Career Clinic: Are the skills learnt in law transferrable to business roles?

no

There is so much hand-holding at junior lawyer level that their ability to think for themselves in the business world is severely impacted

e -25 Jun 2010 | 10:22

?

There have been a number of questions asking what in essence is the same question. How do you transfer from lawyer to a commercial role?

Oddly - these questions never get many replies.

I wonder why?

NQ -28 Jun 2010 | 21:49

To the poster above - because this is mostly utilised by lawyers, who have a very cynical view on the world outside the law bubble.

Anonymous -29 Jun 2010 | 11:20

Saying "no" in the absolute is clearly wrong.

I'm a businessperson and ex lawyer. The two most important skills law taught me are (i) how to express an argument clearly in writing and (ii) how to critique an argument advanced by others. Informed scepticism is a useful skill in business sometimes and lawyers can be good at it PROVIDED they also allow themselves to be honest about the positives in ideas, and can get used to the idea of calculated risk taking.

The two respects in which law prepares you least for a business career are:

- collaborative working: lawyers are poor at this, their idea of teamworking is five people all working independently on separate documents which together add up to a complete set; and

- managing up/stakeholder management.

Lawyers are also terrible at performance management and giving feedback.

Mutton Jeff -29 Jun 2010 | 12:12

Mutton dressed as correct

Agree v much with mutton. It's less about law giving you an advantage over others and more about law giving you a different perspective from others.

Much of business is calculated risk taking. A legal background will make you pretty good with certain types of risks, but you may be less strong on the maths side than say someone with a quant background. Successful businesses tend to have a role for both.

I'd recommend you start by broadening your thought beyond pure legal risks. Operational risks is a good next string to your bow. You may need to get contact with someone other than lawyers to get this experience though, depending on your practice area, so your best next step may be a move inhouse before a move across to the business.

I'd recommend you go for a medium sized business though, no larger, else you'll risk being shut off in the legal dept. Try and cultivate relationships with people who'll help you get up the curve (surprisingly easy done, as they'll be grateful that someone's taking an interest and it'll help you get the "papering" right if nothing else).

Even sticking within legal, the higher up you go, the less it becomes about black letter law and the more it becomes about risk management. That'd lend itself into a switch to COO at least (I think CC has at least one partner who has been a COO in the past, if he's still there).

Stupot -29 Jun 2010 | 17:11

Outside of heavily-regulated industries and M&A roles, having a legal background is likelier to be a detriment in a business setting. Businesses and business leaders thrive by taking smart risks. Most private practice attorneys are trained to avoid or eliminate risk at all costs.

Anonymous -01 Jul 2010 | 13:40

And yet people do make the jump, in M&A, real estate and elsewhere.

Some people have deal sense, some don't. Lawyers too. A law practice that throws their mid-level people into deals tends to breed deal lawyers. A firm (or department) with a few marquee negotiators, backed by keep-them-in-the-closet service lawyers: not so much.

That latter model, hidden away in the law libe away from market reality, is where "trained to avoid all risk" habits are bred.

The original article post asks - what to look for?
-- A track record of deal leads & negotiation success would be nice.
-- Some hint of which of those two paradigms they grew up in. Have they ever fronted deals, commensurate with their level? Did people trust them with the client? To close the deal?
-- Behavior in the interview also is a valid sample of negotiation. But assessing styles is very subjective.

Anonymous -01 Jul 2010 | 13:50

The jump from a firm to in-house requires an individual to be adaptable and to rapidly learn that in-house pragmatism may have to come into play to overcome significant legal hurdles. The type of lawyer who wishes to cross every 'T' and dot every 'I' will find it hard in an in-house role where the pressure is to 'get the business done' with minimum risk but nevertheless accepting some things may be less than technically perfect. Once a lawyer is working in-house the move into a business role becomes increasingly possible. Confidence, willingness to back ones own judgement, pragmatism, people management, ability to identify key risks - these are all qualities that good lawyers should acquire in any event and if they move in-house and wish to evolve into a business executive position they will need to develop them further... so yes, I believe lawyers skills are transferable but some lawyers would be temperamentally unsuited to the 'riskier' environment which pertains in many business arenas.

