Tag Archives: Practice Group Management

Survey Results – The Value of Client Feedback – October 2012 Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on by

October’s law firm strategy topic of month was the value of client feedback. Our initial rationale for exploring this topic grew as a by-product of our June 2012 strategy question of the month. June’s survey focused on best practices in the strategic planning process. We found that one of the key factors that distinguished highly successful planning processes from their less successful counterparts was the incorporation of client feedback into the process. Specifically, we found that firms that reported having “very successful” planning processes were 45% more likely to have solicited client input than were firms that reported disappointing results.

So, we thought it would be worthwhile to build a deeper understanding of what law firms are doing more broadly vis-à-vis gathering and using client feedback. What approaches are they taking to gather that feedback and what outcomes are they experiencing?

Approaches to Gathering Client Feedback

Interestingly, no single approach is used consistently by more than a third of law firms participating in this month’s mini-survey. Roughly 30% of firms report they consistently have their managing partner (or his/her counterpart) conduct structured interviews with a cross section of clients. Similarly, roughly 25% of firms report they have their senior marketing or business development people conduct structured interviews with a cross section of clients. Note: in some cases, both the managing partner and chief marketing officer conduct the interviews jointly.

When you include firms that report using a given approach – but who do so less consistently – the most prevalent approach to gathering client feedback is having the managing partner conduct informal (often one-off) interviews with clients. Roughly three-quarters of all firms report that their managing partner (or his/her counterpart) conducts periodic, informal interviews with clients. However, those interviews are not conducted across a cross-section of the clientele – and, they are not structured to ensure key topics are covered consistently.

Written surveys of all kinds (e.g., randomized, major client focused, and/or end of matter surveys) have fallen by the wayside. That approach was fairly common in the 1990’s, but fewer than 20% firms report using written surveys (web or paper) at all.

The following table presents the full range of responses relative to approaches firms are using to gather client feedback on a regular and/or irregular basis.

USE OF CLIENT FEEDBACK APPROACHES BY US BASED LAW FIRMS

As is always the case with these monthly mini-surveys, participants were generous in sharing some of their practical experience in the open-ended section of the survey. Among the practices and insights law firm leaders shared were the following.

  •  We require annual meetings with top 100 clients on an annual basis. The meeting is structured and performed by supervising attorney. Top 25 clients are also contacted by firm managing partner on at least an annual basis.
  • We spend a lot of time educating/helping our senior attorneys develop disciplined, regular communications with their clients…we emphasize that all our attorneys need to know their client business/industry well.
  • (Our) client teams develop a (tailored) method that fits the client’s culture and relationship to evaluate how the firm is performing. (Examples include) team meetings with the various client contacts; in-person meetings between the key contact at the client and the (lead) attorney; and various contact attorneys reaching out to their respective contacts in the client organization…assessing our performance as the defined purpose.

It should be noted that there is still resistance in some quarters… “I’ve not yet been able to convince the Management Committee, who all have great relationships with their clients, that some client feedback system is necessary.”

Results and Outcomes from Gathering Client Feedback

Obviously, it is always helpful to have a sense for what our peers are doing to manage their respective firms more effectively. More importantly, however, it is critical to understand what results can and should be expected from pursuing any given management practice. In the case of gathering client feedback, the key benefits can be summarized in four points (reflecting five sets of insights firms report gaining more than half the time – either always or often).

 

  • First, over 70% of law firm leaders report gaining genuine insights into how to manage their client relationships more effectively.
  • Second, over 60% of law firms gain new insights into how their clients view the firm’s strengths and its opportunities to improve (i.e., its weaknesses and shortcomings).
  • Nearly 60% reported that the client feedback process always or often produces opportunities to do more of the type of work the firm is already doing for that client (i.e., to deepen the relationship).
  • Over half reported that gathering client feedback always or often produces opportunities to do new types of work for clients (i.e., to broaden the relationship.

