Iranian Bar Associations

PAPERS(Page 6)
Main Index
Index:

  * PARTNERING WITH MEDIATION
  * Breaking Out: Marketing for Women Lawyers
  * A Life of Learning
  * LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------

  * PARTNERING WITH MEDIATION

“A Management Best Practices Tool” By Frank Carr & Dr. Brian D. Polkinghorn

International Bar Association Conference
Chicago, Illinois
September 17-22, 2006

Introduction
This paper introduces the Partnering process with mediation as a management best practices tool for conflict prevention and resolution. It is intended as a practical blueprint for any organization, corporation, or government agency that wants to enhance its management of strategic business relationships to achieve its expectations.

The best practices presented here are derived from the results of exhaustive research study, conducted by the authors, of the Maryland State Highway Administration’s (SHA) highly successful construction partnering program. The study covers the entire history of the Maryland SHA program dating back more than ten years. The discussion of the best practices also includes the insights of the authors who are experienced construction partnering program designers, trainers, and facilitators and professional mediators.

Philosophy of Partnering and its Relationship to Mediation Partnering is management methodology for achieving success in business relationships. It is a continuous multi-party process of aligning organizations to reach a joint mission and vision, build quality teams, reap economic benefits, improve working relationships, and prevent litigation.

The philosophy behind the partnering process is rather straight forward. It is designed to promote an environment that encourages risk-sharing, teamwork, and collaborative problem-solving to attain common goals. In partnering the parties come together to create a new synergistic relationship for mutual success.

The partnering process starts early and continues throughout the life of the project. In partnering, the major parties, often referred to as stakeholders, involved in the project are committed to establishing trust through effective communications and team building.

In the construction industry, partnering has a proven success record of achieving realistic and quantifiable benefits for all stakeholders. The most highly touted benefits of partnering are that projects are completed on-time and within budget. Other direct and measurable benefits of partnering are a reduction in claims, the expeditious resolution of disputes, improved safety, increased productivity, and almost no litigation. In addition, there are certain intangible benefits that are frequently expressed by stakeholders as being
just as important to them as the direct benefits. These intangible benefits include:

accounts of more innovative and creative solutions to problems, improved quality performance, increased customer satisfaction, enhanced business reputation, improved individual relationships, and an increased sense of appreciation, recognition and respect and, a great working atmosphere.

The combination of tangible and intangible benefits can also be viewed from a contractual and non-contractual perspective. Tangible measurements are often linked to contract elements (e.g. time, funds, quality, and safety) and non contractual elements are often tied to human interaction (e.g. trust, respect, recognition, integrity, and communication). The increased emphasis on the non contractual and intangible parts of working relationships is the key element that has revolutionized the construction industry.

Taking these benefits into account, it is easy to understand why the transfer application of the partnering process into other arenas of public and private decision making should also work.

Partnering Origins
Partnering in construction has its roots in the 1980s, when the total quality management (TQM) movement was changing the nature of conducting business in the United States and the legal and business communities were concerned about the rapid rise of unresolved claims and litigation in commercial construction cases. At this time, new strategies were being examined to change the traditional adversarial environment that plagued the construction community.

Under the TQM movement, the business community started to focus on moving
from adversarial business relationships to a new paradigm of initiating continuous
improvement in process and services, ensuring quality workmanship, and addressing
customer satisfaction and needs. At the same time, the business and legal communities
were experiencing the destructive impact of the rising numbers and economic costs
associated with litigation and were experimenting with alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) methods such as mediation, arbitration, dispute review boards, and mini-trials to
reduce court caseloads. In ADR, especially mediation, disputing parties discovered that
resolution was possible without the destructive impact of litigation on their business
relationships.

Partnering borrowed both of these two successful concepts and combined them
with collaborative problem-solving techniques and team building initiatives to create a
new process for management of business relationships. The organizations with the
earliest partnering programs were the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Federal
government and the Maryland SHA and the Arizona Department of Transportation at the
state level. Additionally, early proponents and leaders in the partnering movement in
construction included the Construction Industry Institute (CII) at Texas A&M University
and the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC).

The Partnering Process
The partnering process begins after two or more organizations reach an agreement
or sign a contract to work together on a project. The best time to initiate the partnering
process is immediately after the award is made. The benefit to an early start in partnering
is to create a set of expectations that instill good communications, teamwork and
collaborative problem solving from the start of the relationship to the completion of the
project.

