12. How to Plan for the Year Ahead
This is the season for business plans, budgets and compensation discussions. Goal setting, managing expectations, identifying resources, and planning methods of work-delivery -- this is essentially what law firm leaders are contemplating at the beginning of the year.
January 14, 2022 at 01:17 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
It's that time again, as we close the book on the year gone and plan the year ahead. On the client side of the market, many GCs are still facing all the familiar challenges, only with less budget and more to achieve. But for many law firms, the mood is altogether brighter. This is the season for business plans, budgets and compensation discussions, and for most, the past year went much better than expected. Demand for M&A, real estate and litigation were up. For many firms, revenues were up, travel costs and other overheads were down, and profit targets were met or even exceeded. For these firms, the sense may be that they have adapted to the pandemic and all is well.
But did law firms really get through the year unscathed, or is this just what they tell themselves based on surface data? This is the time when law firm leaders plan how to go again, and do even better. Planning is the first foundation of the Lean Adviser program, and the parallels are clear. In the context of a client assignment, Lean Adviser has modules on goal setting, managing expectations, identifying resources, and planning methods of work-delivery. This is essentially what law firm leaders are contemplating at the beginning of the year. Those who look "up and out" will see that their clients are still unhappy, and still facing huge challenges. Those who look "down and in" will see an operating model which has become vulnerable to the talent war. As we discuss in Lean Adviser, if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail.
Here is our laundry list of three areas to consider:
|- Goal Setting: In any project in manufacturing, the first question is always "what does good look like?" This is a great question for law firms, and it has two limbs:
- What does client satisfaction look like? To law firms it looks like repeat business, but really that's just the outcome, not how to create it. The deeper question is how do clients actually want outside counsel to operate? This unanswered question is the reason Lean Adviser was created.
- What does associate satisfaction look like? This question has become top of mind for law firm leaders. Just as repeat business is only the outcome of client satisfaction, so good retention is the outcome of associate satisfaction. But if associate satisfaction is a real goal, which it should be, then this poses much deeper questions about inclusive leadership — and of course culture.
- Planning Resources: This is easy to define and hard to solve. We know that firms only have one resource — talent. The challenge is planning how to fill talent in the right areas, at the right levels, and then retain these talented lawyers. A challenge that has become more difficult with the ongoing war for talent.
- Planning Methods: This is the piece which is easiest to miss, but actually goes a long way to answer the previous questions. One of our key tenets is that methods matter. They matter to clients, and they matter to associates. So considered planning is vital. Again, this has two limbs:
- Working methods affect client satisfaction. Expertise is a given, and so method of delivery is the thing they care about most, and the biggest differentiator.
- Working methods affect resources, meaning acquiring and retaining talent. Right now, law firm leaders are trying to plan for the return to office and for ongoing remote operations. These practical things affect associate satisfaction, but don't forget the key behaviors and soft skills which we identified in the previous lesson.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWill Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readContract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250