A blog by Joel Barolsky of Barolsky Advisors

Posts Tagged ‘strategy management’

The empire strikes back

In Articles, Commentary, Legal Technology on 8 October 2021 at 11:20 am

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 7 October 2021.

The biggest structural change in the Australian legal market over the past 30 years has been the growth of in-house legal teams.

 But while the vast majority of current in-house solicitors received their initial training in private law firms and then moved across to the client side, I predict that the next decade will see a reversal of this trend, particularly at more senior levels.

 In comparing the employee value proposition of in-house versus private practice, there are five areas where law firms are fighting back.

Flexibility

In a post-COVID-19 world, very few law firms will return to a work schedule of 9 to 5, five days a week, in the office. They will be far more accommodating of lawyers seeking to work from home for part of the week, or those wanting to work across different time slots in the day or to limit the number of workdays.

Any perceived advantage that in-house roles were more flexible has been eliminated by law firms learning to operate effectively in an anywhere anytime model.

Workload

For many years, the lure of in-house has been roles with more work-life balance, less stress, and no timesheets. 

While no timesheets are still a point of difference, most in-house lawyers are now reportedly working extremely long hours and are stretched thin. The pressure for them to do more with less is incessant, and the demands on their time are likely to grow rather than diminish. 

On the other side of the fence, many law firms are rejigging the workload of graduates and early career lawyers to be far more sustainable. They have also stepped up their programs focused on employee mental health and wellbeing.

Technology

Association of Corporate Counsel research suggests General Counsel are constrained in adopting technology by restrictions on capital expenditure and a lack of time to implement new systems.

Many law firms, in contrast, are ramping up their technology investment and experimentation. The recent Thomson Reuters State of the Legal Market found that law firms spent over $22,000 per lawyer on legal technology in FY21. The same paper revealed that 30 out of the 50 largest law firms in Australia now have an innovation function.

Over time, the technology gap between in-house and private will grow. A career move in-house may become to be seen as a step back in time – a move to a job using old and blunt tools of the trade.

Income

Data from legal recruiters Mahlab suggests in-house teams pay more for 3 to 7-year PQE lawyers, but after that, the differential starts to swing the other way. Equity partners in premium law firms are now earning incomes that far exceed their peers in in-house roles, save for a few GCs of major listed companies that enjoy exceptional incentive arrangements.

Private practice salaries and benefits are estimated to increase by 8 to 10% in the coming years. It will be very hard for in-house to price match given budget constraints and the need for consistency across organisation-wide pay scales. To the chagrin of many CFOs, in-house lawyers are already the most expensive people on their payroll outside the C-suite.

Culture

“It’s a boys’ club”, has been a common refrain of female lawyers leaving private practice. With an industry average of just under one-third of female law firm partners, their complaint may have had just cause, till now.

Most of the top 30 law firms across Australia have fully committed to a 40:40:20 or an equivalent diversity goal at partner level. Significant efforts are being made to address unconscious bias and to eliminate sexist language and behaviour. More senior leadership roles are filled by women. Comprehensive diversity and inclusion programs are now the norm.

The progress is slow, but the prevailing culture across many law firms is shifting on gender issues.

If trends in the five areas described above persist, the employee value proposition of in-house will become less compelling. With increasing demand, in-house teams will have to build their own capacity by hiring more graduates and invest in early-career legal and commercial training.

This is good news for law firms; after years of training young talent only to lose them to in-house roles, the shoe will comfortably fit on the other foot.

The Big 4 in law – failing again?

In Articles, Commentary on 4 September 2021 at 12:13 pm

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 3 September 2021.

In 2018, PwC announced that it aimed to be a top 20 law firm in the world within five years. KPMG and EY also stated their intentions to significantly grow their legal teams.

While these ambitions of global domination are noteworthy, the progress of the big four in law has been underwhelming.

On one tangible measure of progress – the number of Australian-based partners – the evidence suggests PwC Legal has gone backwards, KPMG Legal has stalled, EY Law is growing, and Deloitte is still making up their minds.

If one added all the big four law firm partners and made one firm, this new player wouldn’t even make the top 15 in the latest Australian Financial Review Law Partnership Survey.

On other metrics, like lead roles in major M&A transactions, they’re hardly making a splash. They’ve made no attempt to enter the litigation space and recent headlines have been more about departures than new hires.