The partnering process can be separated into several distinct steps for clarity and
understanding. These five steps as described below are: Contract Award, Post-Award
Partnering Planning, Kick-Off Workshop, Periodic Partnering Meetings, and Project
Completion.

Contract Award
The contract between the two parties may contain a provision that encourages or
requires partnering. If the contract does not have a partnering provision, then the parties
can orally initiate partnering.

Post-Award Partnering Planning
The facilitator is selected during the planning phase in order to begin working
closely with the major stakeholders to plan the content and agenda for the kick-off
workshop. Together they need to identify all stakeholders impacted by the project and
invite them to the workshop. These may include among others the design firms,
subcontractors, suppliers, public utilities, and the end user of the project. The final
planning activity is to pick a date, time and place for the kick-off workshop that is
acceptable and convenient to the stakeholders. The location is often at a neutral site such
as a hotel.

Kick-Off Workshop
At the kick-off workshop the stakeholders have the chance to meet each other in
an informal setting, communicate directly with their counterparts, work on team building,
and learn from others their goals, needs, and interests. Also, the participants may identify
issues for resolution and engage in joint problem solving and action planning. This often
includes a discussion on the use of mediation or other ADR processes in the event
disputes are not resolved through negotiations.

A final workshop activity is to create an implementation plan for meeting the partnering mission, vision and goals reached during the workshop that will be undertaken during contract performance. This plan usually includes scheduling periodic partnering meetings to follow-up on the workshop and having the stakeholders evaluate in written or oral forms how well the relationship is working. At the end of the workshop, the stakeholders prepare a written Charter as a visual reminder of their mutual commitment to the partnering vision, goals, and relationship. It is usually a one-page document signed by all the participants at the end of the workshop.

Periodic Partnering Meetings
A core action at the periodic meetings is to check on the issues that are still
pending and to address new issues that may become problems. As a result, action plans
developed at the kick-off workshop may be reviewed and, if necessary, modified and new
action plans for problems just arising may be developed. At times during contract
performance there is a need to check on whether the stakeholders are meeting the
partnering goals and other objectives specified in the Charter. This evaluation is usually
accomplished by the use of a printed evaluation form. It is completed by each stakeholder
participant. This feedback allows the group to make adjustments to the project (tangible)
and the working relationships (intangible). A final item on the meeting agenda is to
discuss upcoming activates.

Project Completion
When the project is complete, the stakeholders can use final evaluation forms to
measure whether the project goals were meet and what was accomplished by the
partnering process. These evaluation forms can also be used to suggest partnering
program changes. Finally, to bring closure to the partnering effort on a positive note, the
stakeholders may want to schedule an activity for the all participants. The activity is
often a lunch, dinner or family picnic with all the stakeholders.

Top Fifteen Best Partnering Practices
The following best practices are based on direct feedback from participants in the
Maryland SHA study and by the author’s personal experience in facilitating partnering
processes.

1. Best Practice: Start with a Partnering Business Plan Partnering is a management methodology that can greatly benefit any organization. In order to maximize the benefits of partnering an organization should institutionalize the practice with a business plan. In any organization that wants to change its business practice it requires a detailed plan as the vehicle for change. Planning starts with a clear mission and vision of the partnering concept, an understanding of the process changes that are required, and the people involved in the transition. Often the planning process for the partnering program begins with a carefully selected design team assisted by an experienced partnering facilitator. In some organizations, the use of mediation or a dispute review board is also part of the plan for large or complex construction projects.

2. Best Practice: Secure Top Management Support Top management support from the highest level down is essential to establishing an effective partnering program. Individuals within any organization need to know that the partnering concept is fully supported by top management prior to the individuals making any changes in their relationships with other organizations. Since change involves some degree of risk for individuals and the organization it becomes imperative that management clearly conveys its support for the process. Also, when management supports risk taking, bold organizational moves, such as the incorporation of partnering, can occur

3. Best Practice: Conduct Internal Partnering Training
A corporation or government agency that wants to establish a partnering program
should conduct training programs within the organization at the start of the program.
Training should promote awareness of the partnering concept and process; clarify the
organization’s interests in the use of partnering, demonstrate management support, and
facilitate acceptance at all strategic levels within the organization. The training should
include a mix of operational and management employees from all impacted levels within
the organization. The trainer should have a good grasp of the partnering concept, be
experienced with the partnering process, understand the organization’s partnering
program and be able to communicate effectively with the participants.

