Leadership Is The Glue That Holds Firms Together

The conference room fell silent. After three contentious hours they were no closer to finding a way to resolve a dispute between two of their partners. All were exhausted and frustrated. The managing partner sighed and thought to herself, “This isn’t what I signed up for. What can and should I do to help us all move forward?”

Mediating the diverse interests of a firm’s lawyers may not be the first thing most people think of when the topic of leadership is mentioned. But it is no less important than setting strategy, inspiring firm members, planning for growth and succession and representing a firm to the outside world. Settling disputes and disagreements is a necessary part of integrating firm members into an aligned and cohesive legal team. When successful, it bolsters firm morale, resilience and trust. At times, firm leaders are called upon to be the glue that holds firms together and allows them to thrive.

Internal disputes are a normal and predictable part of firm life, just as they are in any other kinds of organizations. Some characteristics of lawyers and law firms may however make conflicts more likely to occur and more difficult to resolve. Argument and advocacy are well-honed skills and mindsets in the legal profession. While they are invaluable in getting results for clients, they may at times slow or even prevent the resolution of internal firm issues. In comparison to the general population, lawyers tend to be more autonomous (i.e., independent minded) while at the same time slower to build trusting relationships. Combine these qualities with lawyers’ ability to take their clients with them when they move to a new firm, extra effort is often needed to retain lawyers and hold firms together.

The shared benefits and opportunities of uniting to practice together are usually the keys that hold firms together, and having common values and goals is also important. But if one or a series of disputes causes a lawyer to question whether there are greater opportunities and benefits elsewhere, they may leave when the emotional and financial costs of staying grow too high. Even more reason why law firm leaders need to become skilled at handling internal disagreements and disputes.

As the managing partner thought about her options, she paused and asked herself if she or somebody else in the firm was authorized to settle this dispute? She wondered if her fellow partners were asking themselves the very same question. Or if the firm even has a policy in place for these kinds of situations?

Some firms are fine with their managing partners having the last word on settling internal disputes. Other firms prefer a collective approach to making important decisions, with an executive or management committee making the call. Even in firms where a managing partner is empowered to settle disputes, it’s important to remember that they are likely serving at the pleasure of their fellow partners. If a decision is vastly unpopular, they may lose their support and position. In practice, managing partners who tend to have full authority and the final word are often the sole or majority shareholder of their firms. Even then, an unpopular decision can lead to the departures of lawyers and professional staff.

During the long and uncomfortable silence, she looked around the table and saw her fellow partners all looking back at her, waiting for her to be the next to say or do something. Whether there was a formal policy or not, it was clear they were deferring to her to decide how to move things forward. She felt they were also probably quite relieved that the burden was hers not theirs.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that lawyers often take a lawyerly approach to settling internal disputes and disagreements. They may search for precedent––how have we (or similar firms) decided disputes like these in the past? Or they may refer to sections of their firm’s partnership agreement that provide guidance and mechanisms for resolving internal disputes. When such provisions are absent, partners may, in adhering to a legalistic approach, first design an agreed-upon, formal documented procedure, and then follow it in hopes of resolving a dispute.

All the above options create a familiar framework for lawyers where they can exercise their well-honed professional skills. While these approaches may foster a sense of familiarity and fairness, they do a limited job of addressing the emotions and interpersonal dynamics that are often at the root of intrafirm disagreements and become barriers to conflict resolution. Even when the cognitive and rational sides of a problem are being addressed, the emotional sides may be overlooked.

As she thought about the current conflict, she recognized it was part of a longer and larger history between the partners. Her gut told her that there was a lot more at stake here than what was being discussed and that was why the dispute was so “sticky” and they’d made so little progress.

At times a perfectly fine “rational” solution will leave both parties to a disagreement unhappy and demotivated. To minimize the chances of this happening, it’s necessary to consider the large role emotions play in lawyers’ decisions to join, stay and leave firms. None of these decisions is 100 percent objective and detached. In making these decisions, lawyers weigh measurable tangible factors (e.g., compensation, position, perks, etc.) with intangible ones (interesting work, strong trusting relationships, firm culture, work-life balance, etc.), and then ask themselves if they are sufficiently satisfied with their present firm. Feelings of comfort, belonging, appreciation, collegiality and opportunity are critical to their satisfaction and retention.

So, how in approaching intrafirm disputes can leaders pay sufficient attention to the emotional context of a conflict? Rather than relying on their legal skills, they can calm and slow things down by taking a more facilitative, relationship-based approach. Rather than moving directly to problem solving or negotiating, they start by having separate private conversations with each person. They listen, ask questions and help each lawyer reflect not only on what they want––that’s usually already clear––but also on what getting or not getting it means to them on an emotional level. By doing so, areas for compromise may become apparent as people become less focused on winning and more on the underlying emotions that are in play for them and others.

Leaders can then try to facilitate a conversation between the lawyers in conflict to help them better understand one another’s perspectives, interests and emotions. As the leader coaches them through the conversation, misunderstandings and communication breakdowns may be cleared up, individual priorities may be realigned with firm strategies and space may be created to explore new ways of looking at and addressing their dispute.

She pondered using a relationship-based approach for this dispute, but quickly realized she was too close to the situation to act as a neutral facilitator and decider. Whatever she decided would likely be seen as favoritism that could erode trust in her management and leadership. Perhaps she needed to look outside the firm. She needed a few minutes to think.

There are times when using an external professional coach, facilitator or mediator is the best approach to resolving internal firm disputes. Coming from outside the figurative family, they are seen as being independent, impartial, and having no skin in the game. The best ones also bring familiarity with professional service firms and experience in conflict competence and resolution. But in some disputes, even the most skilled coaches and facilitators can’t help the parties to agreement and resolution. In those cases, law firm leaders can engage a professional mediator to assist in resolving the dispute. The best ones are skilled in facilitating discussions, exploring interests and guiding parties toward a mutually agreeable settlement. Some focus on the legalities of a situation, while others lean toward a more interpersonal approach, and the most effective combine both approaches.

After a short break, the partners returned to the conference room. Their managing partner shared her thinking and the reasons why she felt it would be best to bring someone from outside the firm to help them work this out. She engaged all of them in a discussion about whether to go with a coach-facilitator or a mediator. The partners quickly came to consensus to start with a coach-facilitator the firm had used for strategic planning and retreats, and if he failed to resolve the matter, then move to something more formal. Both disputants were on board, and all were happy there was a path forward. There was a palpable sense of relief in the room, and as they got up from the table, the youngest partner turned to her and said, “You know, you really are the glue that holds this firm together.”