficult as the news gets worse, but stick at it. Keeping the morale of the team up should be one of a law firm leader’s main responsibilities.

Another responsibility, and this has to be linked in to that optimism, is to hold onto the long view. Short term solutions often seem to offer immediate relief to problems, but there is the very real risk of missing the wood completely as you concentrate on the trees.

Business planning in uncertain times is an article by David Hunt in Smith & Williamson’s Summer 2008 Professional Practices News was spot on. In it he identified two principal tasks: to reign in costs, and to seek opportunities.

Although the first of these is, in large part, obvious, Hunt adds a number of key riders

service delivery (i.e. people) cost, so one way of cutting costs is to get rid of them. This is being done across the profession as law firm after law firm puts in place redundancy programmes. But, as Hunt notes, “change (redundancy programmes) may be and are expensive and can have a long term impact on a firm’s culture”. I would add that you need to know what you want to be as you come out of the downturn is also important.
cutting discretionary spending offers an immediate opportunity to limit costs, but (again Hunt) “marketing, training, recruitment and capex become ever more critical in a downturn as they aid recovery and future expansion.”

And as for seeking opportunities, take the long view: “thought should be given to future as well as current revenues”. So consider

lowering prices to win work (although I would add the caveat that there is a risk that teaching your client to buy on price makes only one party, the client, happy, and may have a long term impact on the relationship
re-evaluate business development activity: build new contacts or markets and strengthen relationships with existing clients (back to Nick Jarret-Kerr’s admonition, which I linked to in my post Spending time wisely, back in early July, to get even closer to clients.

The C word – but which one?

The accelerating downturn, and the UK property market (both residential and commercial) hitting the buffers, has already started to change the legal market. Leaving aside the rumours of cash calls and firms in trouble, the middle market consolidation is starting in earnest (for example the recently announced merger of Withy King and Marshall & Galpin, to say nothing of the gossip circulating about who is talking to whom; or more interesting, who is not being talked to.)

It is an appropriate time to revisit Legal Services Reforms: Catalyst, Cataclysm or Catastrophe by Stephen Mayson, Professor of Strategy at and Director of the Legal Services Policy Institute. In his March 2007 review of the legal services marketplace (inefficient, ripe for reform) Mayson summed up its health as follows,

My diagnosis so far, therefore, is that we have too many qualified lawyers, too many law firms, and too many equity partners.

Later he identifies consolidation as a one of the key themes for the future, highlighting ‘the need to reduce the number of firms . . . in the interests of quality, consistency, efficiency and cost’.

Well, this is already happening and will gather pace. Mayson identified one of the drivers as the ‘natural forces of competition’. I would add to that diminishing fee income, the cost and, at the moment, the availability of borrowing, and the demographic imperative. To say nothing of the Legal Services Act, and the arrival of new entrants into the market.

Not waving but drowning

Train journeys offer an excellent opportunity to catch up on reading, both professional and management. Travelling to London recently, I re-read Rob Millard’s The Strategy Executioner (you will find it in Edge International September 2008 Law Firm Strategy Newsletter).

Millard sets out ten easy steps to ensure your firm’s strategy never sees the light of day; number seven particularly caught my eye,

7. REWARD PEOPLE ONLY FOR PRODUCTION

The successful strategy executioner pays no heed to ridiculous ‘balanced scorecard’ approaches to performance measurement and reward. They keep the focus squarely on production and only production. Measure and reward billable hours only! That way, people are discouraged from poking their noses into areas where they don’t belong. If anybody asks about strategy, smile and wave and tell them that their own interests would be better served by simply working harder. An added bonus is that this approach tends to maximize short-term profit, which your partners will appreciate when they make their drawings. As to the long term: leave that up to the poor idiot who comes after you!

So now you know.

How others see us

Somewhat late a comment on the article Meet the rich some weeks ago in The Guardian, which John Malpas posted about in early August, and in particular on the description of the group of lawyers and bankers interviewed,

technically able but less intelligent, less intellectually inquisitive, less knowledgeable and, despite their good schools, less broadly educated than high-flyers in other professions.

Whether or not this is true (and my experience is that this is not the case), what we should be worried about is the perception that people have about the law and lawyers. This is an age old problem, but one we cannot just shrug off.

On a slightly different tack, but worth the read, see Matthew Taylor’s Greed is good, but only in its place, in his eponymous RSA blog.