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
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
© 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 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
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
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