Each time a  record setting compensation level is revealed in the press we receive  questions from Managing Partners asking:

 “Are our top performers paid fairly?”

“Should we increase our compensation spread?”

Most leaders know a strategic plan should focus on direction, strategy, prioritization of investments, and opportunity assessments.  And yet one of the most frequent questions we receive from law firm leaders  is, “what does a good strategic plan look like?”

According to the legal press, large law firms that lack a two-tiered ownership structure are now in the minority and are likely to be left in the dust economically.  But two-tier structures have some common, and commonly overlooked, risks.

​

While we are not fans of large strategic planning committees the truth is most firms start their planning efforts by forming a large  committee.  One of the first and toughest issues for any committee is deciding, “what should our strategic plan focus on?”

Managing Partner: “As part of our strategic plan we are going to invest more in these practices/locations for the next 2-3 years.”

Partner: “So, in other words me and my practice don’t matter to the firm?  Perhaps we should just leave!”

Studies have found 70% or more of corporate mergers fail to achieve their goals or generate a return
to shareholders. Law firm mergers have a similarly low success rate. But why? How do law firm mergers go astray, and what can leaders learn from successful mergers?

​

While most law firms embrace the concept of planning their future, they quickly discover that developing consensus among partners about a strategy is harder than running a firm. Even among the most talented managing partners across the profession, strategic planning continues to be one of the more exasperating parts of the job.

Lateral partner hiring is one of the most common means to achieving a firm's overall strategy and growth objectives, yet most firms report dismal success rates.  This article discusses the common problems and innovative solutions that allow firms to improve their success with lateral hires.

It is obviously critical to reward those who develop and bond clients to a firm.  Indeed, without doing so most firms won’t survive.  And there is nothing wrong with measuring those results.  The challenge is that in an attempt to measure results, client views, profits and teamwork sometimes take a backseat to the pressures a partner feels in trying to prove his/her worth to the firm.

Transparency is a common refrain in both business and society today, and with good reason.  Clarity about what, who and why instills confidence in leaders and creates a sense of integrity.  And yet, transparency in partner compensation seems to repeatedly create unhappiness and dissension.  Research shows the secret is not just in transparency, but equally in predictability.

For most lawyers, a client pitch meeting will always invoke a certain amount of nervous anxiety.  But doing a successful client pitch isn’t difficult if firms learn from the lessons repeatedly demonstrated by their most successful competitors.  The challenge is most firms aren't great at teaching partners how to pitch a client.

While lockstep partner compensation systems have diminished in popularity, the transition to merit based solutions isn't always as smooth or self-motivating as many hope.

Compensation is assumed to be a simple topic because people will allegedly do almost anything you pay them to do.  But the truth is human motivation is a much more complicated topic than most people believe, and many common assumptions about how to motivate  behaviors are proven to be wrong.