4. Best Practice: Hold an Early Partnering Kick-Off Workshop
As soon as two or more organizations agree to work together under a contract, the
partnering process should start by holding a kick-off workshop. When partnering is
delayed, too often the parties engage in old adversarial habits that reinforce competitive
relationships thus making the partnering initiative not only more difficult to undertake but
also less likely to have a constructive impact of the participants or the project. By
starting early, the team will likely reinforce, through its own interaction, the maximum
benefits that the partnering process has to offer such as: developing better means and
channels of communication, planning for issue resolution, reinforcing collaborative
solving problems as the key means of decision making, and the achievement of common
goals.

5. Best Practice: Use an Experienced Partnering Facilitator
The kick-off workshop is likely to be more effective when the facilitator has an
expert understanding of 1) the partnering concept/process 2) knowledge of the particular
industry in which the process is being used and 3) experience in collaborative problem
solving and/or conflict intervention. Facilitators need to recognize that their role in the
partnering process in not just the facilitation of another team-building meeting but also
the design of a joint creative problem-solving process and the establishment of an implementation plan for the relationship. Finally, the facilitator must be perceived as neutral by all stakeholders.

6. Best Practice: Identify the Key Internal and External Stakeholders
The partnering process can only work if the right people get to the table for the
kick-off workshop. This applies to both internal and external stakeholders. The
partnering facilitator should also assist in identifying the internal and external participants
and assure that the participants are from similar management levels within each
organization. This balance is important and substantially assists in building direct and
appropriate organizational communication by bringing participants “face-to-face” with
their counterparts.

7. Best Practice: Establish Effective Communications
Partnering requires effective communications among all the stakeholders to
manage conflict and achieve mutual project goals. It begins by bringing the stakeholders
together at the kick-off workshop to identify and address their expectations, issues
(existing or potential), and goals in a collaborative non-confrontational atmosphere.
Developing formal and informal communication channels further, reinforces trust among
the stakeholders.

8. Best Practice: Draft a Simple Partnering “Charter”
The Charter is a written document adopted by the stakeholders at the kick-off
workshop that creates a visual symbolic reminder of their commitment to the partnering
process and their mutual vision for the project. It is usually a one-page document that is
signed by all the participants at the end of the workshop. The content of the Charter will
vary from project to project but generally it contains the stakeholders’ mutual vision,
their set of common goals, and the behaviors that the stakeholders will adhere to during
the project.

9. Best Practice: Hold Informal Periodic Partnering Progress Meetings
Partnering progress meetings are held periodically after the kick-off workshop to
implement, monitor and evaluate the partnering process as well as to continuously
address changes to the project or program. These meetings are a good place to get the
right stakeholders to the table to focus on resolving current or forthcoming issues and to
review their continued commitment to the vision and goals underlying the relationship.
Attention to project monitoring is the first line of conflict prevention.

10. Best Practice: Develop Meaningful Partnering Measurements
Precise measurement tools are necessary to obtain meaningful objective and
subjective feedback on the effectiveness of the partnering process both during and at the
end of the project. Partnering is a continuous process for improving the working
relationship among the stakeholders. Periodically during performance and at the
completion of the project, the stakeholders need to know how well partnering is working
and whether an adjustment or intervention may be necessary to increase the overall
effectiveness of the process. This can be accomplished by the use of standardized
measurement tools that rate certain aspects of partnering such as communication,
cooperation and respect, issue resolution, teamwork, safety and job progress. Qualitative
measures could include such things as: indicators of cooperation, trust, recognition,
respect and appreciation of others.

11. Best Practice: Develop Partnering Materials
The publication of partnering materials is necessary to establish an effective
partnering program. These materials should be clear and concise, and provide a complete
explanation of the partnering process, the organization’s procedures, and the possible
benefits. The materials can be placed in pamphlets, field guides, training manuals and
web sites.

12. Best Practice: Conduct Outreach to External Stakeholders
In most projects, participation in partnering is voluntary. Thus, the organization
that promotes the partnering process needs to present a clear description of partnering in
order to effectively educate and promote the process. Outreach through trade association
meetings or trade conferences allows stakeholders to develop an understanding of how
partnering can be beneficial and a value to them. Publishing in trade journals is also a
effective manes of educating future users of the process.