In addition to the points above, it should be noted that a number of law firm leaders said that the process itself tends to generate goodwill. Further, it creates a dialog that grows the relationship in the context of the client’s needs rather than in a ‘selling’ mode. One law firm leader summed up both points quite succinctly in an open-ended comment, “(The process creates) great client satisfaction that we even take time out to spend time with them and more importantly “care”. Also learn how much many clients “hate” the “cross-selling” pushes.”

A complete summary of the outcomes firms experience via client feedback gathering processes is captured on the following chart.


Closing Points

Given the fact that structured, formalized client feedback processes are only pursued with high levels of consistency at somewhere between a third and half the firms surveyed, it strikes us that this type of outreach can still be a source of competitive advantage for law firms. It is certainly a factor distinguishing more successful strategic planning processes from the rest. And, our anecdotal experience confirms what we learned more systematically from this survey. Namely, asking clients for their feedback generates goodwill; it often creates new work (sometimes, entirely new work in new areas); and it provides valuable insights into what the firm does well, how it can improve, and how it can manage client relationships more effectively.

At Sterling Strategies, we tend to gather structured client feedback in the context of strategic planning assignments (though we do so as stand-alone engagements on occasion). However, our friends at the Wicker Park Group focus intensively on the client feedback process. They even publish a continuing series of client Q&A summaries you might find interesting.

As always, the comments section is open – and we always welcome your calls and emails.

The Value of Client Feedback – Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month – October 2012

Posted on by

Our June 2012 strategy question of the month focused on best practices in strategic planning in law firms.  One of the principle factors that distinguished the firms reporting the most success with strategic planning from those reporting the least success was the use of client feedback in the strategic planning process.  Specifically, firms that report having “very successful” planning processes were 45% more likely to have solicited client input than were firms that reported disappointing results.  Remarkably, a similar survey conducted a month later by ALM and Lexis/Nexis largely overlooked the value of client feedback in the strategic planning process (perhaps viewing it as an element of “Client Relationship Management” and therefore skipping it as a specific focal point).

Frankly, we see broad value in gathering client feedback.  Certainly, it is incredibly valuable the the strategic planning process.   But, it can also play a valuable role in ongoing relationship management, in client service planning, in business development and marketing, in innovation, in pricing, and in quality management.

What we see here at Sterling Strategies is anecdotal.  Yes, we see and work with many law firms.  But, these monthly surveys (short and focused though they may be) give us all some real data on what is working and what is not working in the real world of law firm management.  This month, we have an opportunity to learn what approaches firms are using to gather client feedback.  And, more importantly, to learn what results firms are getting from their efforts at gathering client feedback.

The survey below should take less than five minutes to complete.  Results will be posted back on this blog at the end of the month.  Deadline for completed surveys is the end of business (PDT) on Friday, October 26, 2012.  As always, individual responses will remain entirely anonymous and confidential.  Please direct any questions you might have regarding the survey to John Sterling at jsterling@sterlingstrat.com or at (312) 543-6616.

If for any reason your web browser is not showing the survey in the box below, simply click this link and you will be redirected to the survey host.  Thank you for sharing your own experiences with client feedback with your peers.  It is valuable and widely appreciated.

 

IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS – September 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on by

Our September Law Firm Strategy Question of the Month focused on the budget process. Specifically, this month’s quick survey identified the budgeting practices that are most useful in real world settings in law firms. As in past months, we also looked for differences between firms reporting the greatest effectiveness in their respective budget processes from those reporting less success.

Unlike previous Strategy Questions of the Month (see for instance the June survey on strategic planning or the February survey on practice group management), there was not a tremendous difference between the most effective budget processes and others’. That may in part be a function of the generally high level of effectiveness law firm leaders reported in their respective processes. As you can see from the chart below, very few firms consider their budget process to be ineffective (or even of limited effectiveness).

