Law firms all want to increase profitability. And when performance slips, the response is often predictable: a rush to “fix” the partners. Sort the underperformers and drive the rainmakers harder.
But what if the partners aren’t the problem? What if the issue isn’t the need for better partners, but better systems; ones that reward different behaviours?
Our team was invited to work with the leaders of the European office of a law firm that was haemorrhaging talent. The mandate was clear: fix the partners and the haemorrhaging would stop.
At first glance, the diagnosis seemed straightforward. Communication was poor. Appraisals had been delayed or cancelled. Clients were being hoarded. Delegation was weak. Collaboration was limited. It was easy to point the finger at the partners who needed “fixing”.
Frankly, that set-up could describe any number of high-performing law firms! What stood out here were the systems and structure underpinning the culture. A client origination system that hadn’t evolved and encouraged territorial behaviour. Tough on the senior associate who brought in a major institutional client yet saw none of the upside, while her supervising partner who signed the engagement letter took the rewards.
On many levels the whole compensation structure lacked transparency, more than one would expect, and that led to chronic mistrust and internal competition.
It’s no surprise that delegation was weak and burnout widespread. Heroic individualism was what the system recognised and reinforced.
And the way the firm had recently chosen to expand its non‑equity ranks (deliberately being non‑specific here) created tension rather than a sense of opportunity.
Here’s the question we invited the board to consider post our diagnostics – are you trying to create meaningful change or just make the status quo more acceptable?
In my 30 years around the law, we’ve debated the traditional partnership model ad nauseam. (Admittedly private capital may be finally shaking things up). More interesting, and less examined, is how we keep tinkering at the edges, convincing ourselves we’re changing things, while preserving the same underlying structure.
If firms want meaningful change, any intervention from professionals like me needs to work on three levels. The individual level (helping partners develop); the interpersonal level (addressing team dynamics, conflict, trust and communication) and, crucially, the structural and systemic level (looking at the systems, governance and norms that sit underneath it all).
One can’t put a group of high-performing individuals in a room, expect them to play nicely, and then be surprised when instability follows or succession planning falters. You don’t maximise profitability by squeezing people already working at the edge. You achieve it by fixing what constrains them.
Yes, there are problem partners in every law firm (although I loathe the idea of “fixing” another human being and would never attempt to do so.) But problematic behaviours are frequently the emergent properties of the system rather than the personality defect.
Let me offer a bit of a clumsy analogy. If a car repeatedly pulls to the left, burns oil and overheats – coaching the driver to drive better may help temporarily, but it won’t fix the engine, alignment or cooling system. I believe we need to stop our singular focus with the driver.
Let’s be honest, partners don’t always have it easy. They are simultaneously, the drivers, passengers, mechanics and part owner of the car. It begs the questions, what type of partner does your law firm system produce?
Gavin Sharpe is a trusted advisor to law firms, specialising in law firm performance, leadership and growth.
This article first appeared in Law.Com