13. Best Practice: Discuss Problem Solving and Issue Resolution
When it comes to effective partnering, a balance must be struck between
substance and process. Participants at the kick-off workshop often come with the desire
to discuss project issues. Participants should be able to discuss these issues and develop
action plans to resolve the most critical of them. This is both highly productive and
builds trust among the stakeholders. The development of an “issue resolution ladder”
with the names of responsible individuals at each level within an organization issues as
they arise is an excellent conflict prevention tool. Finally, in more complex and costly
projects, if the contract does not require mediation or some other form of ADR prior to
initiating litigation, the parties need to discuss it.

14. Best Practice: Identify Partnering Champions
Too often stakeholders assume that once a successful kick-off workshop is over
the partnering relationship will continue to flourish on its own with no further nurturing.
This is false sense of comfort and a plan for disaster. Partnering at this time needs
someone to step forward and be responsible for the guidance and implementation of the
process. This is a role for a champion who thoroughly understands the practical utility of
partnering and believes in its value. Before partnering begins to falter, the champion
needs keep the momentum of the process going and get it back on track. In this role the
champion should always be monitoring the process indicators as well as the pulse of the
stakeholders’ relationship and should work closely on the agenda for all periodic
meetings. Ideally, the champion will be a person who is also well known and respected
by other stakeholders.

15. Best Practice: Provide for Recognition
All partnering programs should acknowledge both the efforts of individuals that
made the process work and the quality projects that partnering has contributed to
creating. Sincere and meaningful recognition for past deeds and hard work is always
appreciated and also provides motivation for future cooperation. Recognition can take
various and diverse forms. It can be as simple as a public “thank you” and a sincere
handshake or a formal award ceremony with the presentation of a plaque or other
memento. Simply match the type of recognition to the intrinsic value you place on the
contribution of others.

SUMMARY
The best way to summarize this paper is to examine consistent themes from our
study that are also documented by research results from federal, state, and private
organizations that use partnering. The general consensus is that partnering has produced a
series of consistent and substantial tangible and intangible benefits.
Tangible

The most commonly referenced benefit of partnering is that it brings projects in
on time and within budget. Other frequently quoted tangible benefits of partnering are
safety with no lost-time accidents, reduction in paperwork, improving efficiency and cost
effectiveness continuous improvement of quality products and services, a more pleasant
working environment, substantial value engineering savings, expedited issue resolution,
and often times no litigation.
Intangible

Additionally, partnering is reported to produce many other intangible benefits for
the stakeholders. These include: increasing opportunities for innovation and creativity,
nurturing a team-building and cooperative environment, building trust, encouraging open
communications, helping eliminate surprise, empowering the parties to anticipate and
resolve problems, getting requests for equitable adjustments resolved at the project level,
preventing disputes, sustaining relationships, preventing litigation, and having “fun”
working together.

Partnering is, in essence, common sense in action. By getting the right people (all
stakeholders) in the right place (the kick-off workshop) at the right time (at the start of
the project prior to disputes arising) doing the right thing (working on communications,
team building, problem-solving, and visionary planning) great things can happen (the
achievement of common goals and expectations). However, even when the partnering
process does not prevent disputes from arising, the parties can use mediation to resolve
their disputes without the destructive litigation

AUTHORS
Frank Carr is a senior partner in the conflict global management consulting and training
firm of Carr, Swanson and Randolph LLC. Frank specializes in all aspects of
organizational systems design, dispute prevention, issue resolution, negotiations, training,
and partnering facilitation. In this capacity, he provides services as a mediator, arbitrator,
facilitator, and trainer. He has worked internationally in Panama, Bulgaria, Serbia,
Croatia, Kazakhstan, and Nepal. Frank received his B.A., 1966, and J.D., 1969, degrees
from Duquesne University and an L.L.M., 1974, from Georgetown University. In June
2002, Frank retired after a 30-year career with the Federal government as the Chief Trial
Attorney and Agency Dispute Resolution Specialist for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in Washington, DC. He was selected as the Corps of Engineers Civilian of the
Year in 1989 and received the National Performance Review Hammer Award in 1995 for
his pioneering work in ADR and partnering. In 2002, Frank’s ADR program was
awarded the first Office of Federal Procurement Policy Outstanding Federal Procurement
Alternative Dispute Resolution Award for a Large Agency. Upon retirement, Frank
received the Exceptional Civilian Service Award from the Department of Defense and the
Meritorious Civilian Service Award from the Department of the Army. Also, Frank is a
highly decorated military officer with the Legion of Merit and a Bronze Star Medal. He
recently retired as a Military Judge with a rank of Colonel in the Army Reserve.
Additionally, Frank is a frequent lecturer on federal government procurement and
litigation topics, alternative dispute resolution techniques, conflict management systems
design, and construction Partnering. He has authored, co-authored, and contributed to
numerous articles, pamphlets, and books on ADR and Partnering. Recently, the ABA
Forum on the Construction Industry published his book titled Partnering in Construction:
A Practical Guide to Project Success. Frank can be contacted at
frankcarr1@earthlink.net of 410 418-0916.

