The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50808
LAW OFFICE MANAGEMENT Whole-hog Radical changes to a law firm's structure are more likely to succeed than a bit of tinkering here and there, says a recent study in B.C. BY K E V IN MARRON published study by researchers at the University of Alberta's School of Business. "If you're going to do different things, it's best not to do them in dribs and drabs. Otherwise you'd be bet- ter off sticking to being a standard law firm," says Jennifer Jen- nings, an associate professor in U of A's department of strategic management and organization and co-author of a study that examined inno- vation in employment practices at law firms in B.C. The study followed the F progress of 60 new firms founded in Vancouver and Victoria in the 1990s. It analyzed various aspects of the firms' employ- ment systems, including governance issues, such as ratios of associates to partners; decision-making processes; human resource practices, such as policies on billable hours and compensation; and underlying values, such as a stress on commercialism or professionalism. At the same time, the study tracked each firm's annual revenues per lawyer as a measure of productivity. "The more productive firms were those that either con- formed very closely to the prevailing model or those that had departed very highly from traditional way of doing it. And those firms in the middle that had implemented a moderate degree of departure from the norm were the underperformers," says Jennings. She says the findings were based not on any direct relation- ships between specific innovative practices and productiv- ity but on the degree of innovation. In other words, the firms shown to be most profitable and productive were those that departed in various different ways from the traditional law firm ollow a well-travelled path or reinvent the wheel, but don't get stuck in the middle of the road. This is the advice law firm managers can glean from the findings of a recently structure, rather than those that changed one or two things but retained traditional structures overall. "If you do a whole bunch of unusual things, you might establish a reputation for your firm — an image or identity in the labour market that it's a radical firm offering a really different work environment. It may not be attractive to a large number of profession- als, but to a select group that's likely to be highly committed to your law firm because its em- ployment system is so unique and aligned to what they are looking for," she says. "If there's not a lot of other like law firms out there, it's harder to jump ship and leave." The most conformist firms are successful, Jen- nings observes, because "they can demonstrate le- gitimacy and credibility . . . and minimize perceived risk." Also, with tried-and- true practices, the chances are that a lot of things that didn't work have been ironed out, Jennings sug- gests. The conformist firm is likely to be more efficient. Everybody knows how to implement its policies and no one is wasting time fixing glitches. People can spend their time getting more business. All this makes sense to recruiter Steve Nash, president of the Counsel Network in Toronto. "People like focus and certainty," he says. "People want to say, 'I can get on this train or get off, but I know where the train is going and if I do get on the train I know what I need to do to be successful.' Conversely, with the innovative model, people can say, 'We know we are going in the opposite direction, but we still have a model for success.' "Wishy-washy kills everybody. Unfairness, arbitrary deci- sion-making, and unpredictability drive people crazy," Nash says. "Whatever model you have, you need to be very clear." Frank Giblon is an example of a lawyer who changed directions www. Law ye rmag.com A UGUST 2008 21 ILLUSTRATION: JACQUI OAKLEY