The Perils of Pursuing Partner Perfection, or, Close Enough IS Close Enough!

So, as Joe is sure you can imagine, it's been an interesting couple of weeks. Joe has been on a junket. Not, not a Press Junket. Joe doesn't know what one of those is, but it sounds dirty, and therefore fun.

No, this was the mid-summer-bummer Dog and Pony Road Show, in Mind-Numbing Snooze-O-Color! Big YawnFest. Not for the firms, of course. They freakin' love it. Sorry, Joe means, uh, LOVE it! LOVE IT! YES~! Because they're freaks, man! Freakin' freaks. YES~! No, Joe kids. They're NOT freaks. The MPs are freakin' freaks. YES~!

To tell the truth, Joe is mostly bitter because Junior Partner has been somewhat less available than in the past. Truth be told, Junior Partner is almost about close to be nearby to becoming NOT-Junior Partner, which brings some ISSUES to the fore. We'll talk about this later.

What Joe wanted to share with you, noble readers, and what made Joe realize that MPs, and others of their ilk, are freakin' freaks, is a series of skull-crushing meetings during the dogandponyroadshow (as opposed to skull crushers during the workout, which Joe actually digs, don't ask why), when Joe realized that this particular episode of the blog was writing itself in Joe's fertile and massive brain. This often happens.

But what was particularly interesting (and also particularly irritating at the same time), was the combo Deja Vu and "bad taste in the mouth" feeling in virtually all of the "Meet and Greets" with all the MPs and/or Exec Committees (and sometimes both), especially when the conversation got around to Partner recruiting, partner development, building the firm in specific practice areas, bluh bluh bluh, you know the drill. . . .

Joe suddenly realized (okay, not suddenly. . .as Joe has said before, this eerie, creepy, slightly oozy, slimy feeling has been around for a while), that the problem is a HUGE disconnect. . .MPs don't get it. Partners don't get it. Law firms don't get it. Nobody don't get it. We're all missing something. Actually a lot of things. And we've been talking past one another for a long time, and we're getting worse at capturing the important details. Which makes it even worse.

So, Joe has decided to break it down for ya. Try to streamline it, and lay it out. Took Joe a while, but I think I have it distilled down to some of the things that everyone needs to know. Firms. Lawyers. Exec Committees. MPs. Evvabody else. Ready? Here we go.

Let Joe set this up for ya a little bit, 'kay? Everybody wants the best Attorneys, the best Partners, the best EVERYTHING, and they SAY they want the best environments, and they want to BE the best places to work, but they don't HAVE the best environments, or do the things that the best attorneys want. So. The list below reflects the wants, needs, and, inasmuch as it's possible, the best thinking about HOW to get everybody "on the same page" (Joe hates that expression) with respect to the recruitment process. It'll probably change a lot next week, but, for right now, here's the list, in no particular order:

1. Book Size: This one drives Joe crazy. YES, a book is important. YES, lawyers DO need to be able to creae business, and, YES, a lawyer SHOULD have HAD a reasonably big book at SOME point, but it doesn't HAVE to be today. Business EBBS and it FLOWS. A Million dollar book today means absolutely nothing for tomorrow despite what anybody thinks, and this isn't just Joe's opinion. . .there are dozens of studies demonstrating the same thing. Besides, a new envionment means different constraints on an individual lawyer's ability to generate business.

The most important limiting factor (or, more correctly, DE-limiting factor) is what kind of support the firm is willing to give the lawyer once he comes aboard. THAT is the number one predictor of success in business-building once a lawyer transitions, regardless of the size of their book at time of offer.

2. Scheduling and Work Options: Joe flat does not understand why this is an issue. Law firms are absolutely PACKED with the highest concentration of smart people of any organizational type in the country. Why law firm management can't figure out simple stuff like flexible scheduling, job-sharing, telecommuting, and other flexible work options is beyond his ability to fathom. SERIOUSLY. For an overwhelming majority of the tasks lawyers have to do, there is just NO good reason for them to BE in the office. Face time IS important, if someone actually NEEDS to see your face. But, for most of us, except for our weekly meetings, or a chance meeting on the way to the little professional's room, we're not going to meet up with anybody who needs to SEE our mug. Especially for some lawyers, greater flexibility with respect to spending time in the office could, and, by the way absolutely WOULD make the difference between going to work for a specific law firm, and declining to have the conversation.

Let Joe give you a real-life example. Client was LMNOP Law Firm. VERY good. VERY smart. Wanted to add a BUNCH of Lawyers. Had offices in several New England and Atlantic states. Only interested in the best and brightest, as you would be, right? Only problem. . .the commute to ONE office was particularly bad in one state. Joe beat those bushes like they were giving diamonds. Begged the Firm MP to let the attorney candidates telecommute, work from home, come in a few DAYS a week, anything to make the commute more palatable. . .nope, says the MP, nothin' doin'.