Brian Polkinghorn, MS, MA, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Director of the Conflict
Analysis and Dispute Resolution Programs and Executive Director of the Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) at Salisbury University. He has worked in the conflict intervention field since 1985 as a mediator, arbitrator, facilitator, trainer, researcher, program administrator, dispute systems designer and ombudsman. His primary research is in the areas of environmental disputes, graduate program developments in the English speaking world, court program assessment, evaluation of U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission mediation programs, state agency partnering and mediation programs, dispute systems design and conflict model building. He has practiced in over 30 countries primarily in the areas of environmental policy dispute intervention, labor-management, public policy and civil society training, including work for focused humanitarian assistance groups in regions experiencing massive population shifts. He has published scores of journal articles, book chapters and books primarily in the areas of conflict processes, intervention strategies and applied research findings. During the 1990s, Brian was a founding faculty member of the Department of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at Nova Southeastern University, where he led the development of the curriculum and department practice. He received a master’s degree in conflict resolution from the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, as well as two masters and doctorate from the Maxwell School of Citizenship, Syracuse University, through the Program on Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts. Brian has also been a Visiting Fellow at the Program on Negotiation, Harvard University Law School, a Fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and a U.S. Presidential Management Fellow. He is a member of numerous boards of directors for conflict intervention organizations and, in his spare time, he guest lectured at more than 25 academic conflict resolution programs on five continents.
Up
Main Index

* Breaking Out: Marketing for Women Lawyers

by Sally J. Schmidt Special contributor

It's a sensitive issue that many lawyers are uncomfortable discussing. Both male and female lawyers are so committed to furthering an environment of equality within the law firm that they do not acknowledge an important fact: Marketing is different for women. It is fairly easy to spot the disadvantages that women face in trying to establish a clientele. We often fail to recognize, however, that women benefit from some unique opportunities as well.

Obstacles and Opportunities Facing Women Lawyers
My discussions with successful women business generators reveal the following challenges facing many women in the profession:

·        Clients don't accept them.
·        There is a need to prove their worth or expertise, more so than for their male counterparts.
·        There aren't as many opportunities to make mistakes - within the firm or with clients.
·        There is no ''old boy network'' to utilize.
·        There is an unconscious fear among clients and the male attorneys: Will the women be there for

us?
·        Male clients perceive social work invitations as ''dates.''
·        Women are ''too nice.''

At the same time, there are benefits that women enjoy in marketing. The following factors might be used to their advantage:

·        Women tend to develop closer relationships and have better interpersonal skills than men do.
·        Women tend to have a higher level of attention to detail.
·        Women are less intimidating.
·        Simply being a woman may make a lawyer more memorable, particularly if she establishes

a ''style.''
The final piece of the equation simply is this: Rainmaking is an individual activity, and all lawyers can (and should) establish their own course or destiny. There is probably no place where this is easier to do than in a law firm.

Ideas, Activities and Suggestions for Women Lawyers With these issues in mind, I offer the following advice, drawing both from personal observations and from the collective experience of many successful women attorneys.

View your gender as an advantage, not a disadvantage. As one female partner jokingly said, ''Women get noticed; men are fungible.'' Don't try to be like - or worse - dress like the men.

Have a sense of humor. Don't color relationships by appearing to have a chip on your shoulder or negative expectations. If you sense that male clients are uncomfortable with you in a social setting, or if they treat a dinner invitation like a date, invite spouses/significant others to attend, ask a male colleague to come with you, or limit your social interaction to lunches where business is discussed.

If clients don't want to work with you, accept it and deal with it. You can try different strategies: (a) have a ''front'' man who maintains the primary relationship with the client yet gives you credit for doing the work; (b) bring in a partner who supports you and tries to gently educate the clients; or (c) change assignments.

Cross sell. Many lawyers find it easier to talk about and build up their colleagues than to sell themselves. If people are reluctant to hire a woman, you can introduce them to your male partners.

Be certain you are doing a good job. Because you are more visible and perhaps more closely scrutinized, you will have to be better prepared.

