Power Sharing: Law Firms Say It Can Be Nirvana but Experts See Pitfalls
Experts aren't fond of the idea: two co-managing partners or a committee of equals running a law firm. But the leaders of some of New York's midsize firms swear by it.
May 15, 2018 at 04:53 PM
4 minute read
Photo: Shutterstock
Experts aren't fond of the idea: two co-managing partners or a committee of equals running a law firm. But the leaders of some of New York's midsize firms swear by it.
Of course, examples abound of law firms where co-managing partners don't mesh, alienating each other or the rest of the firm. On the eve of Valentine's Day in 2017, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott announced that it had installed a pair of leaders to serve as co-CEOs but earlier this month there was more dissension than love when one of them was ousted.
“It's not a great model, particularly in a midsize firm,” said Brad Hildebrandt, an expert in law firm management. “Anything can work. But my own experience with it is it more often doesn't work than works.”
One of the downsides of having two partners in the same role in a midsize firm is the loss of revenue when managers spend less time on their own practices. Neither Hildebrandt nor Lisa Smith, who heads the Washington, D.C., office of Fairfax Associates, think midsize firms need more than one leader.
“I do think more can go wrong than right,” she said. “Doing two full-time jobs half time can be more of a challenge than they expect. In the law firm context, clients have to come first.”
Another downside of shared power is when partners play one manager off the other, sowing dissension.
“What you'll see is when the partners don't get the answer they want from one of the managing partners, they'll go to the other. It's like parents,” Smith said.
But there are success stories. Shared power can work after a merger of two law firms that are equals, she said. The key is that the managing partner of each firm must care more about the needs of the merged business than the culture of the legacy one.
Whatever the experts say, there are firms that defy the odds or just prefer the atmosphere when power is shared.
Olshan Frome Wolosky name partner Steve Wolosky said the firm is different from most others because its decisions are made by consensus.
“I've been here since 1986 and I don't remember a single argument since I've been here,” he said.
The 90-lawyer firm, based in New York City, has an executive committee and two partners who are co-administrators who make the day-to-day decisions. It also seeks buy-in from its 18 equity partners and keeps its contract lawyers in the loop too.
“Many of our competitors are out of business,” he said. “We've managed to go from the first generation to the second generation and now we're going to the third generation and so it must work for us.”
“We have a cohesive firm where people really enjoy working with each other. Why change the methodology if it works?” he said.
Murphy & McGonigle name attorney Tom McGonigle said he and name attorney James Murphy have shared power since they started the New York City firm eight years ago.
“James and I kind of made a pledge when we opened the firm that there wouldn't be daylight between us,” McGonigle said. When there is disagreement, it's usually because one of them (“usually me,” McGonigle acknowledges) hasn't listened to the other person's viewpoint well enough, McGonigle said.
When it comes to prickly issues, such as determining compensation at the 55-lawyer firm, the co-founders have a way of working it out. The partner who knows a colleague best serves as his or her champion while the other is more objective. They will likely have to meet two or three times until consensus is reached.
Mitchell Littman, managing partner of Littman Krooks, which at 18 lawyers is considered a small firm for New York City, shares power with co-founder Bernie Krooks. Littman says he's more of a people person and Krooks is more of a numbers person.
“The vastly overused metaphor is it's like a marriage and that's probably true,” Littman said.
And as with any marriage, you have to make sure that all the decisions aren't favoring one person at the expense of the other, he said.
“If you want to be true partners in situations, that means by definition you're not going to get something you want,” he said.
For more business of law coverage exclusively geared toward midsize firms, sign up for a free trial of ALM's new weekly newsletter, The Mid-Market Report.
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 AllLong Island Midsize Firm and Managing Partner Sued for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
6 minute readKing & Spalding Adds Veteran Antitrust Litigator From White & Case in New York
3 minute readTroutman Pepper Accused of Inattentive Case Management in $59M Malpractice Suit
7 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