Einhorn Harris Goes to Co-Managing Partner Model
"Pat and I communicate about 30 to 50 times a day," Gary Botwinick said. "As the firm has grown, we've had no choice but to formalize certain things."
February 01, 2019 at 06:07 PM
4 minute read
Einhorn, Harris, Ascher, Barbarito & Frost has joined the ranks of law firms using a co-managing partner leadership model, naming tax, trusts and estates practice leader Gary Botwinick to the co-leader role.
Leadership is not new to him, it seems. Longtime managing partner Patricia Barbarito said she has long collaborated on matters of firm leadership with Botwinick, who was approved unanimously by the firm's board of directors and officially took the role as the new year began.
“We've just formalized the relationship,” which more officially “allows us to strategize about the growth of the firm,” Barbarito said in an interview.
“Pat and I communicate about 30 to 50 times a day,” Botwinick said in the same interview. “As the firm has grown, we've had no choice but to formalize certain things.”
That growth has led to a current attorney head count of 33. And with three recent senior partner retirements—Theodore Einhorn, Peter Harris and Michael Ascher—succession planning has become a bigger focus, according to Barbarito, 62, and Botwinick, 52. They declined to give names, but said that upcoming generation of leaders already is positioned at the firm.
Botwinick joined the firm in 1998, making partner three years later. Before that he spent two years at Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, and began his career as an Internal Revenue Service staff counsel in New York.
Barbarito, who has been with the firm for 39 years, chairs the firm's matrimonial practice.
Botwinick said they complement each other—he is “sort of a numbers guy,” while Barbarito is “an astute businessperson who knows how to deal well with people”—and “we each have an ear to the ground in different ways in the firm.”
Barbarito said a co-managing partner model is “an indication of the culture of the firm” being one of collaboration, but also one where firm leaders maintain busy practices. Leadership by a single manager “is not really a style that would fit a more modern-thinking practice,” she added.
Other firms have gone to a co-manager structure. It's been roughly a year since Riker Danzig changed its leadership after two decades, going to a co-managing partner model. Those two roles, along with two executive committee co-chairs, now make up the Morristown firm's four-person leadership structure.
Lance Kalik, who is co-managing partner with Michael O'Donnell, said recently that the year since the change has gone well.
“If your managing partner is going to have a busy practice like Mike and I do, splitting the role is a real asset,” Kalik said in an interview.
It requires some balance: chiefly, knowing what decisions must be made immediately, when perhaps only one co-manager is available, versus those that require the two to confer, he said. “We kind of have the intuitive sense that, if something is important and requires both of us, it has to wait until [we're] available.”
He said that dynamic hasn't led to lags in decision-making, but, as Einhorn Harris attorneys pointed out, communication and trust are key.
“The job requires a commitment of time, but I think the structure we have has eased the burden on everyone,” Kalik said.
Other firms have gone in the other direction. Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville, made up of a plaintiff practice and a business practice, in May 2016 went to a single managing partner model for the first time in nearly two decades. In 2014 it had gone away from the co-managing partner role in favor of a six-person management committee, though that was transitional leading up to Michael Donahue's election as sole managing partner.
Donahue, interviewed last year, told the Law Journal that the transition to a single managing partner had gone well since 2016. Before, certain tasks or implementation of new systems had to be handled duplicatively, or one side of the firm adopted systems that the other didn't, he said.
Now, “there's a point there, rather than a plateau,” which “allows decision-making to be across the firm,” Donahue said in 2018. “It didn't really feel as much like a change … it seemed more like an evolution.”
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$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readLargest Law Firms: New Jersey and Firmwide Attorney Count
Trending Stories
- 1Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 2UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 3Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 46th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
- 5On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
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