To understand fully the needs of the individual, attorneys can follow steps laid out in many of the popular self-help books that offer guidance to job seekers. Examples are What Color Is Your Parachute? by Richard Bolles and the classic Passages by Gail Sheehy. These books and many others recommend that the reader perform an internal evaluation to determine their own skills, strengths, weaknesses, and a host of other self-analysis characteristics. Following subsequent analysis of what they want to do (be in control, be independent, be powerful, etc.), the reader is then advised to follow certain steps leading to a discovery of exactly the right kind of career choice.
The job-seeking process works for individual attorneys because, essentially, the attorney is looking for new work all the time and therefore needs to develop the skills of self-analysis. Analysis leads to a conclusion which is the basis for future direction.
GROUP ANALYSIS
Because the firm by definition is composed of more than one person, the individuals' needs must be considered in order to develop a responsive firm. Different approaches can be taken by the firm to gather this information and to understand the diverse individual needs. Effective ways to accomplish this analysis in law firms is through the following techniques:
- Attorney interviews
- Internal focus groups
- Firmwide retreats
- Written surveys
All four methods are designed to solicit opinions and feelings from people. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers during the analysis phase.
The activity is to gather information to see if general agreement is apparent and to identify areas of conflict. Here is a list of questions that, when presented to attorneys of a firm, will solicit information of value:
- What sets this firm apart from other law firms?
- What are the firm's three greatest strengths? Are these the same reasons clients seek our services?
- What are the firm's three biggest weaknesses? Are these the same reasons clients do not seek our services?
- In terms of business development and marketing, how do these strengths and weaknesses affect us?
- What are the values that most or all of the attorneys agree are important?
- What do you feel is the greatest area of potential growth for the firm?
- How do you feel we should achieve this growth—internally through associate development or externally through hiring of associates, laterals, or mergers? Please explain.
- One year from now, describe your practice of law. Where? With whom? Areas of emphasis? Types of clients?
- Five years from now, describe your practice of law. Where? With whom? Areas of emphasis? Types of clients?
- What do you think is the most effective way to increase our firm's profits?
- What are the five most effective methods of business development?
- Is the firm's billing methods satisfactory to you and your clients?
Honest answers to these questions very quickly paint a picture of the attorney's attitudes, beliefs, and goals. Here is a review of the four methods used successfully by attorneys to obtain answers to these questions.
INTERNAL INTERVIEWS
This is the preferred method of soliciting answers to the foregoing questions. Within 20 minutes, a good interviewer can solicit answers that paint a fairly clear picture of the individual's opinions. The interviewer (either an in-house administrator or outside consultant but never a group member) can conduct the interview efficiently so attorney time commitment is kept to a minimum. The interviewer will later assemble the responses, using appropriate research-based techniques, and analyze the data to report on areas of agreement and disagreement among the firm's attorneys.
FOCUS GROUPS
The facilitator may be an internal administrator but is usually an outsider. The facilitator must be a "neutral party" who does not express his or her own opinions or feelings. The facilitator summarizes opinions expressed as the meeting continues and pinpoints key issues and sometimes (but now always) draws conclusions. Creative expression and/or idea friction is healthy as the group tries to deal with issues. The facilitator does not allow strong negatives to interfere with the conversation flow. In larger firms, numerous focus groups are necessary.
Individual interests are then concluded from a review of comments from all the focus groups. As with individual interview techniques, a report to senior partners is developed on areas of agreement and disagreement among the firm's attorneys.
FIRMWIDE RETREATS
Common to law firms, retreats are opportunities to discuss a range of issues in a relaxed environment. The retreat is approached in much the same way as the focus group, except more time is devoted to the process. Retreats allow partners the time not only to raise issues but also to resolve them.
A strong facilitator is required in a retreat environment, primarily for two reasons: the larger number of people involved and the diversity of the group. The practical number of people that can be included in a single discussion in a retreat environment is no more than 25. Who is included in this group depends, of course, on the size of the firm. For many firms, a group of 25 will include partners and associates alike.
Since the purpose of the retreat is to solicit opinions, the facilitator's skills will allow equal voice to all concerned. The discussion succeeds if every attorney feels that his or her opinion was heard and considered. The firm's leadership will ultimately make the key decisions regarding future direction and business development policies.
WRITTEN SURVEY
Distributing questionnaires that require a written response are usually the worst way to solicit valuable information from attorneys. They are to be avoided if possible, particularly in the difficult area of gathering attorney opinions about substantive and personal issues.
If they must be used, the questions should be listed on a single sheet, with attorneys encouraged to use a separate piece of paper for their responses. This allows greater freedom of expression, which should be encouraged to show depth of feelings from the individuals. Questionnaires that ask open-ended questions and leave only two or three lines for an answer create bias by implying that every attorney's feelings on the subject should be expressed in a limited space. This works against the very purpose of the survey!
