Two observations from the GC of BT Technology, Chris Fowler, stand out in our innovation feature, ‘Arrested development’. One: ‘If the work is repeatable and needs delivering to certain set outcomes at a certain price point, you become agnostic as to who is actually doing the work’ – suggesting the sacred cult of the individual may be diminishing in the eyes of clients. Two: ‘It always appears to us that the partner wins the work, the partner prices the work, and the partner delivers the work. I struggle with that in today’s world.’
While partnership and megalomania can go hand-in-hand, we have come a long way from the days when power-play behaviour from individual partners could actually hurt firms. Control has been ceded in many areas, recognising that allowing business professionals to play their part and junior lawyers to develop on the job enhances the offering that clients receive.
You don’t hear in-house legal specialists referring to their colleagues as ‘non-lawyers’ – which is why using that term in front of GCs and heads of legal could be an own-goal, reinforcing just how insular firms can be.
But Fowler’s observations suggest there is more work to be done. This gives credence to arguments that we’ve advanced before, that firms’ pricing models should be better linked to client outcomes than hours spent on the job, and that projects should be resourced more realistically, with partners supervising and project managing work with less experienced lawyers delivering outcomes – unless the client specifies otherwise. There is also far more scope for firms to engage in business development professionals and even dedicated legal services sales teams, a development that could free up partner time to do the things that many are truly good at – providing strategic legal advice.
This all relates to the hoary old term ‘non-lawyer’, which undermines the work of many business professionals in the legal industry. This is a private practice problem – you don’t hear in-house legal specialists referring to their colleagues as ‘non-lawyers’ – which is why using that term in front of GCs and heads of legal could be an own-goal, reinforcing just how insular firms can be. It brings to mind the definition of a lawyer according to a recent blog written for our website by the Bionic Lawyer Project:
‘If you are contributing to problem solving in the legal ecosystem, we see you as a lawyer. This broad definition is not used to be provocative, it is used this way to be a statement of inclusivity and approach. It is used to avoid labels and to try to unwind a perceived stigma around individuals being described as a “non lawyer”, even when they are essential to the provision of legal services and can even own legal firms.’
While it is true that partners own their firms (most of the time) and therefore can run them themselves in whichever manner they choose, this isn’t necessarily smart management. Business professionals can enhance a firm’s performance. This isn’t a new development – law firms have recruited accountants, risk managers, business development specialists and technologists for years – but the expertise being bought in is often secondary to the whims of partners. Worse still, the situation is so bad that some firms pay through the nose for business experts, ignore them, then pay one of the Big Three management consultancies to state what their experts have already been trying to say. Money for old rope. Let it go, let everyone do what they are good at, and listen. The results may be surprising.