Sometimes it was ‘poor’, other times ‘woefully ineffective’

http://thelawyercoach.wordpress.com/

This article really sums up the problem in many law firms. Your account of life in a law firm is one I'm sure many would relate to and accords with my experience having acted for lawyers as employers and employees in employment disputes (often the inevitable result of poor management). I agree that there are other options out there to address management deficiencies in law firms, it just takes lawyers to admit that good management needs time, attention and expertise.

Catrin Mills -13 Oct 2009 | 13:47

A lot of these ideas about how supposedly useless lawyers are at managing is based on the largely false assumption that corporate managers are universally excellent, or indeed competent. Neither are many people trained to be managers all their careers in all but the largest companies. There certainly are a lot of useless legal managers, but the underlying truth is that there are a lot of useless managers period, many without the excuse of having originally gone into law.

Realist -13 Oct 2009 | 13:48

Helping Excellence in Legal Management

If only I could argue that this was an unusual story. A great many law firms are larger than they realise and many do not appear to notice that they are multimillion-pound, international organisations. These are difficult things to run.

I agree with the comment that many non-law firms are run badly too. True - but there tends to be a higher regard for professional managers in other types of firms. A week-long course is not sufficient to turn a law partner into a good manager, so a great deal more training is required for those who will lead - together with experienced, professional managers.

As I have been saying for some time - let the lawyers concentrate on legal work and in defining the strategic direction of the firm. Then let the management team get on and run it.

Peter Blair, Mar-aon Consulting -13 Oct 2009 | 16:16

I am not entirely sure about the purpose of Mr Webb's column. He seems to pick the most predictable non-topics and rants about how awful City law is and how wonderful life in a small practice is from the height of his experience as a trainee there. Believe it or not, it suits many of us to work at firms run by seasoned and sensible fellow lawyers, rather than management consultants with flipcharts. You should not need thousands of pages of policies and procedures covering every eventuality when working with highly intelligent, educated and sensible people.

Assoc -13 Oct 2009 | 17:26

Before becoming a law student I had the misfortune to work in an organisation that brought in, at director level, a person whose main claim to fame was that they had been one of the first non-lawyers to head up a law firm. This person was a complete waste as a director - never mastered the industry, never really understood what their staff was up to and a serious liability at client meetings. Luckily, nine months later there was a major restructure and it was made clear to them that there was no room in the new structure for them to continue. Last I heard, they were back managing another law firm - poor lawyers.

Beth -14 Oct 2009 | 09:43

Eh?

Dominic - not sure what experience you have at work outside of solicitor firms, but having worked in both small and large enterprises I can assure you that these problems are not unique to law firms. Middle management (which seems to be what your article refers to) is often a stepping stone for promising "managers" but also a trap for senior people who are woeful at either management and/or their job. Another significant problem (if it is one) is that it's impossible to manage a law firm by diktat due to the nature of their structure.

Also - Legal Week - how has this former trainee been given the column inches to spout his (while good intentioned) analysis of law firms? It would perhaps be more interesting to hear from someone with a little more experience of law and perhaps business. Let's say a one-year PQE?

Nonplussed -14 Oct 2009 | 10:15

Miss

Like he rightly said, a lot of people think that lawyers are good managers - well tough luck, we can't have it all, and yes those policies are imperative in any business or firm, without which a business will fail. I think it's time lawyers start realising that they don't have it all including the so-called management skills. How can they? When all they have done in their firm and even in law school is to read, interpret and apply the law. When you humble yourself and realise that you lack something, you are more than likely to want to go learn how to do that thing. I think this is exactly what most firms need to realise... that perhaps they ain't got it and need to make a turnaround, period.

BeBold -14 Oct 2009 | 10:54

The trouble is that the article assumes that partners run law firms for the benefit of the firm as a whole. Even ten years ago that would have been true for the majority. Unfortunately, the current recession has shown where their loyalties lie - themselves and themselves alone. We have seen huge cutbacks at associate and support level for the sake of keeping PEP at the level to which it was inflated by the boom times, when you had 10 clients chasing five law firms and any idiot could land business. Now you have 10 law firms chasing five clients, the partners who are unable to grab the work are taking it out on their underlings. And the long term does not matter; a few years of £500k before retirement is more important to them than ensuring they leave a law firm as a legacy.

Scep Tick -14 Oct 2009 | 16:30

I think a lot of the problems with law firms are caused by the fact that they have had it too easy for too long. In the boom years, partners could manage their firms as badly as they liked without really hurting profits - there was so much work flooding in that bad management didn't really matter. And bad practices were allowed to flourish. Without a doubt there are a number of law firms (or, to be more precise, departments within law firms - at plenty of firms some departments are OK but others are terrible) which are very badly managed and most of whose employees would escape at a moment's notice if they could. It will be interesting to see if those firms/departments will be able to maintain their profitability now that the boom years are over.

Kevin -14 Oct 2009 | 19:10

CHANGE - isn’t that the mantra. I think partners and associates alike will be in for a rude shock if they believe that the current LLP/partnership model will last long in law. I believe that this will change will happen over the next few years. Not that this will make law any less of a profession, but the business of law, as we know it, is bound to change (albeit not all for good either).

Associate -15 Oct 2009 | 08:30

To Nonplussed - Dominic writes for us for two reasons. Firstly, he’s got a decent writing style. Secondly, he brings the perspective of the junior lawyer. That doesn’t mean his views are always right or that I or Legal Week always agree with them but we give plenty of space to the opinions of those in senior management, so it’s perfectly valid to get another perspective.

Alex Novarese -15 Oct 2009 | 09:28

This article is a little odd, in that it assumes that widget-makers, chocolate manufacturers or oil companies all have a separate "manager track" of people who are destined to be CEO and nothing else. This is not the case. There are numerous examples of people working up "from the shop floor" and for every "badly managed" (from the valid perspective of a junior lawyer) law firm that you give me, I'll give you a world-standard one that has increased PEP/billings over what has been a car-crash year for everyone else.
There is no magic to management and there is no reason why lawyers cannot be good managers. Some are, some are not - as other posters have mentioned, this is not unique to the sector.
If partners failing to turn up to a party is the best example of "woefully ineffective" management, we're probably doing OK.

SicTransitloriaLegis -20 Oct 2009 | 11:12