While the big four have made some inroads in managed service and volume legal solutions, this is mostly impacting in-house legal teams rather taking a lot of work from established law firms.

There are five major reasons why the big four might be struggling in law.

#1 The one-stop-shop

The essence of the big four value proposition is a one-stop-shop: buy all your business advisory services from us and there will be lower transaction costs, more integrated advice and a better client experience.

The problem is many sophisticated clients just don’t buy it. They regard the one-shop as risky and lazy.

These buyers prefer horses for courses and back themselves to pick out tried and tested specialists. They recognise the benefits of cognitive diversity and are wary of groupthink. They feel it’s easier to hold a specific firm accountable for their advice when it’s more discrete.

#2 Brand limitations

In another related market – management consulting – high-end strategy advice firms like McKinsey, BCG and Bain still have the lion’s share of the best work. On the supply side, top MBA graduates generally prefer jobs in these places than the big four.

I think there are similar limitations when it comes to premium legal work. When clients have a bet-the-farm legal matter, the big four are not naturally considered as part of the tier 1 set (tax excepted).

For smaller matters and operational work, the big four are not naturally in the tier 2 consideration set, as they mostly price themselves above it.

#3 Conflicts

The big four are just that. Four! This has inevitably put limits on their penetration of the legal market.

It is estimated that the ASX50 is served by more than 300 law firms, barristers, freelancers and other legal consultants.

One of the key reasons for this fragmentation is conflicts. Most legal clients are particularly sensitive to the same advisers being involved, directly or peripherally, on both sides of a transaction or a dispute.

The threshold test of perceived conflict in legal matters is also much higher than, say, helping competing companies implement an enterprise software system.

#4 Leadership

Tony O’Malley at PwC and Stuart Fuller at KPMG led the way in growing their firms’ legal practices in Australia.

Interestingly, both these leaders were promoted to senior global roles about two years ago.

While it’s hard to quantify the impact of such changes, it seems that some of the drive and energy of the local practice has been lost with these promotions.

#5 The club

For the big four to make serious inroads into legal, quickly, they would have needed to poach some heavy hitters from heavy-hitting firms. Assuming they can match incomes, they would be asking these lawyers to leave their club.

This is how a typical lawyer rainmaker might weigh up a move.

“The new club is a lot, lot bigger and I will have even fewer decision rights. The new club will pander less to my specific needs, given it already has dozens of heavy hitters. The new club will ask me to fit into their service style and product ‘packaging’.

“The new club will be run by bean counters. Nah! I’d rather stay.”

Is your practice in the right shape?

In Uncategorized on 14 August 2021 at 12:10 pm

The full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 12 August 2021.

The start of a new financial year often coincides with law firm partners updating their budget and doing a strategy health check.

Targets are usually set around revenue, margins and headcount, as well as qualitative indicators such as client service and staff engagement.

This is great, but there is one critical thing missing.

Practice shape is one of the most important drivers of success but seldom gets a mention. By shape, I mean the number, type and roles of practitioners at different levels within a practice team.

David Maister, in his seminal work, Managing the Professional Services Firm, stated, “many factors play a role in bringing goals [of client service, staff satisfaction and financial success] into harmony, but one has a pre-eminent position: the ratio of junior, middle-level, and senior staff.”

Getting it wrong

Poor practice design can be a handbrake on practice performance.

Being too ‘top heavy’ can result in mid-level lawyers leaving to join other firms with better promotion prospects. It could also lead to deep discounting so as to match competitors with more appropriate leverage.

A ‘bottom-heavy’ practice runs the risk of producing lower quality work and creating burnout and stress for those left to carry the load. (Bottom-heavy is also a good description of me after 18 months of intermittent Covid-19 lockdowns 😀).

A ‘missing middle’ often leads to practice stagnation and major financial opportunity costs. Interestingly, many premium firms are facing this issue right now partly as a result of reduced graduate intake in the mid-2010s.

Bad design can also contribute to systemic under-delegation. Partners who hog all the work make their practice far less competitive over time, not to mention sapping the morale of their people.

Succession is also a whole lot easier when the next generation is there trained, ready and waiting.

AFR August 2021

New shapes

The world has changed since David Maister first published his book in 1993. New technologies, providers, channels and delivery platforms have created new design opportunities beyond the traditional pyramid.

