Consultants struggle to win partner buy-in
City lawyers have a decidedly jaded view of the contribution of consultants to the legal profession, according to research that should provide a wake-up call to advisory professionals.
June 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM
6 minute read
Consultants are seen as a very mixed bag by a sceptical profession but legal specialists are ranked above generalist advisers, with Hildebrandt cited as best of breed. Claire Ruckin reports
City lawyers have a decidedly jaded view of the contribution of consultants to the legal profession, according to research that should provide a wake-up call to advisory professionals.
The latest Big Question survey of partners at major law firms found 42% of respondents thought the standard and contribution of consultants that specialise in advising law firms to be merely 'OK'. A further 30% thought they were 'not very good', while 6% rated them as 'poor'. At the other end of the spectrum, 22% of respondents rated legal consultants as either 'good' or 'excellent'.
There was a widespread feeling that standards in legal consultancy are very mixed with more than half of respondents agreeing that 'some are excellent, some are poor'. Nearly one in four partners agreed with the statement 'consultants' ideas are superficial and unoriginal'.
The poll also generated a stream of negative comments, with one partner dubbing consultants "a poor substitute for poor management".
However, Herbert Smith managing partner David Willis commented: "A lot of the ideas get passed from firm to firm and it is easy to be cynical, but there are some very good business people in these organisations."
Willis said Herbert Smith had used consultants prior to the opening of a new office in Spain, which was launched this month: "Legal consultants can bring insight on a particular matter that a firm would not necessarily have themselves."
Asked which two consultants they had the most favourable impression of, Hildebrandt was the clear leader, cited by 49% of respondents, ahead of bluechip consultants McKinsey & Company and Bain & Company, which were cited by 42% and 35% respectively.
The other legal consultancy to score strongly was Jomati, the business set up by former Clifford Chance managing partner Tony Williams, which was cited by 30%. Other consultants that respondents were asked to rate were: RSG Consulting, H4, Zeughauser Group and Altman Weil.
Despite the strong ranking for McKinsey and Bain, opinion was sharply divided among the poll of 90 respondents on the contribution of generalist consultants. Partners, on the whole, valued the contribution of generalist consultants that advise companies less than that of specialist legal businesses. Nearly two-thirds of partners (62%) rated generalist consultants' contribution to law firms as 'not very good' or 'poor', against 37% for legal consultants.
McKinsey has advised a number of firms in recent years, including Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and White & Case, while Bain advised Norton Rose on a controversial 'go global' strategy in the 1990s.
However, some argued that bluechip consultants introduced the wider perspective needed by cross-border law firms.
Linklaters chief global operating officer Simon Thompson said: "Many firms can get value out of a legal-specific consultancy learning how the best firms in the industry operate, but the larger firms really need to differentiate and innovate – learning best practice from other industries/sectors is key to this."
He added: "Consultants that just specialise in legal can be quite generic in what they can offer. Consultants need a broader commercial experience to bring to the table. Added value can come from a knowledge and understanding of how other types of organisations operate in areas such as product marketing, communications and knowledge management."
Yet the main criticism of consultants stems not only from relevance but pricing – which can see firms racking up hefty bills from bluechip advisers.
Thompson conceded: "It is expensive, so consultants need to be managed carefully, targeted and used in an area where they can genuinely add value."
Slaughter and May senior partner Chris Saul concluded: "The best legal consultants can bring a sense of perspective and relativity. They have a broad knowledge of the market.
"Although we have tended not to use them, we do see a reasonable amount of them and they can clearly add value on strategic issues for firms and act as 'grit in the oyster' in provoking debate."
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Partners on consultants – in quotes
"The most annoying thing about legal consultants is when they say: "Why did you do that?!" when the answer is: "Because you told us to do it the last time we asked you to advise us!". They often give faddy, poorly-thought through advice, then when they come back and see you again it's a new set of fadddy, poorly-thought through advice."
"They are a poor substitute for poor management."
"It is hard for consultants to properly advise unless they really understand the culture of the specific firm."
"While consultants may have their uses in that they can provide input about how particular issues are being addressed elsewhere, I have sometimes felt that they are learning in the job and aiming to use their experience on my job to get them their next job."
"Executive coaching provides an excellent opportunity for lawyers/firms to maximise their potential, but the surface has hardly been scratched yet. Coaches like Laurie Adams of Insight Outsight and Sarah Evans of All Rise have a lot to offer."
"Consultants are only of use if the management and partnership is serious about informing and listening to and learning from them. If the process is a seen-to-be-gone-through-type process, it is a waste of money and effort. Equally, the consultants should be given a tight brief properly staggered."
"There is room for more consultants in the legal services market."
"My experience is that some just push their own pet theories about how firms should fit into particular moulds and others just tell you the pretty obvious (the latter not necessarily being a bad thing to do in order to get buy in)."
"Consultants can be good at forcing businesses to confront issues, perhaps because they can sit above the complex personal and political issues inherent in partnership. The misconception is that they are best qualified to come up with strategies for dealing with problems. Consultants themselves often oversell what they do and describe it in complex management speak to add to its mystery when it's really about sensible planning for the business."
"Some consultants who specialise in the law are very useful, while those with no specialised knowledge are not."
Partners on consultants – key stats
* 22% rate legal consultants as good or excellent.
* 9% see non-legal consultants as good or excellent.
* 1% agree that consultants 'bring fresh and original thinking'.
* 22% agree consultants 'are a useful sounding board'.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Graffiti Showdown: Miami Clashes Over Demolition Site Cleanup Before New Year’s
- 2Phila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
- 3Appellate Division Greenlights State Bar's Leadership Diversity Initiatives
- 4SEC’s Latest Enforcement Actions Fuel Demand for Big Law
- 5Sterlington Brings On Former Office Leader From Ashurst
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