Accounting firms make big moves in Canadian legal market

Big news this week as both EY and Deloitte upped their presence in the Canadian legal market. EY added business law services and Deloitte affiliated with Conduit Law, a rising NewLaw star. I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Michael McKiernan of Law Times last week for this article and provided by comments on these groundbreaking developments.

A couple of quotes from the article:  “That’s a big move, because none of the other big accountancy firms are doing business law in Canada. They have all spent the last 15 to 20 years out on the periphery doing tax and immigration law, and maybe a bit of trade law. Now EY is moving to the centre, which sets the stage for a big change in this country,” Cameron says. “Law firms should be afraid, very afraid. We’ve all been waiting for it, and now it seems like the accountants finally actually are making their move.”…“Canada and the U.S. are lagging for various reasons, but legal work is very lucrative, and the accountancy firms are always looking for ways to add to the billions in revenue they already have globally,” Cameron says. “I expect if this works for EY, then it’s going to work for all the big accountancy firms in Canada.”

I did my interview the week before Deloitte announced its acquisition of Conduit Law, so my prediction above came true within just a few days of the interview. I expect that other large accounting firms in Canada will be following suit shortly, and this will put further pressure on Canadian business law firms of all sizes. Initially, I expect the impact will be strongest on small and midsize law firms, as the accounting firms build their business law services infrastructure, but eventually large Canadian law firms will be impacted as well as the accounting firms battle for large M & A and corporate work.

The Big 4 accounting firms are actually global multidisciplinary entities that are much larger than the largest global law firms. They have the resources to dominate the legal services industry if they want to. Legal firms of all sizes must now prepare a powerful response to protect their market share or join the accountants through mergers or affiliations. In fact, I expect we will see a new wave of mergers and affiliations occurring between law and accounting firms in response to these developments.

 

Can a Strategic Plan Compensate for a Lack of Leadership?

The attached article asks whether a strategic plan can compensate for a lack of leadership.

A strategic plan, on its own, won’t save a law firm. No matter how carefully you craft it, a plan without leadership is just another document gathering dust.

The reality is: you can’t separate strategic planning from leadership. You need strong leadership not only to develop a meaningful plan, but to drive it forward, adapt it in real time, and make it part of the firm’s everyday actions.

For most law firms, this means addressing the leadership question within the strategic planning process itself. Who is going to own the plan? Who will align the team, manage priorities, and make sure strategic goals turn into measurable results?

In many cases, it also means formally appointing a managing partner or leadership team to oversee both the planning process and the execution phase.

At the end of the day, leadership and strategy are inseparable. Without leadership, your strategic plan is likely to end up where so many others do — sitting on the shelf, forgotten.

Guest Post: Why are we Really In the Business of Law?

I’m pleased to welcome Heather Gray-Grant as our guest blogger for this edition.  Heather is a marketing strategist, planner and implementer, and an executive coach.

The first question in a strategic marketing plan is always the same:  what is your purpose?  From there, we essentially determine how to fulfil that purpose in a way that demonstrates positive differentiation in the eyes of target clients.

Within the free world, “purpose” is clearly a desired understanding.  Amazon has over 53,000 books under that keyword search, and yet I couldn’t find a single one dedicated to the purpose of a law firm. You might suggest that’s because it’s obvious: to provide high-quality, cost- effective legal services together with outstanding client service.   But is it the truth?

Lately, I’ve been reacquainting myself with some law firm outliers , sometimes referred to as “new law” firms (as opposed to the “big law” firms from which they seek to differentiate themselves).  These new law firms purport to be changing the law firm business model based on a different set of purposes.  See if you can figure out what their purposes are:

Firms like Conduit Law, Delegatus and Axiom provide clients with flexible service delivery through such mechanisms as embedded lawyers (think secondments) on demand for projects, or for short or long term general placements.

Cognition motivates lawyers to provide outstanding client value and service with a “gamification process” that earns them redeemable points.  Miller Titerle focuses on the other side: providing exit bonuses to lawyers who aren’t fitting in with their service methodologies and client service-focussed culture.

The pool of professionals and how they operate are a little different at these firms as well.   Delegatus has no interns and is completely comprised of fully-trained lawyers from big firms.  This includes many part time and contract lawyers, and most of them work virtually, which means a 50% savings on overhead costs.  There’s no minimum target for their lawyers.   As you can imagine, they tout significantly reduced fees over their big firm counterparts.

Axiom professionals include lawyers but also business people (analysts, financial planners, accountants, etc.).  They maximize efficiency by eschewing the traditional law office layout.  Instead, they look a bit like a gaming company – endless funky cubicles surrounded by glass boardrooms for team work as needed.

Clearspire believes it has perfected the law firm business model by ensuring individuals stick to their core competencies.  For example, it has divided the firm into three disciplines: Law, Admin and IT.  These areas are run as separate units, and then collaborate as needed to run the firm as a whole.  (I`m over simplifying due to space limitations, and would encourage you to visit the websites of all of these firms to find out more about their innovative approaches).

The culture of an organization can often be gleaned through their recruitment marketing. In those materials, these firms all seem to share the desire to attract those unafraid of practicing differently than in the big firms, of feeling passionate about the law again, of connecting more with the clients, and of feeling better about where they work. Big firms say these things, too.  The difference is in how the two models operate to prove these aspirations.  Clearspire explains their views on this on their site.

“The big law firm model has failed to evolve over the past century. The focus on partner profits accounts for the gross misalignment of interests found within traditional firms…Attorneys and firms are continually at odds over billing quotas, rainmaking pressures and the absence of work-life balance – the byproducts of an economic model that leverages people and time rather than technology or business processes.”

The site goes on to explain how Clearspire believes the big law firm model accounts for itself.

“Within the typical firm, partner profits account for more than 30% of the balance sheet. Another third supports lavish office overhead. The remaining third pays the salaries of the firm’s lawyers who actually do the client work. In sum, nearly two thirds of the firm’s hourly rate offers little direct value to the client.”

Reality check: staff, IT and marketing costs also account for a sizable portion of the typical law firm budget, and I doubt that most partners would feel they provide little to no value to a client.  But I get the idea that Clearspire would prefer there was a better correlation between client value and service costing and I think most clients would agree.

I love the determined innovation of the new law firms referenced above because I believe their actions honestly stem from a purpose of providing better services to clients.   A business exists primarily for the purpose of selling its product or services to a consumer.  Big firms have often been described as operating more like “clubs”, in part because some of them seem to be focussed foremost on providing a comfortable environment in which the partners can practice.  In such environments, client focus is at best a secondary goal.

New law firms are reversing this order, winning market share and ironically, seem to be more successful in creating a meaningful career environment for their lawyers while doing it.

For more information on Heather Gray-Grant’s services, please go to www.heathergraygrant.com