With the rocket model, the left and right corners of the pyramid are cut out and most low-level process work is done using a combination of legal technology, paralegals and law @ scale outsource providers. Rocket practice teams generally have fewer entry-level lawyer positions and more legal operations roles.

The hub and spoke model has a partner at the centre of a network that brings in a range of different resources and modular solutions to solve a specific client problem. These resources may include full-time lawyers in their firm as well as advisors from other professional service firms, the bar, data analysts, client resources and third-party software platforms.

The agency shape splits a practice into specialist groups focused on what they’re best at. A great example of this is the award-winning ad agency, Thinkerbell.

Thinkerbell has two groups: Thinkers and Tinkers. To quote their website, Thinkers are “a cross between strategy-types and suity-types, they ask a lot of questions and listen very carefully for the answers. They’re problem-solvers.”

It says Tinkers are “creativey-types and producery-types who pull things apart and put them back together again. They hit things with hammers and fiddle with knobs and buttons. They experiment, and play and build.”

Revisit your design

So, returning to annual budgets and strategic plans, practice leaders need to ask themselves a few critical questions about their current practice shape:

  • does it help or hinder career advancement and learning opportunities?
  • does it fit with the mix and complexity of the work?
  • does it optimise the business model i.e. how the team makes money?
  • what should the shape look like in three years, and in seven years?
  • what alternatives could be considered?

The agency model might not be a realistic alternative at this time, but it’s essential that leaders keep thinking and tinking when it comes to practice shape.

Where was Minters’ chairman during the Kimmitt crisis?

In Articles, Commentary on 26 March 2021 at 7:28 pm

The 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.

Will new partners need to keep grinding away?

In Articles, Commentary on 13 July 2020 at 6:18 pm

Full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 9 July 2020.

Most practice teams in the larger law firms have been set up with partners as the “finders” and “minders” and associates as “grinders”.

A decade’s worth of time records analysed by Thomson Reuters Peer Monitor shows that associates have around 10 more billable hours per month on average than partners in the same firm.

However, in April and May 2020 – the first full months of the COVID-19 lockdown and remote working – this long-term trend reversed and partners recorded more billable hours than associates.

There are two questions worth asking. Why are partners producing more now? Can all the new partners in the Financial Review Law Partnership Survey expect a permanent change in their role? In other words, will they have to be finders, minders and grinders?

AFR July

Why now?

Many law firm clients went into crisis mode with the onset of the coronavirus. Deals needed to be completed quickly. Funding needed to be secured urgently. Disputes on unfulfilled contracts needed rapid resolution. Almost daily changes to government regulation needed interpretation and action.

To deal with these pressing and complex issues many clients indicated a strong preference to get more direct access to partners. This meant fewer opportunities for delegation to associates.

Cost-conscious clients also had less tolerance for juniors being allowed to learn on these matters. As one general counsel put it to me: “I was happy to see one maybe two people [from the law firm] on [Microsoft] Teams, but not a football team.”

Another factor that has led to the increase in partner hours at some firms is partners holding on to more work due to fear of a broader market slowdown so they can hit their personal billing targets.

During the GFC, many large firms cut partner numbers through a combination of de-equitisation, early retirements, dismissals and reduced promotions.

While many firms now prefer measuring the contribution of a team rather than an individual, having a healthy personal practice can strengthen a partner’s case for retention if things get tough. In recent weeks, it appears that some partners and associates have been getting a little tired of working from home.

After the rush of adrenalin in dealing with the crisis and keeping connected during March and April, there’s now slightly less enthusiasm for the weekly video drinks – and growing frustration with the clunkiness of a distributed workforce.

Supervision, training and delegation is hard enough when everyone is co-located and physically present in a purpose-designed city office. It’s that much harder when associates are working from a kitchen table in a shared rental apartment with variable NBN speeds.

As time moves on, some partners might resort to the easier – though strategically flawed – option of doing most of the work themselves.

Will there be a permanent change?

No, and yes.

Leverage of non-partner fee-earners is at the heart of the law firm business model. The economics of having lots of associates doing lots of production will not change in the years ahead. Effective and efficient delivery of larger transactions, projects and disputes will still require teams of lawyers, paralegals and legal technologists at different levels.

Over time, firms that don’t tailor their approach for each project will lose out to those that do.

When demand returns, the issues around less delegation should ease. Intransigent hoarders will get caught out and move on – or be moved on.

