Category Archives: Firm Governance

5 Major Trends Impacting Canadian Law Firms Today

Posted on by
9

1) The Norton Rose Phenomenon

One of today’s key trends affecting law firms of all sizes in Canada is the Norton Rose phenomenon. Norton Rose is a 2,900 lawyer global giant, organized as a Swiss Verein, which has just gobbled up Ogilvy Renault and Macleod Dixon in two quick bites. Within a matter of months, they have singlehandledly changed the face of the Canadian legal industry, creating the third largest legal firm in Canada and they’re just getting started. That’s pretty incredible, and scary for some at the same time. This is the new order in Canada’s legal industry.

This is also a defining moment for the legal industry in Canada, and will potentially drive more mergers and changes in national and regional firms as Norton Rose presses its influence. It could force Canadian national firms to get bigger or they’ll be swallowed up as well. Other global giants such as DLA Piper are waiting in the wings.  At 4,000 plus lawyers it’s the largest law firm in the world.  Discussions are happening amongst multiple potential Canadian merger partners, with other global firms no doubt interested in Canada’s lucrative resources legal work as well.

There are many similarities to what the large accounting firms such as KPMG and Deloitte went through in the ‘80s and ‘90s, as they used Swiss Verein structures to build their global presences as well.  The Swiss Verein structure provides limited liability, world-wide branding and consistent client service standards as some of its features.

Large Canadian law firms are being influenced by the large accounting firms in many ways. In the 90’s, large Canadian law firms went national to protect against the feared onslaught of accounting firms, which fizzled out when Enron happened, but the large national law firms remained. Now there is pressure  again being exerted from the outside, and large firms will have to restructure to fight against this new enemy.  Rumour has it that the large accounting firms are looking to get back into the legal industry again as well.

As an adjunct trend, the rise of the ABS regulations in the UK is putting an even more interesting spin on Norton Rose’s arrival in Canada. ABS allows public ownership of law firms, which is happening right now as UK firms are lining up to go public. If this trend catches on in the UK, even more resources will become available to UK-based firms like Norton Rose, and the US may have to consider the possibility of allowing public ownership for US firms to compete with publicly owned UK firms. This could lead to the ultimate showdown of publicly-owned global law firms, which may lead the legal industry to look something like the big 4 accounting firms when the dust settles, or…? Stay tuned on this one :) .

2) Move to Corporate Model

Another trend happening simultaneously is the move to more corporate models of firm governance amongst large Canadian firms. McCarthy’s moved to a board of directors and a full corporate business model a few years ago, and other large and regional Canadian firms are now going the same way. Practice groups are consolidating on a national basis, similar to what the large accounting firms have done for decades.

3) Alternative Billing

Fee pressures from clients are being experienced by firms of all sizes in Canada. It ranges from the small firms that do commodity work such as residential conveyances for less than what notaries charge in British Columbia, to large firms that are being pressed by large clients to offer alternative billing arrangements such as fixed fees to provide more certainty and less risky billing options.

Alternative billing is not as advanced amongst large firms in Canada as it is in the US and Europe, however, it is coming and firms need to prepare. It is being felt in the banking and intellectual property areas already, for example. It has been prevalent in commodity work in Canada for decades eg. personal services law, residential conveyancing, wills and estates, etc.

Project management is another trend that midsize and large firms are embracing, as a forerunner or as an adjunct to alternative billing. The idea is to get as efficient and effective as you can, then use this efficiency to go out and compete in the fixed fee arena, and hopefully maintain or enhance profitability.

The whole concept of value is being embraced by clients, who are looking at the very high chargeout rates that law firms have brought in over the last decade, and they now want retribution and rollbacks, or at the very least a stop to the increase in their legal budgets. The rise of the ACC Value Challenge is just one indicator of their resolve here.

If the economy worsens in a possible double-dip recession, clients will exert even more pressure on law firms. Firms must prepare for this change in the client’s mindset and must demonstrate more value to satisfy clients.

There is also a movement to reduce the recovery of soft costs such as photocopies and fax charges, which irritates some clients, and law firms are pulling back on this somewhat.

4) National Firms Cleaning House

National firms are cleaning house and cutting partners with practices below minimum $ practice size and clients that don’t meet minimum $ billings levels. This is a great opportunity for small and regional firms, who are picking up these senior national partners who have been pushed out or who have left national firms for better work/life balance.