To the extent there were differences between the “very effective” firms and others, the differences were very much on the margins. For instance, the budgeting approaches rated “absolutely essential” at firms with the most effective processes, were similarly rated “absolutely essential” by their peers in firms experiencing somewhat less success in the budget process. Nevertheless, there were a few notable differences (again, on the margins):

  • The most successful firms were more likely to build-up budget projections at the practice group level (in addition to doing so at the individual attorney and administrative department levels);
  • The most successful firms were somewhat more strongly focused on ensuring the budget reflected growth plans, whereas less successful firms were moderately more focused on ensuring their budgets reflected cost cutting commitments;
  • Finally, the most successful firms were more likely to focus leadership attention on aligning the budget with strategy (at the firm and practice group levels).

Firm leaders were asked to share how they approach the process philosophically (intentionally conservative, aggressive or “as accurate as data and projections will allow”). Roughly 80% of firms are striving for accuracy (over 90% of the most successful firms’ intent is to develop as accurate a budget as possible). We view that as a positive sign for the industry as a whole. In the depths of the recession (fall of 2008 and again in 2009), a majority of firms were taking a decidedly conservative approach to budgeting. The swing toward developing accurate budget projections is a healthy sign that leadership has greater confidence in the future.

The core question this month focused on which practices and approaches were most useful and helpful in the budget process. The top three approaches (each considered “absolutely essential” by over 60% of respondents) were:

  •  Building-up projections at the individual attorney level (i.e., salaries, draws, working attorney receipts, etc.);
  • Developing administrative department projections from agreed upon priorities and strategies; and
  • Reviewing all attorney, practice and/or departmental projections via a comparison with the previous year (budget and/or actual).

A relatively high percentage of firms do not even try to build-up projected revenues at the client level (e.g., projected revenues from the top 100 clients) or at the practice group level. Slightly more than half of all firms build-up client level projections and fewer than three-quarters of firms develop practice level projections.

Finally, while the distinctions between the most effective budget processes and the moderately successful processes were only found at the margins, law firm leaders shared a number of important ideas, insights and advice in the open-ended comments. Among the most insightful input were the following:

  • Accuracy is important to us…final result of budget is cash flow to partners (who) plan their own lives around the draws and distributions. Also, variance explanations that are based on inaccurate budgeting rather than on real differences from our expectations are viewed with suspicion.
  • (We) do intensive capital expenditures budget, plus detailed monthly cash flow (which is NOT an income statement), plus zero-based approach to all expenses.
  • We also do both pessimistic and optimistic models based on individual attorney performances.
  • We update budgets every 6 month in rolling 18 month program of forecasting.
  • Expenses are easy and we can plug them in and hit them within one percent annually. Lining up expenses with strategies and goals is simple and straight forward. Predicting revenue and cash flow is the hard part; we are usually successful in estimating and in the last couple of years have had done well with monthly cash flow projects. Nonetheless, cash receipts are always a bit lumpy and make budgeting a challenge.
  • Formula for best shot at success — balance realization with utilization and monitor expenses closely. Be efficient and effective and take nothing for granted.
  • Our attorneys are very reluctant to forecast much more than 3-6 months ahead, so trying to get them to project for a full year has proven impossible. We base (the year) on trends, knowledge of practices and their short range projections.
  • (Relative to client level projections, we do a) case by case analysis of all contingent cases…review three year averages of attorney productivity…and review any large non-repeat type cases or situations.
  • (We) have found it useful when presenting the expense budget to management to sort (accounts) in descending order on dollar value. This helps to ensure that major items are discussed, and that time isn’t wasted debating the lobby magazine subscriptions.
  • (We use a) bottom up process. The Finance Committee and Board review budgets, ask for justifications and will require a bottom up revision to get the final budget in line with long range goals. (It is) time consuming but effective in getting buy-in at all levels.

*******************************************************

As always we thank the many, many law firm leaders who took the time to share their knowledge and insights on this month’s strategy question. The comments section is open for those who want to continue the dialog and we welcome your calls (312-543-6616) and emails (jsterling@sterlingstrat.com) as well.

 

Improving the Budget Process – September 2012 Law Firm Strategy Topic of the Month

Posted on by

The budget process is right around the corner – at least for the vast majority of firms that are on a calendar year cycle.