As technology and workflows improve over time, the clunkiness of the remote workforce should diminish and become less of a handbrake.

One change that will hopefully stick is that of the law firm partner as the client’s primary strategic risk advisor. The coronavirus crisis has revealed the relevance of experienced lawyers in assisting clients on things that matter. This period should hopefully build their confidence as strategic advisors from a legal perspective and not just narrow technical legal specialists.

The discussion above suggests that perhaps the finder minder grinder characterisation is a little out of date.

A better description of the role of partner is that of a strategic advisor and leader – a thought leader, a team leader, a client account leader, a project leader and a sales leader.

The winners will be those firms that recruit and develop outstanding legal leaders and not just see their associates as high-billable grinders.

Does your law firm really need a barista?

In Articles, Commentary on 11 June 2020 at 2:14 pm

Full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 4 June 2020.

For the past three months, many law firms have been in crisis management mode.

The focus has been on ensuring staff safety, staying close to clients, sustaining productivity and shoring up financial reserves. The mindset has been mainly about conservation and survival.

It’s time now time to look up and to look ahead – to work out what’s needed to succeed in the next normal.

Here are four things to think about in creating your future.

Screen Shot 2020-06-05 at 8.49.43 am copy

#1 Organise for a hybrid workforce

Most law firms will seek to capitalise on the success of remote working and will adopt a model in which people work two or three days a week in the office and the balance at home. While this offers benefits in terms of staff flexibility, reduced commute times and lower occupancy costs, the rhythms of office life will be very different from life before coronavirus.

Firms will need to help their staff create boundaries and new work habits. This includes setting clear ‘office hours’; finding new ways to socialise that replace the serendipitous corridor bump; ensuring consistent supervision of graduates and clerks; and providing regular and balanced performance feedback.

#2 Speed up decision-making and execution

During the ten days from March 16-26, most law firms discovered that if push comes to shove, they can execute big decisions very quickly.

My advice: keep going!

The short-term public health crisis helped concentrate decision-making power. And it appears that in the main those vested with that power acted promptly and professionally.

Firms should build on this experience and streamline decision-making processes for times when things are back to normal. It could mean less consultation on trivial matters, fewer meetings, better communication and greater respect and appreciation for leadership roles.

Most law firms are designed as network organisations with self-managed practice teams as nodes and a small central bureaucracy. In theory, this should make them agile and responsive, but the reality is often quite different. Firms should harness their structural strength to move earlier and faster.

#3 Plan and budget with less inertia

The coronavirus crisis has given firms the opportunity to assess the merits of every revenue and expense item.  Recent McKinsey analysis shows most organisations only reallocate 2 to 3 per cent of their budgets year to year. But those that do more—in the order of 8 to 10 per cent—create more value.

While starting each year’s budget with a blank sheet might be overkill, reviewing each item on a two- or three-year rotating cycle should ensure smarter allocation of resources.

Revenue targets might set with an honest assessment of market potential and how your team stacks up against key competitors. Expense items can be set with a clear-headed view on value creation.

#4 Personalise the client experience with scale

The client experience pre-coronavirus included numerous face-to-face meetings; document preparation shared via email; and multi-touch file handling.

The evidence from the past few months is that productive client meetings can still be held without a barista on call; documents can be prepared collaboratively in real-time and remotely; and that most aspects of file management can be automated.

In designing the firm of the future, think about creating a client experience that is personalised, streamlined and scalable.

This is the time to start imagining your firm as it should be. If you stay in conserve mode too long, you will land up being two or three steps behind those that are determined to create their own future.

Love the tech you’re with, at least for now

In Articles, Commentary, Legal Technology on 11 May 2020 at 11:16 am

Full text of opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 7 May 2020.

One of the key decisions law firms need to make during the COVID-19 crisis concerns investment in new legal technology and innovation.

While some firms are keeping their R&D spend intact, anecdotal evidence suggests the majority are going into some form of hibernation.

AFR op-ed May 2020 copy

Regardless of whether your firm decided to stop, reduce or continue, there is a strong business case for getting more out of what you already have. It’s not quite as exciting as playing with shiny new tech toys, but sometimes – as in the words of that great Stephen Stills’ song – it’s better to “love the one you’re with”.

To make more of your existing technology it’s important to ask three questions.

Can our partners and lawyers use it well? 

