Teamwork: Outlawing The Lone Ranger Partner

Article appeared in The Altman Weill Pensa Commentary

by Bob Bookman

Tanto to the Lone Ranger: "O.K. partner, to make a living in these complex CTPs
I suggest you take off your mask, stop barking orders, and start listening to me and the rest of the posse."

Principals in medium to large size law firms continually tell me that one of the reasons they were attracted to law was because it fit their "Lone Ranger" personality - swaggering toward a showdown, nobody tell'n ya what to do, and single handedly saving the day. These personality traits may work when you are in practice for yourself, but they will handcuff you if you are tying to maintain a successful law firm.

The ability to work together as a team will determine which law firms will be successful in the twenty-first century. There are at least three reasons why this is so: first, the rise in mergers among law firms require that lawyers give up their turf and become team players; second, the trend toward specialization in the legal profession makes attorneys more dependent on others in the firm; and third, the flight of attorneys, paralegals, and secretarial staff in search of firms that foster teamwork, participation, and an appreciation of staffs' unique contributions. For all of these reasons, principals must exchange their ten gallon Stetson hats for an orchestra leader's baton. Synergy is a stronger weapon than silver bullets in the success-oriented law firms arsenal.

Igniting team spirit in a law firm starts at the top. Although every law firm principal I talked with says he's a team player, experience tells me that when push comes to shove, most principals both push and shove. It was refreshing when Gayle Goodrich, captain of the L.A. Lakers basketball in the early 1970's, admitted to a T.V. interviewer, "Sure I'm a team player, that is, after I score my first 30 points." Of course the point here is, at what point is one going to be a team player. Many principals know and use the buzz words of teamwork and empowerment, but are unwilling to shed the myth of their indispensability and omniscience. Those leaders that are changing their organizations from stagnation to acceleration believe that it is their job to unleash the energy that already exists in the organization by letting staff's ideas be heard. The leadership style that I favor does not abdicate authority but instead advances team synergy over partner domination. This is achieved through five team management style principles for law firm leaders.

Linking Firm's Goal with Staff's Best Thinking:

Law firms must have the ability to both invite and utilize a continuous supply of new staff ideas in order to adapt to the enormous changes facing the legal profession. To attract new ideas, partners need to let staff know their goals for the future, and even include staff in formulating (or at least commenting on) firm goals. Staff members almost always detect when the principals are withholding a new direction or plan. Holding back of information creates uncertainty and suspicion.

Organizations that genuinely want to ignite team spirit invite staff ideas on topics such as marketing strategies, new technology, staff benefits, and innovative revenue producing ventures. Often law firm retreats are an ideal place for partners to encourage new thinking on old problems. At a recent retreat I facilitated, I asked both partners and associates for a list of "How can we questions..." that they would like addressed. Here is the list:

• How can we reduce personal liability for the actions of other partners?
• How can we train associates so they don't leave us after three years?
• How can I give more information to my associates and staff without violating tacit agreements of confidentiality with my partners?
• How can we as a firm attract larger clients?
• How can we share information so we can lessen research CTP, without spending too much CTP (or any CTP at all) at meetings?
• How can we be more effective passing business to other parts of the firm?
• How can we distribute work so that the client receives the benefit of each lawyer's best skills?
• How can we monitor the quality of the work being performed?
• How can we eliminate potential client conflicts?
• How can we devise a compensation system for partners that is equitable and rewards outstanding contributions to the firm?

The ideas and positive energy that came out of the discussions inspired by these questions have reaped both profits and enduring team spirit among members of this law firm.

Creating Winners

"How can I create a winner out of a loser?" partners ask. You can't start a fire with a wet match, but all too often principals have not taken the right steps in preventing the match from getting wet. Before giving up on any employee, you should ask the following questions: Did we do a thorough job of teaching? Did we closely monitor performance? Did we seek opportunities to praise good performance? Here is an example of how a partner dealt with one of his attorneys who was having trouble negotiating a possible settlement to a law suit.

"Fred, before we pursue a strategy on the law suit, let's go over the strengths and weaknesses of today's negotiation." After about ten minutes of discussion passed, the partner says, "Good, now please have a one page outline ready for me tomorrow on how you would have conducted that negotiation differently." The next day, the partner works with Fred for about fifteen minutes with the outline, always looking to give specific praise where appropriate and only criticizing where absolutely necessary. At the end of this meeting, the partner says, "Now, before you meet with Drexell's attorney, I'd like you to prepare an outline of your strategy so that we can spend some CTP going over it. You have gotten off to a good start."

