The Lawyer Coach Blog
You are viewing news articles under the category “Compensation”:
July 25, 2007
Delegation is one of those soft skills that when mastered will have a major impact on your profitability, quality of work, and overall success as a lawyer. The hitch is that like so many of these essential skills, it’s not taught in law school, and is generally not on the CLE curriculum.
This week I met with Adam Pekarsky, Director of Professional Development and Recruitment at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP (FMC). Pekarsky is great to speak to about soft skills like delegation. He is a former securities lawyer who discovered he had a passion for training and development. He gets excited about stuff like delegation, much like a senior litigator talking about his most recent court appearance. Pekarsky’s associate training program at FMC includes a seminar on the art of delegation. Over coffee he shared the highlights with me.
Delegation from 20,000 feet.
Pekarsky started by giving me the big picture: “It’s all about leverage”.
Law is a business. There are revenues and expenses. Partners are the biggest users of overhead. They have bigger offices, use more support staff, and more resources than associates. They also have much higher rates and can generate considerably more income. Pekarsky likened them to expensive race cars. If partners don’t delegate the lower level work then it’s like “driving a formula one race car around a Safeway parking lot”.
Delegating work to others is known as spin, as in “how much work did you spin down to the associates this year?”
Really successful partners keep the high quality work for themselves and spin the rest to others. They meet their billable targets as well as generating considerable spin. Pekarsky gave the example of a partner who bills a million dollars and no spin vs. a partner who bills 700,000 dollars and spins an addition million. It’s much better for a firm’s profitability (not to mention the lawyer’s lifestyle) to bill less and spin more. And Pekarsky added, the savvy compensation committees will reward partners accordingly.
What are the other rewards of spin?
Interesting work. A lawyer who spins down the work, keeps the most interesting, highly paid work for his/herself.
Making more money. The lawyer who spins doesn’t have to write down bills and gets paid at a higher rate.
Given the advantages, why wouldn’t a lawyer delegate?
One reason lawyers don’t delegate is they don’t have enough work. They might need to hold onto every piece of work in order to meet their billable targets. But when a partner is doing all the work, including the low level stuff, it means that he/she is going to have to reduce the fees. As a result their effective billing rate lowers and they have to work more hours to hit their target. They would be better off spinning work to juniors and investing some non-billable time on marketing and business development to bring more work in the door.
Another reason is that the lawyer may have picked up the bad habit as an associate watching other lawyers at the firm. Many firms have chronic hoarders, and they set a bad example.
When is it best for associates to begin delegating?
As an associate you are ready to spin work when you are at the level where you have some experience under your belt and there’s legal work that you have done twenty times and don’t really need to do again.
Pekarsky divided delegation into two types, healthy and unhealthy.
Heathly delegation is:
- Well intended. You want to pass on a piece of work to a junior who will have a chance to learn something new.
- Based on experience. You have done this type of work many times previously and no longer have anything to learn from it.
Unhealthy delegation is:
- Getting rid of a dog file. This is when you have a tough file that you are struggling with and instead of working through the issues you just pass it to someone else.
- I’ve never done it and don’t want to. You pass some work on that you have never done yourself.
To illustrate Pekarsky offered a quote from his drama instructor at Brentwood College:
“You can’t act on a stage unless you’ve swept it.”
Or in other words don’t delegate your dirty work to subordinates and hit the golf course. Don’t unload your dog files.
What can get in the way?
Here are some of the common objections to delegation:
“I can’t delegate because it takes too much time. It’s faster if I do it myself.”
That’s true, the first time. But the second, third, tenth, thirty-eighth times, it’s faster. And by delegating you will get to spend more time on interesting work at your top billable hour. If you don’t delegate you are going to get stuck in the trenches working even longer hours for a lousy effective rate.
Another common objection is:
“I don’t trust a junior to do the work as well as I can.”
Pekarsky’s response, “drop your ego.” Successful people surround themselves with talent. Your challenge is to help develop the juniors so that they do the work as well if not better than you do.
Delegation is one of the lawyer behaviors that need to be rewarded by compensation committees. For a law firm to be most profitable partners are required to spin work down to juniors. Savvy compensation committees look at the combination of billable hours and spin earnings when allocating partner income.
For associates, delegation is one skill to start practicing early. Share the work that has become routine with the juniors. Reach for work that is challenging.
Spin your way to more interesting work for better money. Get out of the parking lot and onto Route 66.
February 16, 2007
From day one of their practice lawyers are inducted into the world of the billable hour. Efficient tracking and billing of time is vital to a lawyer’s success.
Time is money.
So it is not surprising that when I meet with lawyer friends for lunch and coffee one of the complaints I most often hear is: why would I bother to do X if I’m not compensated for it. X can stand for lead the practice group, bring in business for other members of the firm, dedicate time to marketing activities, or help manage the firm.
And they have a point.
Sure there are intrinsic rewards to be garnered including the lawyer’s own long term professional goals and interests, and the long term benefit and prosperity of the firm, but let’s face it, when the compensation committee comes to call, it can be a real slap in the face when all the hard work and effort goes unrewarded.
I know one great business developer who threw up his hands and said forget it! If all you want is billing, that’s all you will get.
This week Beverly Cramp of The Lawyers Weekly has published an informative article following up on the discussion Simon Taylor and I had in this blog earlier this year about an innovative new compensation system being introduced by a local Vancouver law firm. Taylor worked with the firm extensively on the system and shared with me some of the ideas behind the approach.
Here’s a quote from Cramp’s article:
But the more time partners spend building relationships, the less time they have for doing their own billable work and with a compensation system overemphasizing the partner’s billable hour record, their income can fall. This is a financial disincentive to delegating work and spending time with new clients. So even though one of the key drivers of profitability is the ability to effectively delegate, the partnership is collectively shooting itself in the foot. This calls for significant changes in partnership behaviour. But this stuff isn’t learned at law school. Entire careers are built on billable hours. Simon Taylor
I encourage you to take a moment to read the article in full. And if you want to make changes to your firm’s compensation here’s what can help:
- Align the compensation system with the overall firm strategy
- Develop a long term change management plan, with strategies developed in advance for overcoming some of the road blocks and objections you know will arise
- Support your plan with clear and frequent communication and dialogue from the leadership with members of the firm
- Set your lawyers up for success. If you are asking busy professionals to make a significant change to their practice make sure you are giving the support to make that change. Invest in the tools, technology, and professional assistance that they will need to succeed.
The crucial point is to not allow the fear of change (or the turmoil cause by change) to prevent your firm from taking measures to strategically manage the practice.
January 4, 2007
Is there any more contentious issue at law firms then compensation systems? At most of the firms I have worked with there is dissatisfaction with the current system but nobody wants to take on the challenge of developing something new.
In late 2005, I attended a seminar held by David Maister in Seattle. When he opened the floor up for questions a lawyer immediately brought up the issue of compensation systems and a long and fiery conversation ensued. The merits and drawbacks of performance-based compensation systems vs. lock-step systems were debated at length.
Maister advocates for a compensation system that emphasises a firm’s active management of performance. I recommend his blog post of April 3, 2006 for a valuable review of the two systems. Here’s an excerpt:
The disadvantage of pay-for-performance compensation systems is that they provide a wonderful excuse not to manage. If someone’s performance is down, instead of management seeing that there is an obligation to go help that person, they have a wonderful cop-out. They say, We cut his pay. We’ve done our job. The rest is up to him or her.
Contrast this with what happens in a system where everyone gets a relatively fixed salary or share of profits, which changes as you get more seniority, if you survive.
In such a system (often called a lockstep system because people move in lockstep up the pay scale), if someone underperforms, you have only two choices. You either (a) work with that person and help them improve to deserve the same income as their peers or (b) if you cannot restore them to full share, you have to ask them to leave. Notice that having lockstep without the guts to deal with performance issues is clearly a disaster! A fixed-share or fixed salary system FORCES YOU to manage, ie to be intolerant of underperformance.
In other words, by not paying for performance, you end up with higher performance by tackling performance issues. By paying for performance, you get less performance because the system allows you to accommodate underperformance.
I have always been a fan of lock-step compensation systems. I began my legal career with an international law firm based in London. When the firm opened their New York office one of the attractions they offered their lateral hires was lock-step partnership. At the time, the New York office Managing Partner conducted many interviews with the US legal press on the advantages of the lock-step system. The system gave the international firm a great deal of flexibility in deploying their lawyers strategically around the globe. The New York office Managing Partner was a top-class securities lawyer from London. Because of the lock-step system he was able to move from London to the New York office to support the expansion even though it meant his billings were significantly reduced for a number of years.
Now many years later in Vancouver, one of the complaints I hear from many partners is that firms do not adequately encourage nor support them in managing practice groups, nor in engaging in business development activities. When I have spoken with these partners about the problem I have learned that for some the issue is a lack of flexibility in the compensation system for billable hour targets when a fee earner is undertaking additional managerial responsibilities.
In Vancouver we have yet to see anything approaching a lock-step system. I did though recently learn that a local law firm has taken the bold step of implementing a blended form of compensation which rewards the performance of the team rather than the individual.
Over lunch in late December, Simon Taylor from Catalyst Consulting told me about some very interesting work he had been doing with a Vancouver mid-sized firm. Working with the Managing Partner, he has helped the firm design and implement a compensation system that rewards the work of the practice group. Individual partner’s compensation is tied to the performance of the practice groups they are involved in. One of the measures of performance is client satisfaction. The firm has implemented a client satisfaction survey. Lawyers are only compensated when they reach a level of client satisfaction of 94% or higher. The goal of the system is to reward teamwork in the practice group, and promote an emphasis on client service.
This compensation system is basically saying “we will reward you for achieving this set goal”. That works fine for the lawyers who naturally work in this manner. But for the others, how is the firm going to help them to learn the new behaviors required to succeed? Incentives alone are not enough. They don’t get around the essential work of managing the people and supporting their efforts to adapt to the new system.
What I wonder is, what is the firm doing to support the lawyers in effectively managing their practice groups? How is the firm helping the lawyers to deliver this outstanding service? How is the firm setting up these lawyers to succeed?
I spoke with Simon this morning and he will be adding a comment today that elaborates on the above. Thanks Simon!