RESOLVING CONFLICTS
For larger firms, analysis often leads to conflicts that may or may not have been previously discussed. So the process to resolve internal conflicts is important for attorneys to understand. When too many attorneys of a single firm operate as if they are sole practitioners, their goals and those of the firm in which they work are not met.
Almost every attorney is familiar with the 25-person law firm that is headed in 30 directions. Small firms of 3 and mega-firms of hundreds can easily be working hard, practicing law, yet moving in many directions all at the same time. Over the short term, there are activity and cash flow; over the long term there are dissatisfaction and defections. A lack of leadership results in many individual practices under one roof. The net gain for those involved is significantly less than it could be.
Through the information-gathering processes, the divergence among attorney goals, attitudes, and expectations for the future can be identified. Even in the most homogeneous of firms, the analysis reveals surprising information about attitudes that may not be in concert with those of colleagues.
This is not immediate cause for alarm. It is normal and part of the natural growth process for attorneys and firms. But given the situation, the attorney needs immediately to undertake two activities:
- Development of a marketing program based on the areas of agreement
- Work to build consensus in areas of disagreement
In the second case, total agreement is not necessarily mandatory. What is important is to understand areas in which the attorney and the firm do not agree. This may be on a specific business practice, a client/service issue, or a proposed marketing technique.
A CASE HISTORY
Here is an example of how the consensus process of resolution can work for a 20-attorney law firm. The firm consisted of 8 partners (5 named) and 12 associates. The primary area of emphasis was insurance defense, with particular expertise in medical mal practice litigation. Insurance defense constituted approximately 50 percent of gross annual average fees over the last ten years.
Other practice areas of the firm, none of which averaged more than 10 percent of gross fees, were in areas of admiralty law and transportation law, primarily railroads. A smattering of additional business came from various sources, including wills and probate, some personal injury, and simple labor law involving a close friend or relative of one of the attorneys.
During a two-week period, 15 of the attorneys were privately interviewed for their opinions on the firm, strengths, weaknesses, and future growth potential. An analysis of the data revealed
- Everyone agreed that insurance defense was the firm's greatest strength.
- Three senior partners and several other partners believed that insurance defense would continue to remain the backbone of the firm for the foreseeable future. They also felt that the firm should recruit and seek out laterals to maintain its position in this market.
- The remaining attorneys felt that because of changing conditions in the insurance industry, the amount of work available from all insurance companies would decrease. This market was drying up, they said.
- Although the firm did very little corporate or general business law, 9 of the attorneys said that this was an area where they felt the firm needed to gain exposure.
- the one partner and two associates who worked in medical malpractice felt this area of law offered great potential and wanted more emphasis there. They wanted to hire laterals and non-attorney medical specialists, and they wanted to train younger attorneys in this area.
How did the members of this firm resolve their differences? The managing partners hired a research consultant to conduct two analyses: one of their current client base and the other of the future of the insurance defense Industry (see Chapters 13, 14, and 15 for discussion of the analysis process).
Armed with hard numbers and facts, the firm scheduled a two-day weekend retreat for all attorneys at a destination resort about 75 miles from their offices. Most attorneys were permitted to leave early Friday to travel to the site and prepare for the meeting, which began at 9 a.m. Saturday morning.
A managing partner spent the first hour of the day reporting on the findings of the internal analysis. The research consultant then spent two hours presenting his findings. Time for questions on the facts was allowed. Discussions on the firm’s response to the information were held over until the afternoon.
An outside facilitator was brought in after lunch to lead the group. The purpose of the afternoon was for attorneys to express the reasons for their feelings as stated in the individual analysis and to reach agreement in as many areas as possible.
The firm considered the research regarding the future of insurance defense. They agreed that, because of factors beyond its control, the amount of work in this practice area would decrease. They also agreed that the subspecialty of medical litigation was a growing area. They decided to continue discussions on the hiring of laterals and expansion of associate training in this area.
The firm then addressed the ground swell of enthusiasm for corporate work expressed by the associates. The senior partner announced that he would consider a merger or acquisition of some kind that would enable the firm to establish a larger presence in the marketplace. It seemed logical to him that discussions could be explored with another firm who had corporate clients. This was a major breakthrough for the firm and created a great deal of support throughout all levels.
In this case history, the firm was successful in obtaining agreement on virtually all the substantive issues. But in circumstances where agreement was not obtained, attorneys understood that no effort was wasted to pursue or promote an activity which does not have the support of the whole firm.
The attorneys also found internal meetings useful to resolve issues and build agreement. These are scheduled and planned like the focus groups described elsewhere in the other articles in this series. Essentially these meetings became "miniretreats" with the same components—report of research findings, then discussion to arrive at consensus.
The resolution of disagreements and the building of future plans can be a lengthy process. But with the techniques described here, attorneys can use their time efficiently and build a foundation for marketing success.