Start building your base and skills by developing relationships with people working for current clients. As people move up in organizations, stay in touch with them; eventually, they will gain authority over counsel. As people change organizations, follow them; they may bring you work from a new company.

Develop a niche, a reputation and personal visibility. Focus your practice and identify a unique or highly specialized area; clients will come to ''experts'' regardless of their gender. Get your name known in the legal and business communities through involvement in organizations, community work, writing, speaking or teaching.

Get involved in the firm's institutional marketing activities. Ask for opportunities to write for the firm's newsletter or to speak at a client seminar. This exposure will continue to build your credibility.

Network. Treat each person you meet as a valuable resource. Get to know them on a personal level. Stay in touch through holiday cards or telephone calls. Expand your network at every possible opportunity.
Be patient. It takes a long time and much hard work to be successful at developing business. Think of your efforts as stepping stones throughout a 30-year career.

While this discussion is perhaps meant to enlighten some law firm leaders about the special issues or needs facing women in their efforts to develop business, it also is intended to shed a ray of hope on the prospects women face in this endeavor.

One female managing partner may have illustrated the changing attitudes best in recounting her son's response to the question: ''Would you like to be a lawyer when you grow up?'' His answer? ''Aah, that's a girl's job.''

Sally J. Schmidt is President of Sally Schmidt Consulting, Inc. in Burnsville, Minn. Schmidt was the first President of the National Law Firm Marketing Association, and is author of the book Marketing the Law Firm: Business Development Techniques (Law Journal Seminars-Press, 1991).
Up
Main Index

  * A Life of Learning

CLE -- (Continue Legal Education) A Way of Maintaining Your Edge

CLE is one of your ongoing responsibilities and the easiest way to deal with it is to develop a plan now. You will only get busier as your career progresses and you'll find it increasingly harder to schedule time for classes. Before you realize it, the CLE reporting deadline will loom and you'll be stuck taking classes when it is least convenient for you and the firm.

Make CLE a Part of Life

Here are some tips to help make CLE a part of your professional life:
·        Find out what courses are offered by your bar association. Often, they have discounts or special low-cost courses for those newly admitted to the bar.

·        Investigate county, city and special interest bar associations. They frequently support their membership with free or low cost CLE.

·        Firms may have in-house training that can qualify for CLE credit. Check with your bar association to learn the requirements for certifying courses.

·        Stay in touch with your law school. Alumni associations often provide CLE opportunities for members.

Set Up a Tracking System
Develop a reliable method for keeping track of your CLE attendance. You can start by finding out what classes are required and what documentation your bar association will need for your CLE report. Then record those classes and make sure you get the information or certification you need from the course providers.

As any experienced associate will tell you, it is much easier to do this as you go. If you don't, you're likely to spend a weekend sorting through bank statements and credit card receipts, trying to reconstruct your CLE history. You may even have to track down CLE administrators to get the documents you need. Not a pretty picture!

Leverage LexisNexis™ Resources
In many states, you can satisfy your CLE requirements by taking a LexisNexis training program. LexisNexis

gives you a number of options:
·        Our Local Applications Consultants frequently offer individual and group training in your office, which a number of states approve for CLE credit.

·        Our Telephonic Training Consultants will train you in the comfort of your own office or home. Several states approve telephonic sessions for CLE credit.

·        We maintain 11 Learning Centers, offering a wide selection of courses. Most states approve classroom session for CLE credit.

·        We also offer audio and video seminars on the Internet. We currently offer 87 accredited CLE courses in 30 states and Washington D.C.

Visit our CLE Center to view your state's CLE requirements, attorney responsibilities a listing of LexisNexis approved classes. Or, talk to your local LexisNexis rep about how they can help you maintain your edge while meeting CLE requirements.
Up
Main Index

  * LAW FIRM MANAGEMENT

Cry of the Lone Wolf Solo Behavior Can Destroy Client Relationships

Copyright 2002 NLP IP Company - American Lawyer Media
All Rights Reserved.

New York Law Journal...03/19/2002
By Kelly A. Fox

The story is repeated in law firm client interviews across the country and the world: ''I love my lawyer, but I don't know anyone else at the firm, and that concerns me.'' An analysis of the internal workings of the firm very often uncovers one where solo behavior dominates and teamwork or firm-first behavior is unusual.