You know what happened. Joe found about a half-dozen lawyers who were actually SPECTACULAR. Multi-state admitted, huge books of business, top of their game, and willing to talk. But not willing to commute. Two even lived nearer one office than the office for which Joe was looking. Do you think the MP would let them work from THAT office? No way! For the record, Joe resigned the Client. The firm is still looking for lawyers.

The worst thing about it is that the primary reason behind NOT allowing for these options has nothing to do with saving money, or confidentiality, or legalities, or procedural issues, or operations, or anything else. It costs less; there are no concerns with confidentiality; privacy concerns are no greater than they are with in-office computers; in fact, they're almost exactly the same, especially with respect to server issues; and, with respect to procedures, again, transparent. No, it all has to do with ego. Specifically, with the ego of management.

Management wants lawyers where they can SEE them. Which is kind of stupid, actually. Because it's a helluva lot easier to monitor you on the computer than it is by walking past your office and looking at the back of your head. But managers, of most all types, want to be able to "see" you working. We still have this mentality that if I can't SEE that you're working, you're probably not working. . .this is why we still have lawyers that won't leave the office until AFTER their boss leaves. . .regardless of how early they get into the office themselves. It's crazy. But it sort of leads us into our next section, which is. . . .

3. Value Billing versus Billable Hours: Joe still doesn't understand why Law Firms even bother with hourly billing anymore. It's not just stupid. It's freakin' stupid. Don't think so? Take this test:

Me: From now on, I'd like you to pay me hourly whilst I'm looking for attorneys for you, m'kay?

You: Are you high? We only pay for results! You bring us a good attorney, we pay you.

Me: Yeah, but you expect other people to pay YOU for all the other work you do which has NOTHING to do with results, you know, like research and copying, and this and that. . . .

You: Yeah, but all of that stuff is necessary, in order for me to be successful at my job, and to GET the RESULTS.

Me: Yeah, me too.

ONE HOUR LATER. . . . .

Me: So, about that hourly billing thing?

You: Sorry, like I said, we only pay for results.

Me: [sigh]
.................................................................................................

Didja geddit?

As we noted above, Lawyers are really smart people. . .sometimes. But they're also herd animals sometimes too. Or they're just really comfortable doing the same things over again and again and again and again, or SOMEthing. Joe doesn't know. What Joe DOES know is that Lawyers DO have it within their power to bill on value and NOT bill on time.

Is it possible that you'll lose some of your clients over this decision? Yeah, it's possible. But the research shows pretty convincingly that once you start to value bill, you'll spend less actual "clock" time on individual matters, which means you'll be able to dispose of more total matters per calendar year, whether a small firm or a biglaw firm. More matters, more money; more money, more profit; more profit, bigger jet; bigger jet, better vacation; better vacation, better disposition; better disposition, better clients; better clients, more money; more money, more profit; and on and on and on.

Plus, Joe thinks (and so does the rest of the world, not counting lawyers), that hourly billing makes it LOOK like there's a temptation to overstaff and overbill, just to pump hours. Joe doesn't know any lawyer who would do such a thing, but it doesn't matter if you would or not. .that whole thing about avoiding the appearance and whatnot. . .Value Billing eliminates it instantly. It also eliminates the complaints (loud and crabby tho they may be) from many clients about the rising costs of associates, and over-reliance on associate billing, and associate time, and so on. Plus, it helps to minimize (sadly, it doesn't eliminate completely) the complaints that associates are being trained at client expense (this is a stupid argument, granted. . .ALL lawyers are trained at client expense. . .and all DOCTORS are trained at patient expense. . .it's called EXPERIENCE. . . .DUH! Joe fails to see the problem with this).

Again, and, not to beat a dead metaphor even worse, but. . .never mind, bad idea. But let us go back and talk about your trusty Surgeon. Or your trusty Dentist. Or your itty bitty Kitty's trusty Vet. Or any of your many other Licensed Professionals, other than Accountants, because Joe blames Accountants for this hourly billing nonsense. Even your trusty Seminar Guru has a price, whether her name is Lyla and she's so chirpy happy you want to punch her in the mouth just to see if she ALWAYS smiles, or his name is Federico and he's so "out of the box" and "empowered" you wonder if he's ever said anything in the past ten years that wasn't a metaphor. All of them have a standard price ("It's $10,000 a day, whether 10 people participate, or 100.").