Anonymous -01 Jul 2010 | 14:36

I have worked in a law firm setting and I am now in-house. Add to that I am sole in-house counsel, so I am dealing with only non-attorneys for most of my day. Pragmatism is most often the rule, and striking a balance between that and protecting the company's legal interests is challenging at times. I have found though that my people skills get stronger over time though.

In my humble opinion, many attorneys do not know how to talk to clients or how to break down legal concepts so that they are understandable to 'normal' people. When you are in-house, especially if you are the sole in-house counsel, you either learn how to do that or you will have problems working in-house.

_ -01 Jul 2010 | 15:53

I would say that legal skills are very adapatable for a business career, I have know many lawyers have gone in-house and then developed careers ranging from company secretarial to sales - lawyers analystical skills combined with their advocacy talents are a winning combination in business.

Just go for it!

Anon -01 Jul 2010 | 16:57

Business skills are innate - you have them or you don't. The prevailing opinion is that most lawyers are not, in fact, business-minded. If you are a rare exception to the rule, then whether you develop your skills is a function of your opportunities presented along with your willingness to make them even when they are not. Stop asking questions and start getting to business. Best of luck.

Anonymous -02 Jul 2010 | 10:42

I think that legal skill is in itself a business skill. Lawyers who are naturally risk averse are an useful addition to the management team who comprises risk takers. The conservativeness of lawyer will balance out the other team members so that the ultimate business decision is one that is sound and practical.

Anon -02 Jul 2010 | 15:19

Thank you

Thank you to all for commenting above.

My opinion about the legal industry and the reasons for moving on have been touched upon by some of the posters above.

During my work experience on the business side I was involved quite a bit with developing new lines of businesses and arranging finance for those projects. It was a front end job and laden with making decisions on the spot. Some of those decisions were wrong, some of those were right, but it was a learning curve. But that was purely based on numbers and if numbers made sense the business should make sense.

As a lawyer my main aim was to learn about the risks of a business which I could not see without those trained eyes (apart from the obvious ones). Having said that, while I have been working as a lawyer my experience to date has been a frustrating one - when I realise that my only involvement in a project is that of an adviser and nothing else.

I have accepted the fact that I will never be at a stage when I will know absolutely everything a lawyer should know when setting up and running a business (in my industry - as it is still evolving even after 400 years of being in existence). Therefore it will have to be a call purely based on the instincts.

My main concern is whether the business side will take a dim view of my attempts to get back into the business (for being flippant?).

Original poster -04 Jul 2010 | 07:44

As far as entrepreneurialism, why not focus on a business that is run by lawyers - ie law firms. The recent layoffs in American law firms are an indicator of the business orientation of lawyers. Yes, many law firms have business components but they are principally mismanaged by lawyers who engage in a tradition-based business orientation and recruiting. The result was a bottom heavy business model full of associates with great grades but who couldn't produce. That wouldn't stand in the business world where experience and prowess are valued. Ultimately, the business cycle corrected lawyers' mismanagement of law firms to an extent but ask yourself the other ways in which lawyers training that they are scholarly fiduciaries and advisers, as opposed to businessmen, have hindered the growth of many law firms. How about the tradition-based orientation of many larger law firms that play a role in to declining profitable business because it does not fit the firm's image or the business limitations imposed by the "consensus decisionmaking" model that is intrinsic to a partnership.

In fact, the law school business model oriented toward increasing rankings by increasing job placement, is oriented around training young lawyers to believe that they need training and oversight, and, as a result, need to be ushered into a law firm where they can receive valuable experience. Ironically, the training is not forthcoming at law firms given the need for the partners to focus on developing business. Many lawyers, and, I am sure you have know a few, with the innate business sense have traded immediate reward of law firm for larger profits sustained as owners of sole proprietorships and professional corporations.

I can only see business training as being valuable in an area of a skilled business trade or profession that requires skills that are not easily acquired on the job - ie engineering, accounting etc. As far as management expertise and the ability to provide business solutions, many lawyers are indeed businessmen in this regard. Often legal solutions involve a consideration of business considerations that are wholly distinct from the law (ie the need to maintain business relationships despite a dispute with a client). Furthermore, an approach to legal related business solutions often involves the ability to understand the way that the business operates and the ability to manage various divisions of a business entity in an approach to the solution. Some lawyers are more capable of reaching beyond the black letter than others.