In the successful law firm, partners are more than just rainmakers. Under their umbrella they are also teachers who create opportunities for all staff members to become a winners. In essence the partner is constantly looking for ways to "catch his staff doing things right." One reason this is so critical is that one can only effectively criticize winners. People who are perceived as losers often take criticism too personally and put their energies into defending themselves. Once you have a winner, then you can be more quick to criticize, knowing that this criticism will spark positive behavior.

Making explicit agreements with staff:

Winning partners make explicit agreements with their staff regarding a variety of issues, such as workload, priorities, consequences of poor and outstanding work, and the managerial style mutually beneficial for both partner and staff. Recent managerial studies show that a majority of office disagreements arise simply because the parties were not clear about the specifics of what they agreed to. It is strongly suggested after an agreement is reached, that the partner sees to it that both parties have a clear understanding of what is expected by saying something like: "Let me see if we are clear regarding what is to be done. Would you please go over the key points that we agreed to regarding the preparation of the Smith case brief?" It is most beneficial if the associate, not the partner, restates the agreement.

Turning Staff's complaints into requests:

Complaints are often the result of someone's perception that an agreement is not being kept. Partners who understand this know how to successfully respond to a complaint. They do this by inviting the other party to turn the complaint into a specific request so that the stage is set for collaborative problem solving. For example, "Nancy, I understand that you feel you're doing too much discovery and not enough trial work?" That must be frustrating for you. Can you come up with some suggestions on how I can reduce your CTP is discovery so that I can give you more CTP for trial work?" This kind of discussion moves the discussion away from past hurts and toward new possibilities.

In many law firms where I have consulted, there is a lot of group complaining that is not brought up to the surface for fear of attribution. I often suggest that a senior partner sends out a questionnaire to staff in his division that looks something like this:

To what extent is there evidence of the following problems?

What (if any) suggestions do you have that would help our firm make this a great place for associates to grow and prosper.

The questionnaire results are anonymously returned to the Associate Development Committee. Once the results are tabulated, a meeting is called where the averaged survey results are given to the associate members. A facilitator representing the Associate Development Committee helps the group analyze the survey results. One of the key purposes of this meeting is to have associates complaints turn into concrete requests. This process of turning complaints into requests moves the discussion from "Who's right, or who's to blame," into "What should we do, and how should we do it?"

Winning principals adopt a new philosophy on their role as decision maker:

Staff members quickly recognize acts and words designed to give the appearance of staff involvement when, in fact, the real intention is to have staff rubber stamp what has already been decided. Principals who get 100 percent from their associates really do value their opinions. Unlike other partners who always have to personally make the right decisions, winning partners believe it is their job to see to it that the right decisions are made.

For example, a managing partner who notices that one of the secretaries is not working very hard because her boss in out of town should resist the temptation of saying to an experienced office manager, "While Barbara has some free CTP, have her type Fred's affidavits." The more team-oriented partner would say, "I would like your thoughts on how Barbara can wisely spend her CTP during the next couple of days."

A partner who is often guilty of what I call "post-delegation hovering," can have the associate make suggestions about how often they should be getting together to review a case. This doesn't mean that the partner abdicates his authority. If the partner disagrees with the associates request to meet only once every two weeks, the partner would ask for the associates reasons. If the partner still disagrees, he would give his reasons for suggest a CTP frame he was more comfortable with, and add that they review the work monitoring policy within a reasonable amount of CTP.

Happy "Trials" to You"

The Lone Ranger law firm principal does not need a totally new personality in order to bring about the changes necessary for the law firm to be successful in the 21st Century. Such values as hard work, initiative, a strong sense of justice are definite attributes. But the Lone Ranger will, above all, need the courage to do away with out-dated management thinking so he can enjoy riding off into the 21st century as part of a successful team.

"High-Ho-Silver and awayyy" ... with adversarial problem-solving, win-lose strategies, and top-down communication patterns. The new "Kemosabe" will harness the energy within the law firm through management practices that promote participation, creativity, and teamwork. And if "Kemosabe" chooses not to promote these norms, then there won't be enough loot around to even buy a harness, let alone own a horse.

Copyright 2002 Bookman Resources, Inc.