Now granted, your Surgeon bills differently, probably. . .Joe suspects she doesn't give a flat rate for, say, five cholecystectomies, whether they're all the same day or not (although it might be worth finding out). Nevertheless, the point is still valid, if, by this point, beat into the ground. Value billing is the way to go. Otherwise, lawyers will end up working even LONGER hours for LESS money for NO good reason. There's one MORE good reason not to bill hourly (i.e. get PAID hourly). If flat rate pay is good enough for executives in these giant-super-mega-corporations, it should be good enough for lawyers. Joe can't prove it, but, in the place where, if he HAD a heart, his heart would be, Joe honestly believes that corporations and corporate types like hourly billing because it allows them to think of lawyers as "hourly workers," and that, by itself, is a good enough reason to abandon hourly billing.


4. Team Support: Lawyers like their teams, sometimes. But when a lawyer tells you that they want to bring their team with them, or asks if there will be suport for their team, there should be no hesitation, not even one minute's worth. . .it's either "yes" or "I'm sorry we couldn't find enough common ground, but I wish you well." There is no in-between. Now granted, some attorneys are going to want to raise the stakes in the negotiation, as well they should. Law Firms always act scandalized when lawyers ask for more than they got at their last firm. Why? It's a negotiation. They're SUPPOSED to ask for more. You're supposed to get them to want less, or tell them they have to work harder for it. That's the whole idea.

While we're on the subject, let Joe talk to potential job-movers for a little minute. You know, you don't have to get up on your high-horsey about every little thing. You MAY IN FACT be the best lawyer in the world. Joe doesn't care. Joe only deals with the BOB (Best of the Best) in the first place, so don't think Joe hasn't been down this road before. But you're still ASKING someone to hire you, even if THEY came to YOU (or even if JOE came to you), so be a LITTLE civilized. Not because you NEED to. . .clearly you don't. But you're trying to clear some ground for the transition period, and you WILL need the support of people inside the firm to help make you successful THERE, even if you have a Billion-Dollar book.

Joe has seen incredibly successful attorneys go down in flames, in less than a year, because they alienated their NEW firm at the gate. ESPECIALLY if you're a rainmaker already, you MUST charm, and disarm, all the people in your new home, from the receptionists all the way to the MP's Assistant, and beyond. But even if you're not looking, it never hurts to be civil.

With respect to the hiring firm, it's a simple enough proposition: Give as much support as you can, with REASONABLE boundaries. Give the marketing support. Find out what they were doing at the other firm. Did it work? Why or why not? Make it part of the offer, contingent on their succes at your firm. And don't pull the plug until someone OTHER THAN THE MP has a chance to review their efforts and success. And don't yank them off their plan and then expect them to meet the protocol you set up with them. If they're not working to plan because YOU screwed up the plan, that's YOUR fault.

5. Head 'em up, move 'em out: This one is self-explanatory, but it's a big, HUGE problem. It takes too damn long to make a hiring decision. This is what you have to do. ..all of you. Beg, borrow, steal, or, preferably, BUY a copy of "Blink" by Malcolm Gladwell, and read it, cover to cover. It will teach you about the power of immediate and powerful decision-making with short-context. Learn about the power of "thin-slicing." Then use it. The truth is, we don't make such good choices when we take longer at them. The research shows that there is, in fact, a slightly negative correlation to good decision-making with respect to hiring decisions overall. It sort of depends on the profession.

In the legal world however, the research demonstrates pretty clearly that the est hires, over time, are those that MPs and Hiring Committess "felt" were the ones they liked instantly, regardless of the time it took to eventually get them hired. In English, we're pretty good at "intuiting" (is that a word?) who is going to be successful inside our firms, no matter how long we eventually end up taking to hire them. Does that mean that Joe thinks we should just jettison the long, drawn out, painfully, carefully, slow and thoughtful hiring, vetting, and screening process? Oh, HELL yeah!

It's TOO cumbersome. It's a freakin' nightmare. And, NOBODY likes it. Plus, it has cost a LOT of law firms some really REALLY good candidates, and soured them, AND THEIR FRIENDS on those very same firms. This is not good. Not for the candidates. Not for the firms. Not for the profession. And, ABSOLUTELY, not for the Joes of the world.

Don't misunderstand, Joe knows that candidates drag they feets too. And that sucks bad. But Joe thinks this is symptomatic, i.e. it's because they know that the firms aren't in a hurry, so they drag their feet, because they know the firm's going to drag ITS feet. Joe thinks there should be some way to "fast track" the hiring process.

But there's even a more important reason to speed the process up, not just one of cost, or of irritation, or any of these secondary matters. It has to do with valuing the process. Lawyers (actually, any 'employee' for lack of a better term, at least in this context) attach significance to what they SEE management paying attention to. In other words, if management doesn't VALUE the hiring process, the lawyers won't see it as valuABLE, and it diminishes THEIR perceived VALUE.

It's kind of weird, but lawyers see themselves as important to management when they SEE that the management team sees the hiring process as important, because it's a DIRECT demonstration that the means of production (after all, lawyers ARE the means of production in a law firm) has significance and worth to those who are in a position to impact it. Don't try to figure it out; it doesn't have to make sense for it to be true, but it IS true.

