I’ve experienced many significant professional transitions since graduating from law school; from one law firm to another in the 1980s (and personally from town to town), from associate in the 1980s to partner in the 1990s, and to managing partner in the 2000s (and the later difficult transition of stepping down from managing partner 10 years ago). Within the ABA, I went from aging out of leadership in the Young Lawyers Division, to leadership in the Law Practice Division, to leading the North Carolina Delegation in the ABA House of Delegates, and now to a term on its Board of Governors. In the next three issues of Law Practice my hope is to give readers a few ideas about making it successfully through the significant transitions that will inevitably be experienced in both the practice of law, and leadership of lawyers and law firms. As you consider what I write, please understand that I have not learned lessons by study, or necessarily because I have always chosen the right path, but much of what I have to say was learned through what my Uncle Ralph used to call “the college of hard knocks, in the state of confusion.”
Exactly six years ago, I wrote this column on my views about what law firm leaders should think about when it comes to making decisions on offering part ownership of a law firm to an associate. I discussed shareholder (or partner) criteria for a new generation. That column was intended to give advice to lawyer leaders responsible for steering associates from the date of hire to the date they will hopefully be offered a share of ownership of the firm. The overriding point of that prior column still rings true for law firm leaders.
A further help for law firm leaders is the sample shareholder criteria that can be found on the Lawyer Leadership Resource Center site.
Speaking about transitions, in the past six years the ABA Law Practice Division has undergone its own transition. Once seen as a section of association members who serve as law firm managing partners, and then as the first home for consultants who serve lawyers and law firm leaders in their pursuit of excellent management of the business of the practice of law, the Division has now opened itself up as a member benefit included in the price of membership for all ABA members. If you are an ABA Member, but not a member of the Law Practice Division, I recommend signing up. There is no additional cost.
As a benefit given to members just for the asking, the Division has seen its membership rise, including adding many ABA members who have not yet attained an ownership interest in the organizations they serve. The purpose of this column is to help those who might seek advice on making partner or becoming shareholder.
Those who seek ownership status in the firms they currently serve should understand that law firms that adopt and share criteria with their associates (such as the model criteria I direct you to at the online Lawyer Leadership Resource Center above), do not usually view the criteria as a checklist. As I have considered some of the successful, and unsuccessful, candidates for ownership in my own firm over the last 20 years since we adopted almost three pages of specific criteria, I have come to the conclusion that the best way to look at any long list of ownership criteria can be boiled down to three overriding qualities that must be evident in the professional life of an associate, if the associate desires to not only be offered ownership, but to thereafter excel as a member of the ownership team of an organization:
Every associate needs to understand that though these three considerations are legitimate questions for law firm leaders to ask (and most do) every law firm is made up of unique individual owners, with unique experiences. Though my law firm may try to prioritize these three equally, for instance, others may not. To assume equal priority is unwise, and to assume that the priority espoused is true priority, naive. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words.
I believe that the practice of law is a privilege. Many may argue this fact, since nowadays lawyers are no longer the exclusive providers of legal services in many different areas of the law. Regardless, our rules of professional conduct apply to lawyers and those who work for lawyers and are intended to assure that the experiences of clients with licensed lawyers achieve a certain level of ethical conduct and professionalism. Similarly, law firms (as businesses) have an interest in assuring a successful organizational future by requiring that each client have excellent client experiences with every member of their team. As an associate seeking a share of ownership, understand that those making the decision about whether to make you an offer will want to know that the experience that clients have when you are handling a matter is excellent. You need to understand that this category of consideration goes way beyond confidence and handling complex legal matters, but also includes such values as responsiveness and both having and showing a sense of urgency to clients in their legal matters. Further, and most important (though at times overlooked), those making the decision of whether to offer you ownership will ask themselves how you have done in treating all of the other members of the firm as your “client” as well.
There are two truths that I have come to believe when it comes to firm culture. First, there is no right or wrong culture. Second, espoused or desired culture is not necessarily achieved culture. Even though there is no right or wrong culture, I believe it is wrong for a law firm’s leaders to make decisions and take actions inconsistent with the promises they make to members of their team. Further, I think it unwise for an associate to rely on what a law firm says its culture is, when its actions and decisions clearly are not consistent. As an associate works toward achieving an offer of ownership in a law firm, actual culture needs to be deciphered. Associates should consider what is represented by a firm, and not necessarily assume the worst, seeking consistent words and actions from firm leaders. In the words of Ronald Reagan “trust, but verify.”
Given the present market for excellent young lawyers in law firms of all sizes, I would suggest (even though I try and not rank the three lines of consideration I write about in this column) that for an associate seeking a long-term home for professional life, continued pursuit of ownership in a firm where an appealing culture is expressed verbally, but not lived out in reality, is probably the one area of consideration, if ignored, that creates the greatest risk of impediment to a satisfying professional life.
A law firm is a for-profit business. That being the case, and the owners seeking their own personal financial well-being, this category of consideration is sometimes placed at the top of the list. For associates desiring ownership in a firm that places this category at the top of the list, it is extremely important that they not be fooled by how the firm leaders express the importance of client experience, culture and nonbillable activities (such as professional and community service). When meeting short-term financial objectives are the overriding considerations in both compensation and advancement, these other activities always take a back seat. As an associate, it is very important that you understand that there is nothing wrong with owners of a firm prioritizing as they see fit. My warning is that you not let yourself be fooled into believing what is spoken, or written on a website, but not evidenced as lived out through action and commitment.
A final word of caution. Law firms are owned by lawyers, and there are many different forms of organizational structures. Because firms are owned by people who get old and retire, it is important that an associate understands the firm’s unique structure, as well as who the true leaders or influencers are, and will be in the future. It may not be those who presently hold position, and it with these people you may find the greatest hint as to what the future holds when it comes to shared ownership of the firm.
