Managing Partners' Frustration Mounts as Law Firm Innovation Stagnates
A new survey shows that law firm leaders are increasingly fed up with their partners' resistance to change. Meanwhile, half of firm leaders said there's nothing especially different about their firms compared to their competitors.
May 21, 2018 at 03:21 PM
5 minute read
Photo Credit: Pathdoc/Shutterstock.com
Give your managing partner a hug. Odds are he or she is increasingly frustrated.
Because of you, stubborn partner.
That's one takeaway from the 10th annual Law Firms in Transition Survey released Monday by legal consultancy Altman Weil Inc. The survey of 801 leaders of firms with 50 or more lawyers showed that a record 33 percent expressed “low” confidence in their firm's ability to keep pace with challenges in the legal market.
This pessimism has grown steadily since the survey began asking the question in 2011, when a mere 8 percent showed a low-level of confidence in their firm's adaptability, but it spiked this year, up from 24 percent in 2017. Meanwhile, a record low number of law firm leaders expressed high confidence: just 5.6 percent; down from 8.6 percent a year ago.
That correlates with managing partners' growing disbelief in their partnership's ability to adapt. A record 58 percent of managing partners rated their partners' level of adaptability to change as “low.” That number was 48 percent in 2014. A mere 1.5 percent of leaders this year gave their partners “high” marks in that category; down from 4 percent as recently as 2016.
“Law firm leaders need to engage their influential partners now in the thoughtful consideration of current market change and likely future outcomes,” stated the Altman Weil report. “Those partners need to care about the future of the firm—or, at the very least, get out of the way.”
A record 68.6 percent of leaders said the No. 1 reason they aren't doing more to change their legal service delivery model is because partners resist efforts to change. That number has jumped from 44 percent in 2015, which made it the third most-cited reason that firms aren't doing more to change.
In 2015, the most-cited reason was clients not asking for change, which 62.7 percent of leaders cited. In a sign that clients are wielding more purchasing power, that percentage has since fallen every year thereafter to a low this year of 54.7 percent.
Thomas Clay, a principal at Altman Weil who co-authored the survey, said the report showed only about a third of firms are truly committed to pursuing innovative ideas. But it skewed much more heavily toward large law firms, suggesting to Clay that bigger firms will continue to separate themselves from the pack as those investments pay off.
Tom Clay.
“The whole profession is changing rapidly, and to just drift along, make incremental changes and not have a dedication to innovation in some way seems idiotic to me,” Clay said. “And the more vexing thing from a firm standpoint is the bigger-sized firms are doing more and doing it faster. But there isn't anything they are doing that smaller sized firms couldn't do, realistically. Mostly all of the innovations available in the way you serve clients are available to everyone.”
One other reason firms may be reluctant to invest in efficiency-focused initiatives is that they don't always pay off right away.
For instance, about 53 percent of firm leaders said they had given compensation rewards to partners who are more efficient. But only 47 percent of those leaders said that resulted in significant improvement. Nearly 10 percent said it didn't, and nearly 44 percent said it was too soon to tell.
That is a quandary firm leaders will be eager to solve, because they do not view a focus on efficiency as a passing fad. A full 94 percent said a focus on efficiency is a permanent trend in the legal services industry.
For some firms, the survey stated practicing more efficiently can be a way to differentiate your offering, something many firms struggle to do. Altman Weil for the first time this year asked firm leaders if, “in their most candid assessment,” they felt their firm was “clearly and specifically differentiated” from its peers. Half responded “no.”
The survey also showed that firms who self-assessed themselves as “differentiated” also reported greater success in implementing efficiency tactics. For instance, 75 percent of “differentiated” firms that shifted work from lawyers to paralegals said the tactic was effective, compared to 54 percent of “non-differentiated” firms who found the tactic effective.
“Differentiation is meaningful,” Clay said. “If you sit there as a managing partner who fills out this survey and say we're not differentiated as a firm, then you're not doing your job.”
➤➤ Want to receive the latest news about change in the legal industry? Sign up here for The Law Firm Disrupted, a weekly briefing by Roy Strom.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllNewly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Many Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute readDavis Polk Launches European Restructuring Practice, Hires Sidley Duo in London
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 2HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 3'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 4Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 5Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
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