Does Your Firm's Strategic Plan Say Little and Accomplish Less?
The most successful firms take the care to make necessary fundamental changes, despite the inherent difficulty. The least successful fail at the planning stage.
August 16, 2018 at 12:07 PM
6 minute read
While most law firms embrace the concept of planning their future, they quickly discover that strategizing is hard, and developing consensus among partners is even harder. Even among the most talented managing partners across the profession, strategic planning continues to be one of the more exasperating parts of the job.
Law firm strategic plans generally fall into one of three categories. The most common type can be summarized as follows: “Here are all of the things we do now, but we are going to do them better, and we are going to market more.” This is a plan that avoids hard decisions and confronting existing problems, thereby making it easy to approve. But it also results in no meaningful improvement.
A second type is heavy on slogans, has a litany of routine management decisions, and some organizational reshuffling (“industry groups will replace practice groups!”). The result is a plan that is filled with inconsequential changes, and innocuous enough that no one is sure when it has been achieved. Even if it is perfectly executed, it doesn't result in any meaningful change.
The third type is the most successful, but sadly, quite rare. It is short (often one or two pages) and focuses on a few significant but difficult and fundamental changes. This type of plan typically focuses on shifting the firm's market position and approach, prioritizing investments for the short- and mid-term, addressing cultural weaknesses, and realigning the structure for the success of the firm.
Why is planning so challenging in law firms? There are five common causes:
- The wrong people, or too many people, drafting the plan. Successful planning requires great leadership, careful digesting of internal and external input, the ability to discern symptoms from causes, a willingness to be brutally honest, and, ultimately, widespread support and buy-in. To be democratic and inclusive, many firms mistakenly assume that the more people involved, the better. These firms overlook two important realities: First, there is a critical difference between incorporating important, thoughtful input from all constituents and abandoning the process to a large group. Unfortunately, as most planning committees gets bigger, most plans get longer, yet say less and less. Second, though it may be hard to accept, few lawyers have great leadership skills or the ability to run a successful firm. So large groups tend to have fewer talented leaders, and as a result tend to produce the least successful plans.
- The plan is undertaken for the wrong reasons. Strategic planning should not be a fun team-building activity at a retreat, or an exercise to make routine management decisions, or an effort to produce a marketing document. Strategic planning should be reserved as a serious effort aimed at refocusing and changing the firm.
- It's about the firm. As a general counsel for a large public company observed, “I had no idea how many big firms are just loose coalitions of sole practitioners who don't cooperate internally unless I force them to.” That is less a criticism than an acknowledgement of reality. Many firms and partners prefer latitude and freedom to teamwork and accountability. Unfortunately, such firms tend to have lower levels of success, profits and morale than their team-oriented peers, and frequently suffer mixed reputations for quality.
- Fear. Some firms and leaders fear change. That fear results in soft plans that sound nice but don't require anything from anyone. A good rule of thumb is that if your planning effort doesn't force you to debate difficult issues and make hard decisions about investment priorities in your future, you probably just made a list of slogans and irrelevant initiatives rather than a strategic plan.
- Overinvesting in drafting and underinvesting in selling and implementing. For too many firms the time invested in drafting a plan vastly exceeds the time spent selling it and implementing it. If you don't convince your lawyers of the need for change—and help them to deal with it—you have probably wasted your time.
How do successful firms develop and implement a meaningful strategic plan? Experience shows their planning efforts tend to share six characteristics:
- They tend to use a small group of natural leaders, who are not afraid to voraciously listen to input regardless of its source, and who can make hard decisions. The challenge for many firms is that they don't have enough great natural leaders.
- They focus on significant, macro level strategies and goals, and avoid platitudes. They contemplate real shifts in market position, changes in practice investments and historic approach, and don't cloud the plan with rote management issues. (If the goals and strategies are well thought out, they should remain unchanged for five or more years. But the tactics should constantly evolve as some succeed, others fail, and new ones are developed. So, it isn't necessary to list every tactic in the plan.)
- They clearly acknowledge the firm's weaknesses and how the market and competitors are changing. (Hint: Your partners and associates know the weaknesses of your firm. They talk about them over lunch and in the hallways. So you aren't scaring anyone by admitting what they already know. To the contrary, acknowledging your firm's weaknesses buys you credibility to make hard changes.) They explain precisely what must change, talk about the difficulties the firm will encounter, and confront the impact on partners.
- Partners put the firm before self. Don't think everyone will like your plan. It isn't unusual for 20 percent of partners to dislike a plan, even in the most successful firms. But partners in firms that are philosophically aligned (in other words, successful, integrated firms) routinely compromise to do what is in the best interests of the firm, not just themselves.
- Everyone understands the plan. If the average partner or associate can't clearly articulate your plan in 30 seconds, including what will change and what their role will be, then you failed to sell and communicate it.
- They use talented leaders to help partners achieve the plan. Leaders in successful firms don't just throw around slogans and wait for a miracle. They spend hundreds of hours talking one-on-one with their lawyers, guiding them and helping them to succeed.
Blane R. Prescott is a consultant and principal with the strategy consulting firm MesaFive LLC. MesaFive works with law firms and in-house legal departments on strategy, structure and growth issues. Contact him at [email protected].
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
© 2025 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 AllChange Is Coming With the New Trump Era. For Big Law, Change Is Already Here
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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