This can be a great boon for the smaller firm, as they acquire new talent and institutional clients, who will remain with the smaller firm after the partner finally retires. Many national partners have established long relationships with their clients, and are able to transition their clients to their new smaller firms and make them profitable with the lower overheads of a small firm.

5) The Rise of Innovative New Legal Business Models

The rise of innovative new business models such as Delegatus, Clearspire, Axiom, Cognition, etc. The concepts of outsourced in-house counsel, no partners, franchised firms and virtual firms are threats to national and regional firms and an opportunity for small firms.

“Non-law firm” legal service providers such as Thomson Reuters are also looking at getting into the business of providing legal services through their outsourcing arm Pangea3. The ABS regulations offer the potential of “Tesco law”, which opens up possibilities for many more non-legal entities to provide legal services as well. These are threats to traditional law firms of all sizes.

Presented at the Seventh Annual CBA Law Firm Leadership Conference held October 24-25, 2011 in Vancouver, BC

Planning for Success – Key Issues & Goals

Posted on by
1

Originally posted on Small Firm Innovation

In the first planning installment, we talked about creating a vision and core values statement. The next step is to identify the firm goals and key issues facing the firm.

One suggestion for getting buy-in from the partners is to have them write down the top 3 goals for their practice and for the firm, as well as the things that are stopping them from achieving their personal and firm goals (the key issues).  Submit these for compilation and discussion at a planning retreat.  This will also start the process of aligning personal and firm goals.

At the planning retreat, list all the goals and issues on flipchart paper and post them for all partners to review as the day proceeds.  Then start discussing the issues one by one until you have exhausted all issues.

I’ve found the process is usually more successful if you start by discussing the issues first and the goals after.  Lawyers are naturally focused on what’s wrong with the firm rather than the positives, so I find this approach simplifies and speeds up the discussion considerably as a result.

Once all of the issues have been discussed, then you can start prioritizing the issues.  Aim to have the top 5 issues decided on by the day’s end.  This part of the process can proceed quite quickly if you’ve already had a thorough discussion of the issues beforehand.

Once you have a prioritized list of the top 5 issues facing the firm, you can now start to turn those issues into quantifiable goals.  For example, if one of the issues is “lack of profitability”, then the goal can be converted to “increase profits by x% over x years”.  This is a quantifiable goal with a deadline, which is essential for follow-through and measuring the success of the firm plan later on.

Review the list of goals submitted prior to the retreat, and add or modify to this list based on the discussion of the key issues.  Decide on the top 5 goals as a group.

Once you have decided on the top 5 goals, then you need to determine if completing these goals will be enough to achieve your vision.  If not, you will have to repeat the process until you come up with an adequate set of goals which will achieve your firm vision.

In the first installment we talked about determining where you’re at today and your vision of where you want to be in 5 years.  The difference between these two points is known as the “planning gap.”  The strategic plan will include all of the steps required to get you from where you’re at today to achieving your vision.  The strategic plan will normally cover a 3 to 5 year time frame.

This completes the goal-setting phase.  Now we can start thinking about the strategies and action plans needed to complete the firm plan.  We’ll discuss this phase in the next planning installment.

Trends in Partner Compensation Systems in Law Firms

Posted on by
Reply

An increasingly competitive legal environment is resulting in changes in the way that law firms pay their partners.

In my experience there are three main types of partner compensation systems:

1)      Equality/lockstep – Compensation is determined mainly by seniority. I’ve seen this system used by many small firms and some very large US and UK firms.  The advantage is that it encourages partners to work as a team, while the disadvantage is that partners may not feel it’s fair if other partners don’t pull their weight yet are paid the same as high performers.  This can lead to a lack of incentive for high performers, and creates a risk they may leave.

2)     “Eat what you kill” – Compensation is determined mainly by personal production. This system is used by small and midsize firms.  Objective systems like this usually focus on just the numbers, which makes it clear to all partners what the expectations are, and is fairly simple to determine compensation as a result.  The downside is that these objective systems also encourage partners to “game” the numbers to their own advantage.  This can lead to breakdowns in team-building, where partners act as “lone wolves” and talk about “my clients”, not firm clients.

3)     Subjective Merit – Compensation is determined by subjective analysis supported by objective factors. It usually involves a compensation committee of 3 or 4 partners, and is used mainly by midsize and large firms.  This system has the advantage of encouraging partners to operate at a higher level and get compensated accordingly.  In addition, the subjective merit system may have an objective component as a starting point, but subjective analysis reduces the potential for “gaming” the system in a purely objective formula system.