The bottom line is this: When management lollygags around and drags its feet, it not only hurts the firm and costs it money, and risks losing a potentially great lawyer (or several), but it also hurts productivity INSIDE the firm, because it calls into question its commitment to lawyers who are already INSIDE the firm. Goofy, but true.



6. Talk to the Hand: This one is pretty easy. Candidates are usually represented by a recruiter. Talk to the recruiter. Work through the recruiter. S/he has usually been to this rodeo before, and will know what to expect. S/he can do the hand-holding required, and help expedite whatever you need. Also, the recruiter will want information DIRECTLY from you anyway, so you might as well give it to them. More importantly, if this is the CANDIDATE's first time at the rodeo, they'll want to guide them through the process themselves. And finally, THEY know the candidate a LOT better than you do. . .and the candidate knows THEM a lot better than you do.

Joe's seen law firms lose really good candidates by rather clumsily trying to go around the recruiter, for no good reason, and to no good effect. Joe knows why firms want to do it. . .they reasonably believe that "direct is best." It's not to be sneaky, or avoid paying, or anything like that (we're getting paid, anyway, once we submit the candidate). But, from the candidate's perspective, they often feel like they're being abandoned, or pulled away from someone they know, and they freak.

Seriously, take Joe's advice. . .stay a good two steps away, and let the recruiter manage the candidate, until the offer has been accepted, and the appointment for orientation is set.



7. Mirrors Don't give Insight, they give Short Sight: To be blunt, internal reviews, while sometimes fun, and always interesting, are really REALLY bad at uncovering what's truly wrong with your firm, because law firms, more than almost any other organizational type, LOVE to kill the messenger. In fact, they DELIGHT in it. It's their almost favourite thing. If they could kill the same messenger, again and again, as many times as they wanted to, in the same day, and have that person resurrected, only to be killed again, without limit, Joe suspects very little lawyering would get done. . .that's how much law firms like to kill their own messengers.

Because of this virtual bloodlust, law firms and the people that populate them are notoriously bad at looking at themselves critically, and honestly, and truly identifying what the hell is wrong with them. There are many things. Poor management practices. Egos run amok. Outdated compensation plans. Goofy bonus pyramids. Dumb scheduling programs. Antiquated time and attendance policies. That's the good stuff. The funny thing is, almost ALL lawyers, and law firms, WANT to be places where people WANT to come to work.

Joe has only met a FEW lawyers that didn't really like other people, and didn't honestly believe that the practice of law was an honorable profession, populated by honorable people, who aim, every day, to do right by the people with whom they work. So what happened? Nobody knows. But it's time to look up from the case books and sniff the air, and upgrade those practices. . .and look outside for the answers. Because everbody knows. . .they aren't inside the firms. . .at least, not yet.



8. Culture? We don't need no stinking Culture!: This is Joe's favorite. Every time Joe sees some MP or CEO or whatnot blathering on about his/her firm's culture, Joe heads for the nearest bathroom. Joe has a delicate stomach. Culture, like "thinking out of the box" and "empowerment" is one of those terms that everybody is in love with, and doesn't have the least idea about. People seem to think that culture is fixed, immutable, unchanging, and up to their control, when, in reality, it is NONE of those things.

A firm's culture is created, negotiated, and informed by the organization's members, and, as such, is constantly being re-created, re-negotiated, and changed, both as people come and go, and as the stories, myths, legends, triumphs, and meanings change. THAT is why it's hard to get a fix on it. THAT is why people say "Well, ol' Bob just didn't understand our culture around here," and Bob says "That place was a freakin' Zoo, and no Zookeeper!"

It's also why mergers are so damn hard to accomplish. People become acculturated by ONE organization, join with ANOTHER organization, but combine into a THIRD organization, and the organizational leaders think that it'll just work itself out "somehow." Yeah, good luck with that. On the other hand, mis-matched organizational cultures are NOT reason enough NOT to undertake a merger. . .the cultures of both firms are going to change anyway, so it doesn't really matter if there's not a match today. . .unless Organization A is so powerful that it can subsume Organization B's culture, or vice versa, the culturality of either and/or both is irrelevant.

Given the blather above, and the factual realities, Joe would like to see an immediate suspension of all this chatter about culture until people start learning what the hell culture actually is. Read a book. Take a class. Get on the internet. Do something. But let's not throw that word around like it means something until we actually start to know HOW to use it. You know. . .think outside the box, and empower yourselves to learn a little bit about culture, is all Joe's sayin'.



Time to go. Y'all won't ever believe this, but it's Junior Partner calling. Special Ring. O Happy Day! Joe needs to work on giving love to Junior Partner. In the meantime. . . .



Love Your Recruiter!!


JoeRecruiter