Taking Microsoft Word as an example, my guess is that your firm currently uses it semi-well.

Most partners and lawyers use basic features like track changes, automated numbering, cross-referencing, indexing and sections. However, I suspect only a handful would be good at using styles, templates, programmed auto-corrects, tailored designs and macros.

There is much to gain in terms of lawyers’ and clients’, time and money from investing in targeted Word training. Not having everyone at a base level proficiency in the basic tool of the trade is going to bite hard especially if you are looking to reduce secretarial support ratios or to have a more flexible work-from-home operating model.

Can we make it work better for us?

The COVID-19 crisis is also a good time to experiment with add-ins, plug-ins and tools that add power and functionality to your existing applications.

It is much easier to extend an existing technology with a familiar user interface than adopt something completely new. What’s more, existing apps are usually fully deployed, paid for and supported.

Taking Word again as an example, there is a growing number of complementary tools on the market that are worth investigating. David Bushby, a lawtech expert from InCounsel, has kindly curated this list:

Are we becoming too dependent on it or its vendor? 

During COVID-19 crisis, there has been a rapid uptake of Microsoft’s video-conferencing tool, Teams. It appears that the latter has become the favoured video application of many large law firms and the Federal Court.

Given the vast installed base of the Office Suite and now Teams, it’s not hard to imagine that Microsoft will attempt to monetize its strong competitive position further.

One scenario involves them adding code into documents and emails to capture data around document preparation time, quality, cost, originality, storage and authorship. Combining this valuable data with its established software suite and ‘voila!’ – they will control or strongly influence the entire legal supply chain.

In this scenario, it would be tough for individual firms to counteract Microsoft’s power. However, new collaborative application platforms owned by law firms, like Reynen Court in the USA, may point to a future with more options.

In this future, there may be opportunities to follow the advice of Wet Wet Wet rather than Stephen Stills – and make sure your “love is all around”.

A post-corona legal world: more kindness, less paper

In Articles, Commentary on 4 April 2020 at 4:45 pm

Full text of opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 2 April 2020.

At some point later this year or early next we will move into a post-Corona world. What might that world look like from a law firm perspective? On my reckoning, it will involve deeper relationships, less paper and more flexibility.

Deeper relationships

There is much research that shows that people that go through acute stress together come out at the other end with stronger relationships. War is one of the greatest stresses anyone could ever encounter yet it also often leads to deep human friendships and incredible acts of heroism and sacrifice.

As Stanford’s Emma Seppala states, “Understanding our shared vulnerability — that life makes no promises — may be frightening, but it can inspire kindness, connection, and desire to stand together and support each other.”

To illustrate this point, I heard a story this week of a law firm partner checking in every day with every person in her team via Zoom. These check-ins covered some work matters but mostly were about sharing the fears, loss, grief and the black humour of the pandemic and the remote working experience. She said she encouraged her team members not to avoid interruptions from partners, kids and pets during the video calls.

The partner indicated her surprise as to how deeply personal the conversations had become, and how much closer she felt with her team members. Seeing her team members at home interacting with loved ones added a whole new level of understanding and appreciation of them as individuals.

She imagines a post-corona world with much deeper social connections – with staff and clients. Going through a crisis together can help engender trust and understanding, the foundations of all solid business-to-business relationships.

Screen Shot 2020-04-04 at 4.33.21 pm

Source: AFR

Less paper

Over the past decade, many law firms have invested in sophisticated and expensive document management systems to reduce paper, streamline processes and improve control. It is a common experience that firms don’t realise the full benefits of these systems because a small group of lawyers, often senior partners, refuse to change their habits and prefer to edit in hardcopy only and/or keep paper copies of everything.

The coronavirus has forced some law firm partners to change their rusted-on work habits in about one week. When the hardcopy file is inaccessible and no assistant is at their side, only then will the penny really drop that a change is required and the painful process of stepping outside comfort zones will commence.

In a post-corona world, there will be less paper and greater compliance with enterprise-wide systems that promise so much but often deliver less. Allied to this there is likely to more defined workflows, greater support for cloud-based applications and better use of deal platforms.

As legal project management expert Ron Friedman notes, “Litigation and investigations have long employed [and co-located] armies of contract lawyers to review documents for responsiveness and privilege… The technology exists for secure, remote document review. Though supervision and collaboration may be harder working remotely, it does tap a much broader labour pool [and meet social distancing rules].”