There are countless firms - large and small - that can be described as ''merely collections of solo practitioners.'' Many are intentionally designed that way because the lawyers enjoy the level of autonomy this provides. However, they fail to recognize the effects that this behavior has on client service and client satisfaction, particularly with the more sophisticated purchasers of legal services. Solo behavior can contribute to the erosion of a firm's client base and, thus, its market position. Ultimately membership in a solo practitioner firm can be damaging professionally.

Monarch & Butterfly
To illustrate this further, it is helpful to use a case study of a mid-sized law firm in a ''second-tier'' city. The firm, which we will call Monarch & Butterfly, claimed to be full service. While it could offer a variety of services to its clients, in reality, the firm had depth of expertise and a strong reputation in four core areas. Its reputation in these core areas was developed and sustained by a few partners - very talented cowboys who held on tight to their client relationships. The majority of work performed by these lawyers could be classified as high value. The firm had three small ''service'' departments with no real rainmakers and no self-sustainable market position. Work brought in directly by partners in the service areas was classified as mid- to low-value.

Although the firm had practice groups, practice management was not occurring in its true definition. The lawyers did not want it because it was contrary to how they wished to practice.
Monarch & Butterfly's core client base historically consisted of entrepreneurs who started businesses and, in some cases, expanded these businesses into large companies that they either continued to operate or eventually sold. The firm also had a strong network of referral sources in other professional service firms that had been carefully developed by lawyers in the core practices of the firm. Client relations and relations with the referral sources were close and personal.

Monarch & Butterfly was poorly leveraged. The firm paid little, if any, attention to developing quality associates. Partners hoarded work and tended to handle matters alone whenever possible. They felt that training younger lawyers so that they could be involved in client matters was too time-consuming and provided little return on their investment.

For the most part, the lawyers in the core practices were strong generalists who could handle their core client's day-to-day business needs as well as the high value work that required their specific expertise. Things became complicated when their clients needed expertise outside their comfort zone. Their partners tended to be less responsive and timely with work when handling a matter for another lawyer's client. It was easier if the matter were in one of the firm's four core areas of practice. The core area lawyers were good lawyers and could be trusted somewhat to provide high quality work. They might refer routine or low value work to a lawyer in one of the firm's service areas.

Limited Resources
However, if the matter demanded a higher level of expertise than the partner knew the service area lawyer could provide, he or she would refer the client to another firm. The core area partners did not have faith that these sophisticated matters could be handled well by their partners in the service areas, nor did they trust their partners to provide high levels of service to their clients. The more attuned lawyers in the firm recognized that the lost opportunities for the firm were significant. Nevertheless, they were not willing to damage relationships with their clients by having a partner in a service area of the firm botch a client matter.

The firm's compensation system emphasized personal production (billable hours and originations) and, thus, reinforced solo behavior. There were no rewards for teamwork or for client service, and no rewards for keeping other lawyers, including juniors, busy. Firm leadership and accountability were lacking.

In addition to the small amount of referral work they received internally, the lawyers in the ''non-core'' practices brought in enough client work to support themselves and maintain a decent standard of living in this second tier market. Their personal aspirations did not include greater financial wealth, which was in conflict with the desires of the lawyers in the firm's core practices. As is obvious, this firm faced a host of strategic and operational issues, but the focus of this article is how the solo behavior affected client relationships.

What Clients Said
Interviews with a cross section of Monarch & Butterfly's clients revealed a clear and dangerous trend. The firm's future was threatened by its solo behavior.

The firm had some very strong client relations. The clients interviewed were highly satisfied with ''their lawyer'' at the firm. Their lawyer gave them and their legal matters the personal care and attention that they desired, and made them feel special.

Comments about their lawyer included:
''He is professional, knowledgeable, creative and resourceful.... He has good business acumen, which you don't often get with lawyers.''

''Nobody is more knowledgeable than he is in his field. He is very skilled in helping us understand the business issues.''

''She is fabulous in every respect. She is creative, aggressive and will do what it takes. She is also sensitive to fee issues.''

''She understands our business and can handle our files without my involvement.''
Nevertheless, almost all of these clients' favorable comments about ''their lawyer'' were followed with an astounding ''However....''

''You don't get a team from them. You get one point of contact.''

''When we used (other firm in the market), we would never have a meeting with our file partner without a junior being there. We always had someone to call to get the work done. At Monarch & Butterfly, there is zero depth.''