Depending on the culture of the firm, any of the above systems may work effectively.  However, my experience and research indicates that the most effective system for increasing profits is the subjective merit compensation system.

Compensation System Trends

One of the major trends I see is towards more “pay for performance” in law firms, with a particular emphasis on rainmaking results.  Rainmakers are paid big bucks to switch firms, especially commercial lawyers who are able to command and move a large client base.

Compensation compression ratios (the $’s paid to the highest paid partners compared to the lowest paid partners) are increasing, as firms accommodate rainmakers at the top end of the pay scale.

Law firms are requiring an increasing minimum practice size to remain as an equity partner.

Non-equity partnerships are growing in popularity as firms attempt to maximize their leverage and equity partner compensation.

Large firm compensation systems are becoming more “corporate” in nature, as firms grow in size and scope internationally.  The larger the firm, the more corporate the model.  Managing partners and executive committees are wielding more power, and are providing more input to the compensation of individual partners, who are becoming more like employees in large firms.

Managing partners and practice group managers are being compensated more for their management accomplishments.  Some firms are compensating their managing partners using balanced scorecard techniques, for example.  Law firms are trying to run like real businesses, and are delegating more and more of the firm’s business functions to their management partners.

Many firms are requiring pre-retirement phase-downs in compensation and have established retirement policies at a set age eg. 65.  There is some controversy here, however, given challenges to the legality of forced retirement. Firms are continuing to try to enforce these retirement policies in order to maintain increasing equity partnership leverage and profitability objectives.

There is a trend for senior partners with portable practices to move from firms where they have spent their entire careers, after being forced out by the imposition of set retirement age policies.

Most firms have fairly “open” compensation systems, where partners know what other partners are being paid.  The trend is towards less compensation transparency in larger firms, however, with power and information centralized within a few management partners.  Compensation discussions can be too much of a time distraction for large firms.

More non-equity compensation arrangements are being used for hiring lateral partners and retaining good “up and comers” with long-term potential for building a practice.

Buy-in requirements are growing as firms grow and partner leverage increases.

More flexibility for balanced lifestyles and part-time partner arrangements are being demanded and received by the new generation of partners.

Compensation Criteria Trends

There is more emphasis on teamwork, and less emphasis on personal billable hours. This also ties in with growing recognition for the need to lever work, and the growth of alternative billing practices.

More firms are doing strategic plans in response to increasing competition, and this is leading to a need to recognize partners’ non-billable efforts in implementing strategic plans at the firm, practice group and individual partner levels. This also means more recognition of training, supervision, quality control, and various other non-billable tasks performed by partners.

More firms are recognizing client origination results, and firms are tracking client and matter origination more diligently.  Sales skills are being taught to partners and associates.

More peer evaluation is happening, especially in larger firms. There is also more emphasis on client feedback, realization and profitability of partners’ practices. More emphasis on cash in, and less on billings.

Compatibility with firm culture is becoming more important. Non-conformists with firm culture are punished, leaders are rewarded.

Summary

The key trend is toward more “corporate” compensation models, driven by competition and the corporate style of growth of large national and international firms.  Compensation is driven more by the strategic goals of the firm, and partners who contribute to firm goals are compensated at higher levels as a result.  There is more and more emphasis on pay for performance as well.

Compensation compression ratios are widening, as firms attempt to accommodate and retain the rainmakers in their firms.  This has resulted in major dollars being spent to lure new rainmakers to the large firms.  Business development is more and more highly prized, and rainmakers’ compensation is increasing significantly.

The danger of a very high compensation compression ratio is that you could end up like Finley Kumble a few years ago.  They hired many rainmakers and paid them exorbitant dollars for their client originations without a sunset clause, and the whole firm came crashing down as a result. Several different factors were involved, but the extremely high compensation compression ratio was pointed to as a major factor in their demise.

Firms are also trying to encourage partners to lever more to others, and in the process institutionalize clients so that it is more difficult to move clients when partners are offered more money by other firms to lure them away.  Buy-in requirements are rising as firms lever more and reduce the % of equity partners relative to non-equity partners and associates.

Large firms tend to favor subjective merit systems, while smaller firms tend to favor more objective systems. Large firms are increasingly profitable, and the gap is widening, so there may be some correlation/cause/effect in the use of subjective merit systems which leads to increased profitability.

Related articles