GCs say quality of staff is the most important factor when choosing a law firm – but many advisers fail with basic commercial acumen, explain Jonathan Day and Marc Bartel

A law firm has little to offer its clients beyond the quality of its staff. Every firm we encounter aspires to attract, develop and retain the very best lawyers, paralegals and support staff. That is why firms make bold promises to potential recruits: 'We will support you in balancing client demands with personal commitments. We will make sure you have access to development opportunities that meet your needs. We will always give you honest, constructive and open feedback.'

How well do law firms deliver on these promises? And does it matter to their clients? To find out more, we worked with Winmark Research and its network of managing partners to survey and interview both general counsel in large companies and managing partners in some of the UK's top firms.

Not surprisingly, quality of staff matters to clients. General counsel told us that quality of staff is by far the most important factor in their choice of a firm, and they added that most firms are falling short in developing commercial acumen and strategic thinking in their lawyers – factors that they, as clients, consider vitally important.

The view from managing partners was more of a surprise. The majority felt they were not doing a good job in attracting candidates who were strong in these areas. Only 17% of managing partners said their firms were good at assessing strategic thinking in recruitment candidates. Only 28% thought their firms developed strong strategic thinking skills in their staff.

The overall picture is equally bleak. No managing partner represented his firm as 'excellent' in managing talent, and 95% see their performance as below 'very good' – an unusually low rating for surveys of this sort. It seems that most law firms are failing to deliver on the promises they make to recruits – and to their clients.

Why is this happening? We think there are two principal reasons. First, talent development can become an end in itself, rather than a means for strengthening a firm's identity and executing its strategy. It becomes generic, unfocused and unrelated to the firm's distinctness. When this happens, the pressures of client work and financial performance understandably divert attention away from people development.

The managing partners we surveyed and interviewed indicated that this was indeed the case in their firms. They have processes for recruiting, developing and rewarding their people but, overall, don't see these processes as effectively linked to their firms' strategies or values. The processes are generic.

Second, there has been a trend towards people development as a 'mega project', something requiring many years of work and millions of pounds in investment – in huge human resources (HR) systems, training programmes, coaching, executive MBA programmes and the like. Worse, these initiatives often demand large amounts of time from senior firm personnel, a resource more precious even than cash.

god-employerReversing these trends requires a different mindset and approach. Firm leaders need to begin by working out what makes their offer distinct to clients: is it the global scope of the firm; deep coverage in an industry (eg, aviation) or functional speciality (eg, M&A); a special style of working with clients; a different strategy to that of its near neighbours' – for instance, an American firm fighting its way into the magic circle?

With clarity around this distinctness, firms can tailor their people development to their identity and strategy. People development thus becomes more 'surgical' – it is applied to specific skills and behaviours, skills that contribute to the firm's special positioning and its success against competitors.

This more focused approach to talent management can help firms shift from a 'mega project' mindset to one where attracting, retaining and developing people is a matter of simple and practical steps, each of which adds value on its own.

For instance, if clients prefer lawyers who are skilled in business problem-solving and in speaking the language of business, firms can adopt simple methods from management consultancies. Many of these use case-based interviews, and in some instances group problem-solving sessions, to screen for recruits with a strong problem-solving orientation. Other firms send their professionals who don't have formal business training – doctors, for instance – to high-intensity training to inculcate them in precisely the skills the firm requires and ensure that they speak the business language that the firm's clients prize.

A similar logic applies to succession planning – an area where managing partners identified an enormous gap between aspiration and reality. Good succession planning need not involve huge projects or massive HR information systems. Web-borne succession management tools and practical approaches to succession planning enable firms to move swiftly towards having an internal or external successor identified for key roles – heads of practice, for instance, or of major client service teams.

Experience with other professional sectors suggests that it is indeed possible to tailor talent development to a firm's strategy and identity. Goldman Sachs develops bankers with distinctive skills and a unique style; CEOs say that they can 'spot a McKinsey consultant from 100 metres'. Law firms can do likewise. Top law firms bring together extraordinarily bright, educated and motivated people to solve difficult, critical problems for their clients. These firms should provide unparalleled settings for developing people. With a practical approach and constancy to purpose, they can.

Jonathan Day is a partner in the leadership consulting practice in Heidrick & Struggles' London office and Marc Bartel managing partner for the London and Paris offices.