''They don't have enough staff. We depend on one person, who is excellent.''
These clients who cared very much about ''their lawyer'' expressed grave concerns about the Monarch &

Butterfly firm and its ability to succeed in a market where other very good firms were providing quality and depth of expertise at all levels, as well as excellent service. They were concerned that if anything happened to their lawyer, there would be no one who could step in and fill his or her shoes. Some of these clients were preparing for this event, no matter how unlikely, by ''trying out'' lawyers at other firms. They were uncomfortable that they had too much invested in one lawyer.

They were also uneasy about other behaviors they witnessed from ''their lawyer.'' He or she seemed reluctant to sell the firm to them. Her or she often knew little about the firm's practice expertise, its experience or success stories. They were not introduced to other lawyers at the firm unless there was a specific matter that needed to be handled by that lawyer and, even then, contact was limited. In addition, the client was referred to other good law firms in the market when they had, for example, a litigation matter, although they suspected that the firm had litigators. If the firm did not have litigators whom their lawyer would trust to handle their matters in the same manner of quality that they had been accustomed to from their lawyer, then why did the firm's litigation department exist in its current state?

Some clients had considered this question often enough so that they began to question the business practices and the future viability of the Monarch & Butterfly firm. The clients whose legal needs had expanded beyond the capability of their lawyer were regularly using other law firms, and liking their experiences. They were developing strong relations with other lawyers who gladly referred them to their partners in litigation, for example. They were on the verge of shifting the majority of their work to another law firm regardless of the long and personal relationship that they had had with ''their lawyer'' at Monarch & Butterfly.

The conclusion that many clients had reached was: ''My lawyer is just a solo sharing space with other lawyers whom he or she doesn't trust to handle my work, while XYZ firm down the street can handle all of my needs in a coordinated, sophisticated fashion.''

Meanwhile, individual lawyers at Monarch & Butterfly continued to attract some new clients whose needs they initially could serve as a solo. But it was becoming harder and harder to attract these type of clients. In the firm's market, there were fewer start-up, entrepreneurial companies than in the past.

In addition, it was more difficult to convince them to hire a lawyer in a firm that did not seem to have a recognizable reputation or position in the market. Other law firms were better known, and had established marketing campaigns or branded positions. Other law firms brought in a team of lawyers when they were making a pitch for the client's business.

Hear the Wake-Up Call
Monarch & Butterfly's story is similar to that of many other law firms. To begin with, most clients hire lawyers rather than law firms. Whether it is an in-house lawyer or a businessperson, the client typically hires a law firm because of a particular lawyers' expertise, reputation, practice style or personality. It is fair to say that very often the initial purchase is based on emotions more than hard facts.

If the relationship begins positively and progresses in a positive manner, clients generally remain highly loyal to their lawyer. It is their preference to have this lawyer most involved in their legal matters. In fact, most clients report that they will follow their lawyer if he or she moves to another firm.

However, as the client matures in its purchasing behaviors - sometimes coincidently, but not always, with the maturing of the business - very often the client will stay with the firm based on their lawyer's ability to deliver more than just themselves. They begin to expect teamwork and relationships at multiple levels. The most sophisticated clients expect seamless delivery of legal services at all levels (by individuals, practices or offices), with relationship partners monitoring and managing staffing, service delivery and quality.

It should be recognized that, at all times, different clients of a firm will be at different stages in terms of how they purchase and manage their legal services.

However, the key to a firm's competitiveness requires that delivering value to clients is a key aspect in its primary mission. The firm's systems and behaviors must support this mission. This includes management, practice management, compensation and administrative systems that support team work and seamless delivery of services. It also includes depth, rational pricing and planning and foresight for meeting clients' future changing needs. These are all issues that must be addressed at a firm level. It is rare that a collection of solos, who are not accountable, can satisfactorily service the needs of a sophisticated purchaser of legal services.

Monarch & Butterfly no longer exists as described. The partners, listening to their clients, recognized that the firm could not continue to exist as a collection of solos and remain viable. The firm was losing clients and was having difficulty attracting new clients, and the new work coming into the firm was more and more routine as the more sophisticated clients took their higher value work elsewhere.

Rather than continuing down a path of destruction, the partners set out to make a change, which included devising a strategic plan as well as new systems (governance and compensation) and clear partner performance expectations. The lawyers now recognize the importance of leadership and accountability. The firm is still evolving, but now it is a firm comprised of more professionally satisfied individuals working collectively toward a single mission of serving clients, rather than disjointed solos on a mission to protect their own autonomy.
Up
Main Index