More flexibility

Pre-corona, flexible working arrangements were mostly the exception rather than the rule in law land. The past two weeks have reversed this statistic.

The generally positive experience of meeting via videoconference, accessing files remotely, collaborating online on shared documents and engaging staff and clients virtually has brought a new realisation: actually, we don’t need everyone at the office all the time. If people want the option to work flexibly it can be done without destroying productivity or team dynamics.

While I don’t foresee a shift post-corona to complete remote working or agile office set-ups (that is, an office with no allocated desks), I would expect firms to be far more comfortable with people seeking flexible work arrangements that include some regular time working from home or other locations outside of the office.

Remote working must be balanced with having a team congregate in one space to collaborate to solve complex client problems, to share knowledge and to socialise. There is still no technological substitute for face-to-face interactions and the serendipitous opportunities that come from overhearing conversations – and unexpected bumping into colleagues in corridors and kitchens.

In conclusion

In conclusion, the post-corona legal world will be different. While there’s a lot to fret about, there are also some important positives to reflect and focus on.

Firms must plan for a profit hit from the commission’s ruling

In Articles, Commentary on 6 March 2020 at 5:54 pm

Full text of my opinion piece first published in the Australian Financial Review on 6 March 2020.

A law firm’s budget and its five-year projections are based on key assumptions around staffing costs and productivity. The recent Fair Work ruling could potentially blow these assumptions out the water.

The key lesson is to be prepared for different scenarios and have contingency plans in place for some award mayhem.

AFR 6 March Fair Work

The Fair Work Commission has ordered law firms – from March 1 – to record all hours worked by graduate lawyers and paralegals to ensure they are not paid below minimum rates or are losing out on penalties if they work long hours.

It is unclear how many junior workers will actually take advantage of these new provisions as the enforcement of an industrial award runs counter to the professional culture in most law firms.

Moreover, the bargaining position of juniors is weak because of the oversupply of graduates. Council of Australian Law Deans data revealed that Australia’s 39 law schools graduated 7,583 students in 2015. Less than 40 per cent of those students will get legal traineeship positions in law firms.

Despite these constraints, it is not hard to imagine some overworked grad preparing a spreadsheet to prove they’ve been paid well below the minimum wage per hour and claim a bonus – say 20 per cent – for overtime. News of this payment would spread quickly and Fair Work claims would soon become commonplace.

Three scenarios

Only time will tell whether that happens, but it is worth doing some scenario planning to assess the potential impact.

There are three Fair Work-related scenarios worth considering.

  • One is a business as usual situation, with the take up being minimal.
  • Two is that it will be the new norm, with most graduate lawyers and paralegals claiming their full entitlements.
  • The third involves bracket creep, with claims for overtime and penalties extending all the way up the pyramid to associates and senior associates.

If you want to have a sleepless night or three, ask your chief financial officer to model the financial impact of the bracket creep scenario at your firm. With staff comprising about 60 per cent of all costs, the profit hit could be huge.

However, one could argue that hard cash overtime penalties will force more firms to adopt more sustainable work practices, which might improve the mental health of a notoriously fragile profession.

Contingency plans

Planning for the bracket creep scenario will likely involve better resource management, supervision and cross-practice collaboration.

For example, most firms do little to even-out workloads where some teams are operating way above capacity and others well below. If a firm suddenly has to pay overtime for a team operating at 150 per cent capacity, you can bet a lot more effort will be made for practice leaders to collaborate and share resources.

While specialist lawyers are clearly not interchangeable, smart and well-trained lawyers are quick learners who can work flexibly across the firm.

Bracket creep could exacerbate bad work habits amongst some partners, but force a change in others.

The hoarders will try to save costs by delegating even less and doing more work themselves. On the other hand, some partners might finally get the message that the key to practice profitability is to optimise leverage, to redesign workflows to make them more effective and efficient, and to lead teams with a style that’s communicative and empowering.

A big increase in staff costs may push some lead some firms to look more closely at legal technology, especially where it could be used as a substitute for labour. The economics of automating contract preparation and review would suddenly become far more attractive. There would also be more incentives to use non-award staff to do legal process work.

My prediction

On balance I think the first scenario – business as usual – is the most likely. But all firms should be considering this question: what would do if awards governed your rewards?

 

%d bloggers like this: