Full text of my Australian Financial Review opinion piece first published on 11 September 2020.
In April, I made three predictions about a post-Covid19 legal world – there would be deeper relationships between staff and clients, less paper and more flexible work arrangements. Five months on, it’s worth revisiting these predictions and to ask what else might change?
The argument for deeper relationships was based on the notion that people going through acute stress together come out at the other end with greater trust, understanding and connection. Given that we’re still living through the pandemic, it’s probably too soon to tell for sure whether this prediction will come true or not.
It appears the sense of a life-threatening emergency is being replaced by a collective consciousness of fatigue and despair. In Victoria, tempers seem to be a bit shorter and patience a little thinner. This trend doesn’t augur well for a future of more kindness and mutual support.
The predictions around less paper and more flexible work arrangements are looking rock solid. Many firms have eased into hybrid operating models and have hardly skipped a beat. Some have already publicly stated that this model is permanent.
But there are some emerging trends that justify three new predictions.
#1 Fewer legal secretaries and assistants
Over the past few months, some firms have reported increases in overall production but lower productivity amongst legal secretaries and assistants. Lawyer self-sufficiency and the move to working from home have been the primary reasons cited for this shift.
It’s not too much of a leap to suggest many firms will look to reduce secretarial support ratios by a combination of redundancies and retraining of some assistants as paralegals.
One of the possible consequences of reducing secretarial numbers is a more fragmented work culture. Secretaries often provide a bridge between people and practices by sharing news and gossip, fostering relationships and retelling stories.
They offer a valuable pastoral care role, especially when the senior legal practitioners are EQ-deprived. Without this cultural glue, firms run the risk of being more productive but less human.
#2 Renewed respect for HR
In many firms, the HR team has kept the ship sailing. This is no mean feat given the speed, scale and scope of change required, and the fact they operate with little formal authority within a partnership structure.
There is always extreme sensitivity around changes in people’s pay, promotions, leave entitlements, workloads and future job prospects. HR practitioners have advised on these issues as well as resource strategy, communication, mental health, resilience and fostering a strong team vibe.
Pre-Covid19, it was not uncommon for firms to suffer from the “HR standoff’. In one corner, the HR team members would complain about the firm’s partners being disrespectful and disempowering. In the opposite corner, the firm’s partners would regard HR as being process, not outcome-driven and uncommercial.
I think this standoff will be mostly a thing of the past, especially in firms where HR has risen to the challenge.
#3 Reset in decision-making
To deal with the government-imposed lockdown in March 2020, firms needed to make big decisions quickly. Managing partners were given the authority by the broader partnership to address the crisis. It appears many of these senior leaders accepted this mandate and blossomed with their increased power and autonomy.
Five months on and many firms have not shifted significantly away from the March model. With relentless partner workloads and no in-person partner meetings, the firm’s executives have largely kept their decision rights.
I expect that post-corona the pendulum will swing back slightly, but this recent experience reveals that the firm can still prosper without every partner having a say on everything.
#leadership, culture, governance, legal industry, strategy management
Where was Minters’ chairman during the Kimmitt crisis?
In Articles, Commentary on 26 March 2021 at 7:28 pmThe full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 26 March 2021
“The Minter’s chairman went missing in action. One of the most important jobs of a chair is to resolve major disputes within the partnership without it spilling out to the rest of the firm, and even worse, into client land.”
This quote reflects a sentiment expressed by many law firm leaders I spoke to about the recent saga at MinterEllison.
While I’m not privy to the internal machinations at Minters to say whether this is a fair judgement or not about the firm’s chairman, David O’Brien, it does raise the question as to what should be expected of a chair?
In my view, the answer lies in the confluence of governance, guidance, and glue.
Governance
The chair of partners usually has an active leadership role in firm governance. As such, his or her job is to ensure that management’s direction is broadly aligned with the interests of equity partners and other stakeholders.
Unlike company structures, partnership governance roles and responsibilities are not stipulated in any statute and are largely ambiguous. All partners are assumed take on all responsibilities concurrently. In this context, the chair and managing partner are expected to carve out a tailored governance framework that balances stewardship, operational efficiency, risk-taking, control, transparency, partner autonomy and accountability.
The chair of partners would usually be expected to facilitate the effective functioning of board and partner meetings, ensure accurate timely and relevant information flow, oversee risk and compliance, manage board composition, and lead the process of reviewing the managing partner’s performance and succession.
In some firms, the chair is actively involved in deciding profit allocation and progression. In other firms, their role is more of an independent arbiter in profit allocation appeals.
Guidance
While most medium and large firms have adopted a more ‘corporate’ governance model, partners as owner-operators still often want a say when it comes to critical decisions around firm purpose, values, capital allocation and broad strategic direction.
The chair plays a critical role in helping the firm’s executives navigate this decision-making minefield.
Their guidance is critical in deciding which fights to pick, what options are on or off the table, what’s the best approach and forum to raise issues, and where power really lies in and around the partnership.
Chairs often act as cultural barometers – forecasting the mood, energy, and tone of the partnership. Their predictions of an imminent storm, or conversely, a period of calm and confidence can be hugely beneficial.
At a more micro level, firm chairs often act as a sounding board or mentor for the managing partner. In this role, they help talk through tricky issues, provide honest feedback, and offer comfort when exasperation overwhelms.
This mentoring role is particularly important for the induction of new managing partners or an external appointment. In the latter case, the chair needs to lend some of their social capital until the new leader’s position is firmly established.
Glue
The third role of the chair is to foster partnership cohesion and stability. This doesn’t mean leading the firm cheer squad, but rather putting out spot fires and addressing corrosive politicking.
Spot fires may include a major fallout between two senior partners or where an individual partner has displayed behaviour incongruent with the firm’s values or there is a case of systemic underperformance.
It is quite common for the chair to join the managing partner in having a fireside chat with these problem partners. The chair helps create a sense of deep collective concern. This threat is hoped to be the catalyst necessary to change aberrant behaviour.
Pie-splitting is often a source of ‘corrosive politicking’. For example, in meritocracies choosing a side when there’s a commercial or legal conflict could result in a major differential in individual earnings. In these instances, the chair may get involved in dialling-down the emotions and ensuring that trust in the model is maintained.
Coming back to the MinterEllison situation, I don’t have any first-hand information as to assess whether the firm’s chair did an effective job in governing, guiding, and gluing? As with so many tricky issues in law firm partnerships, that’s ultimately for Mr O’Brien’s partners to decide.
Share this:
Like this: