HR Feature Human Resources Management

Problem Partners

Help your firm leadership shift from underperformers to productive team members. 

All firms have it. Firm leaders wish it would correct itself, but it won’t. Underperforming partners are a pain point for many firms. As professional advocates, attorneys refrain from showing weakness. This exacerbates the problem, as underperformers avoid asking for help and firm leaders avoid addressing the issue. But in your role you can help your firm leadership step up and address these issues.

Sharon Meit Abrahams, E<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">d</span>D

The first step in the process is to understand why a partner begins to slip. For every individual attorney there is a unique reason and backstory for their issues. In your role, you can help uncover what is happening.

“It may be that the person was always an underperformer, but it had gone unrecognized due to the fact that others were bigger concerns,” says John Harrity, Managing Partner of Harrity LLP. He further explains that there are levels of underperformance, and as the lowest performing attorney leaves, the next lowest performing attorney moves to the bottom of the list.

Thomas S. Tripodianos, Managing Partner of Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, also suggests the underperformance issues might stem from the attorney feeling as though management isn’t invested in them. He adds that the obvious outcome is that they are not invested in the firm, so their productivity recedes.

“From my perspective, successful performance is best viewed on a spectrum for all attorneys — not with a binary ‘good/bad’ lens.”

There is also another common culprit causing the problems: inability to change. “There are some folks who have embraced change, but there are the ones who are resistant,” says Jack Greiner, Managing Partner of Graydon Law. “Their lack of change can impact client relationships, especially when it comes to retaining the client.”

Erin Rhinehart, Co-Managing Partner at Faruki PLL, adds, “In my experience, partners (voting and nonvoting) underperform when business slows, skills fatigue, accountability is lacking, there are interpersonal issues among the partnership and leadership transitions.”

No matter the reasons, there are generally three main categories for falling behind: situational issues, practice issues and age-related issues. Unfortunately, most firm leaders manage generically, says Gerry Riskin, Founder of law firm consultancy Edge International. “They apply a measurement to an entire class [of attorney] rather than looking at each person individually.”

But it’s important to understand what is happening with the individual underperformer to help them improve. A good place to begin is by helping your leadership identify which category the poor performers fall under by asking the right questions around the issues.

UNCOVERING THE UNDERPERFORMANCE REASONS

It’s important to remember that people are unique. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. “From my perspective, successful performance is best viewed on a spectrum for all attorneys — not with a binary ‘good/bad’ lens,” says Thomas Tupitza, President of Knox McLaughlin Gornall & Sennett, P.C.

Situational issues, which is the first category for falling behind, are events or changes to the partner’s standard operating procedure. If the partner does not have a plan to address a situation, they can begin to flounder.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an extreme example of a situational issue that no one had a plan to address. It caused some practice areas to surge and others to fade. Therefore, underperformance might become an issue with attorneys who have always been productive.

Some other situational issues that might happen include:

  • Loss of major client(s)
  • Market driven change
  • Firm standards increasing over time

Greiner also points out a partner might have trouble if a great client relationship they’ve had for a while goes away — they can find it hard to adapt. It’s common when the general counsel changes and there is limited time to build a new relationship before work is transferred to another firm. To address situational concerns, guide the firm to offer proper support to help the attorney overcome whatever it is that has impacted their practice.

Practice issues can also arise when the partner fails to stay on top of their own career. They look up one day and realize they are not practicing in the area they want, they are not at the level in the firm they desire, or they see their area of practice is no longer needed. Harrity says an attorney may begin to underperform because they’ve lost interest in their job.

Some of the issues the partner could be facing include:

  • Failure to reinvent skills
  • Failure to progress
    • Stalled out midcareer
    • Lack of business development or client service mindset/skills
  • Burnout
  • Comfort/compliancy

“Skill fatigue” might be the root of the issue, too, according to Rhinehart. “When a partner begins to handle the strategic parts of a case, they spend less time in [the] weeds. This might cause them to lose confidence in their own skills because they have not kept up to date.” Often firms create their own practice issues by promoting attorneys into partnership levels when they lack the drive or ability to be a productive partner.

“When a partner begins to handle the strategic parts of a case, they spend less time in [the] weeds. This might cause them to lose confidence in their own skills because they have not kept up to date.”

A trickier issue to address can be the ego and self-identity that drives many lawyers to stay in practice long after they should. It can be a barrier to proper succession planning for the firm, too. In fact, it’s reported that over 50% of partners in law firms are 55 or older.

Age-related issues are just as daunting to overcome as situational and practice issues. The following are a few to consider:

  • Transition of client relationships
  • Financial setbacks and recession stretching out retirements
  • Ego preservation
  • Life-driven changes

“Twenty-five years ago, the perception of what it meant to practice was different. Some partners either can’t retire or are reluctant to retire due to financial pressures,” says Riskin. His mantra for these scenarios is to “help them find their value.” He tries to guide attorneys toward another focus, such as a mediation practice, that requires a certain skill set that does not necessarily mature until someone has been in practice for a while. Riskin stresses that opportunities are still available to these partners beyond the firm’s walls.

When addressing issues that fall in the age-related realm, you must heighten everyone’s awareness not to cross the line with any discriminatory comments or actions. But having these conversations is important, especially when it comes to discussing next steps for the firm beyond the partner.

ADDRESSING THE ISSUE

Whether it’s caused by situational issues, practice issues and age-related issues, chronic underperformance can be a blow to a partner’s career. If they are not equipped to manage the problem, they can fall victim to a downward spiral. Without the firm’s support, training and guidance, partners who are suffering from any of the above might not know how to proceed. Help your firm leadership determine the root cause of the poor performance and then help the partner address it.

“A leader who thinks [financial] punishment is effective is delusional,” says Riskin. “The motivation is not money.”

Reduction in compensation is not a solution; countless management studies have proven this to be true. Regrettably, 90% of firms will reduce compensation to address the issue, and 39% will de-equitize the partner, according to Altman Weil’s 2019 Law Firms in Transitions Survey. Further, the survey reports that 61% will remove the partner from the firm in the end.

When addressing issues that fall in the age-related realm, you must heighten everyone’s awareness not to cross the line with any discriminatory comments or actions. But having these conversations is important, especially when it comes to discussing next steps for the firm beyond the partner.

It’s time to shift firm leadership away from punishing and toward coaching. “When a lawyer who has a history of performing well slides into poor performance, you need to have candid discussions without being threatening or irritated,” says Mickey Maher, Managing Partner of Hecht Solberg Robinson Goldberg & Bagley LLP. “Something has led to the poor performance, and it’s the manager’s role to get at the root cause and fashion a solution.”

Your leadership might not know how to work with a poor performer, but you can coach them to be coaches. Before the managing partner or practice leader starts coaching, gather information from the offending attorney’s colleagues, direct reports and, if appropriate, clients. Prepare financial data and a list of resources for the firm leader to refer to if necessary. The next critical step is to teach the firm leader how to effectively coach. The following will help you guide them:

  1. Show the coaching partner how to be a good listener.
  2. Ask the partner to help the underperformer look for ways to solve their own problems.
  3. Have the coaching partner share resources.
  4. Support the coaching partner in setting targets/goals with the underperformer.
  5. Celebrate success.

It is difficult for some people to ask for help, especially attorneys. Your firm leaders want to help those they see in distress, but sometimes they lack the skills or experience to handle difficult conversations.

But you can support both the leaders and the underperformer during this stressful process.

Once an underperforming partner sees their progress, they will be motivated to put energy back into their practice and into the firm. It’s a benevolent way to move your problem partners to productive partners.

 
LI Feature Legal Industry/Business Management

The Gentle Pushback

How can firms satisfy continued client cost requests — and still stay solvent?

When in-house teams pulled back on outside legal spending during the Great Recession, the competition among law firms for the work that remained intensified. The legal services industry became a buyer’s market — and that mindset, for some, long outlasted the economic downturn.

Erin Brereton

“The immediate aftermath of the recession was in-house counsel suddenly started to demand discounts — and they got them because law firms didn't know what else to do,” says Tim Corcoran, Principal at Corcoran Consulting. “Without a huge change in the value that was delivered, they simply wanted to spend less for what they were buying.”

Today, the pressure to provide services at a lower cost remains a reality for a number of law firms. Up to a fifth of the fees at firms with more than 250 lawyers come from discounted hourly rates, according to Altman Weil’s 2020 Law Firms in Transition survey. At firms with fewer than 250 attorneys, 31% to 40% of the fees, on average, involve discounted rates.

In some instances, firms may be able to offset fee reductions by trimming internal expenses. But that’s not always a viable option. More than half of the attorneys who participated in a 2019 survey said managing rate discounts is one of the biggest challenges associated with pricing.

When firms find they can’t meet a fee request and provide quality legal services, informing the client can be a challenging prospect. The following approaches can help law firms effectively convey cost parameters, ensure operations remain profitable — and carefully preserve the client relationship.

MAKE COST A JOINT CONVERSATION

Pricing disconnects can arise if clients underestimate the amount of time matters will require.

Trying to align expectations may help them become more comfortable with the proposed cost, Corcoran says. For instance, if a client feels work will take much less time than the firm anticipates, the firm may want to point out the time estimate is based on its prior experience. They can offer to work with the client to determine a fee for the first stage of the engagement. That may lead to subsequent stages being priced more realistically once everyone has seen what the work involves.

“[A firm could say], if it goes further, let’s negotiate those terms at that time, not discuss it now,” he says. “It becomes a business discussion for many clients, not just a price, take it or leave it.”

“We’ve had situations where there’s been a request to abate or hold off on some of the fees, or a success fee if something good happens in the case. Sometimes the risky ones turn out to be beneficial, so we’re OK taking on a little risk here and there.”

Corcoran says a collaborative approach to matter pricing can also provide an additional bonus — a chance to emphasize the firm’s expertise.

“Saying, ‘To give you a proposal for what it would cost, we’ve got to dig into the issue’ — that exercise is a great way to demonstrate [the firm knows] what [it’s] talking about,” he says. “We know what questions to ask, can compare it to other matters we’ve done — we’ll come up with budget to help you manage your CFO.”

ASK FOR ALTERNATIVE COMPENSATION 

Salisian Lee LLP of Los Angeles has found a flat-fee structure doesn’t often work well for its litigation work due to the time it can involve. So the seven-attorney firm instead opts for a fair amount of hybrid structures, says Co-Managing Partner Neal Salisian — potentially combining a reduced hourly rate and contingency.

“That way, we know should we prevail, there’s going to be a small contingency benefit at the end of the arrangement, so everyone’s kind of sharing in the risk,” Salisian says. “Clients are very receptive to the concept because they can get your hourly rate for [less]; the other benefit is they don’t have to give up so much upside. If you’re talking about a multimillion-dollar damage claim, sometimes they don’t want to give up 40% of that.”

Clients have also approached the firm with completely different fee structure ideas, Salisian says. Leadership will run the numbers to decide whether the arrangement would work, factoring in elements such as what the spend for particular associates to work on the case would be and any potential recoveries.

“If someone complains about the fee, they usually don’t understand what’s behind the fee.”

“If a client has a creative way it wants to structure a deal, we’ll consider it,” he says. “We’ve had situations where there’s been a request to abate or hold off on some of the fees, or a success fee if something good happens in the case. Sometimes the risky ones turn out to be beneficial, so we’re OK taking on a little risk here and there.”

The firm has had a fairly open approach to pricing since being founded a decade ago, according to Salisian. “For the most part, we’ve increased our flexibility in terms of what we take as a contingency fee,” he says. “It’s not a pure dollar amount; maybe there’s a piece of property someone is trying to get or prevent someone from getting, and you can structure a contingency based on the relative value of whatever was not lost or is acquired.”

ADJUST PAYMENT PROCESS TERMS

If reducing fees isn’t an option, clients may find some billing flexibility helpful.

In addition to accepting payments through systems like PayPal and Zelle, Florida immigration law firm Rambana & Ricci, P.L.L.C., offers various renumeration methods and incentives, according to Partner Elizabeth Ricci.

“I take payments over time, give discounts for payments in full and credit the consultation fee to keep clients and stay profitable,” Ricci says. “People appreciate that. I try to be as reasonable as possible, but I still have to pay my staff and have my own expenses.”

Because the airline industry has had a challenging year due to reduced flight demand, Dinsmore, a national law firm with more than 650 attorneys, has emphasized its desire to help ease payment pressures companies in the sector might be feeling, according to Josh Lorentz, a Partner and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Department and Finance Committee.

“We think in terms of decades,” Lorentz says. “Some clients in that industry asked if we could change the payment terms from 30 days to 60 or more. Some have asked for a temporary discount on invoices for three months. Those are things we’re willing to do, knowing it’s all going end and that industry is going to get back to normal.”

CONTINUOUSLY COMMUNICATE WORTH

Earlier this year, Rambana & Ricci increased its fee for matters relating to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal by approximately $250. This was due to the additional security features the firm needed to invest in after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began accepting signed documents digitally and the time required to address related filing changed.

Because DACA had been in the news and her clients were aware of the recent developments, Ricci was confident they’d understand why the firm had to charge more. However, people complained that because there was an economic downturn, she should have lowered prices, Ricci says.

“One client [asked] why were we charging so much,” she says. “I said, ‘I have to be on top of all the technology and legal changes that are literally happening day by day, and my time is valuable.’ If someone complains about the fee, they usually don’t understand what’s behind the fee.”

Highlighting the steps legal work involves — and any specific benefits clients receive — may help quell cost concerns.

Lorentz says some firms are underscoring services that clients were once billed for but they may now receive for no charge, such as legal research, which various organizations felt should be included in the firm’s overall legal fee after the Great Recession.

“With every new client, you have an opportunity for a retention agreement,” he says. “A lot of times, [firms may] put it up front — this includes these value-added services — so it’s known from the beginning.”

With the rise of the pricing professional role in the industry in recent years — whose job, Corcoran notes, is to provide financial insight on matters — and an increased emphasis on project management and process improvement, some firms now have data identifying the specific elements that are or could eventually be affecting matter time and cost.

“I take payments over time, give discounts for payments in full and credit the consultation fee to keep clients and stay profitable. People appreciate that. I try to be as reasonable as possible, but I still have to pay my staff and have my own expenses.”

That information can enable them to proactively explain and, if need be, defend their pricing structure on an ongoing basis.

“There are different tactical things firms can do to convey value,” Corcoran says. For example, he says there are a number of firms that emphasize, “‘We’re not just great lawyers but also great businessmen, and the benefit of working with us is we help you manage matters effectively, not just give you a legal outcome.’”

He notes some firms have realized using tools to provide feedback to clients in real time can be helpful. E-billing programs, for instance, can show they have the right people performing the right tasks — partners supervising and associates doing the work — and invoice content can also serve as a value touchpoint.

“There’s more understanding that invoice has the opportunity to convey value or irreparably harm the communication of value,” Corcoran says. “Some firms have spent a lot of time saying, ‘Here are the words we use in our time entries.’ It’s not just ‘Had lunch with colleagues, matter X.’ It’s ‘Met with colleague to talk about matter X and ensure we can overcome the most recent memo from the adversary and develop the recommendation for the client.’”

AN ENDURING INTEREST

While the Great Recession occurred more than a decade ago, it’s clear legal service costs remain a focus for numerous organizations.

Nearly three-quarters of in-house counsel have at least some concern their company is overspending on outside counsel, with more than a quarter reportedly very or extremely concerned, according to a 2020 LegalBillReview.com survey. More than half (55%) of the respondents indicated reducing outside counsel spend was one of their top initiatives.

“[During] the Recession, the people [lawyers] work for said, ‘Lower cost, improve value and throughput, improve quality and do it for less, or we’ll find someone who will,’” Corcoran says. “Those businesspeople will never take their foot off the accelerator.”

With uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic’s ultimate effect on the economy, that sentiment isn’t likely to change. Firms don’t, however, need to automatically respond to all matter fee requests by slashing what they charge.

After more than a decade of negotiating revised pricing, law firms may be better positioned to understand and address clients’ cost needs. That might be through a fee reduction combined with another incentive, using the first portion of a matter to gauge the time involved or another mutually beneficial means.

“During the Recession, we saw companies looking to price certain areas of work with different firms to see where they could get the best cost — more so than we’re seeing now,” Lorentz says. “A number of industries believe this pandemic is temporary; they’re willing to stick with service providers who partner with them. It takes a lot of leaning in to foster those relationships. Being willing to run with clients who are running and walk when they’re walking goes a long way.”