Anonymous -05 Jul 2010 | 09:53

In Britain in general in most corporates lawyers are highly valued as an essential part of the business management, and in my company my job description says I am a business manager as well as a lawyer and all deals have to been signed off by the commercial/legal team.

In a large corporation there are so many different jobs that many in-house lawyers successfully move into - I know one lawyer in my company who is now managing director of a highly successfully subsidiary, other lawyers have gone into compliance, marketing, sales etc.

Anonymous -05 Jul 2010 | 09:55

Sure, lots of lawyers succeed in business roles. I like to think I've done so myself.

However, the question was: "Are there are specific skills that lawyers have that give them an edge over non-lawyers for business roles?"

Speaking to business orientation in general, the specific skills of a lawyer - issue spotting and risk aversion - are not assets.

This doesn't mean they don't help in certain roles; just that they are obstacles to be overcome when compared to the opportunity-spotting attitude of successful businesspeople.

Anon -05 Jul 2010 | 10:14

Business skill

I think issue spotting can be a pretty useful skill especially since most of the business start-ups (or even established ones) fail because the decision-maker could only do numbers and had a good business instinct generally.

I say this out of my personal experience wherein one of my business start-ups had failed because I could not spot and did not consult those who could spot (essentially lawyers) at the time.

In modern times and if one is ambitious enough to believe that his business start-up is going to go international it is imperative that all the Ts are crossed (to a reasonable degree) from the beginning. Hence to a degree an ability to spot issues will come handy. However, I do agree the ability to overcome the innate desire to avoid risk is harder than one assumes.

As for the suggestion of starting a law firm - good idea except I personally don't think starting a business in the service industry will take me far. I believe in the tangibles (maybe something to do with the industry I have gained most of my experience in).

Original poster -05 Jul 2010 | 12:27

Speaking from experience, combining business affairs into a legal affairs model into my law practice I think brings me closer to the US culture of producing advisory attorneys who will be more prepared to take a front seat in negotiations for their client than their UK opposite number who are trained in the black art of passively "taking instructions".

What should make a current or a former lawyer invaluable to a business?

- an outlook and experience borne of acting within or across a range of sectors ?

- the ability to apply knowledge and relationships for the benefit of the business ?

- the ability to break free of the rigid disciplines of legal analysis that leads to 'no risk at any cost' thinking?

- make better risk managed decisions knowing the legal underpinning?

- adapting core legal analytical skills to improved business decision making?

All of those work for me... and above all being smart!!

Anonymous -05 Jul 2010 | 17:01

"Business skills are innate - you have them or you don't."

Goodness, do people actually go round believing this kind of thing?

Business skills, like virtually all other skills, are learned. There are innate qualities that help when operating in business, and there are innate qualities that hinder, but the skills can be learned by anyone.

Having a legal background is only a hindrance to a successful business career it you adopt some of the more negative behavioural habits associated with lawyerdom. Like a lazy, sloppy attitude to personal development and skills, for instance. Many of the skills you learn as a lawyer ARE transferable and you can learn whatever new ones you need.

Mutton Jeff -08 Jul 2010 | 13:52

Lawyers are not 'one trick ponies'

A lot of lawyers don't realise how transferable their skills are, after all we can only know what we know, and we get so close to ourselves that it is hard to see new perspectives.

Many lawyers chose law because it was a 'proper profession' or followed in the footsteps of their parents, and it's just not them. It is fascinating to watch how the profession is changing and how it is not as appealing to people as a career choice as it once was. Law firms have a challenge ahead to attract and engage vs other career choices.

I am writing an article on Legal Talent and how to engage them next week - if anyone wants to contribute any thoughts, please e mail me rachel@liberateyourtalent.com

I have lots of tips and articles re career change, if you'd like some, please email me and I'll send them to you.

Rachel Brushfield -03 Aug 2010 | 07:40