These quick monthly surveys are primarily intended to build a foundation of useful information and benchmarks for law firm leadership.  While budget development may not be viewed as strategic, for many organizations it is a vital tool for allocating resources in ways that are consistent with and supportive of the overall strategy.  At any rate, we can all benefit from learning about what is working best in budget processes around the legal industry.

With that in mind, let’s learn about what approaches are proving to be most useful and most helpful in the budget development process in law firms.  As always, individual responses will remain entirely confidential.  The survey should take less than five minutes.  Aggregate responses will be reported at the end of the month on this blog.  Deadline to respond is end of business PDT on Thursday, September 27, 2012.  As always, thank you for your help and participation.

If for any reason you do not see the survey in the box below, click here and you will be taken directly to the survey host site.

Managing Under Productive Partners – August 2012 Strategy Question of the Month

Posted on by

Last month’s law firm strategy question of the month asked law firm leaders to create a ‘model partner’ (i.e., a partner with the optimal balance of positive characteristics).  The ‘model partner’ results can be found in the July 2012 archives here.

Obviously, few partners actually deliver the perfect balance – but, the right balance is achieved across the partnership.  Unfortunately, some partners’ contribution to the firm erodes – sometimes dramatically – over time.  That may be the most vexing challenge for managing partners – turning around the performance of an under productive partner.

So, this month’s quick strategy survey will help us put some data around the question – what works and what does not work in helping under productive partners turn their performance around?  The quick 5 minute (or less) survey is embedded in the window below.  If for some reason you do not see it, click this link and you will be taken directly to the survey.

Deadline for responding is the end of business PDT on Wednesday, August 29, 2012.  Individual responses will remain confidential (as always).  Results will be published on this blog at the end of the month.  Thanks you for your insights and participation.

 

Practice Group Portfolio Management

Posted on by

One of the key findings of our April 2012 “strategy question of the month” involved the strategic importance practice groups (and filling out the practice group portfolio) have in determining law firms’ merger and acquisition strategies.  In the write-up of those survey findings, we promised to pull out and abridge a section of John Sterling’s book Strategic Planning for Law Firms: A Practical Roadmap.  The book includes a lengthy chapter explaining the background and the application of several proven strategic management tools and models – including applying portfolio management tools to practice groups.  What follows is an excerpt from the book addressing the portfolio management concept.

*                 *                 *                 *                *                 *                 *                 *

Portfolio analysis (and portfolio management) traces its origins to the leading management consulting firms of the 1960’s and early 70’s. There were several variations on the same underlying idea. Namely, that the key to effectively managing a business with multiple product lines and/or multiple divisions was to understand the role each should play in the company’s overall strategy.

Further, each approach to portfolio analysis examined products or business units from two fundamental perspectives. First, they looked at the relative competitive position of the business or product line. Second, they assessed the market in which that business unit or product competed.

Law Firm Application

The application to law firms – particularly general practice business law firms – should be quite apparent. As law firms have grown, developed multiple practice and industry specialties, and become more managerially complex, the need to apply some order to that increased complexity has grown. Portfolio analysis and portfolio management provide a set of tools well designed for precisely this type of organizational complexity.

Essentially, practice groups (generally including industry groups) are in most respects like a strategic business unit in a diversified corporation. They offer distinct services, have unique underlying “production” or operational capabilities, face identifiable competitors, and compete in markets that differ (sometimes dramatically, sometimes subtly) from the markets of other practices. Further, it is entirely possible (in fact advisable) to measure the financial performance of a practice group – if not on a fully loaded profit and loss basis, then certainly on the basis of contribution to firm profits (e.g., revenues net of direct expenses before the allocation of firm overhead).

Further, given the inherent limitations on resources, it is not feasible to treat every practice the same. Nor is it sensible to expect the same results and contributions from every practice. Some practices are well suited to attract new clients to the law firm. Some are well positioned to drive profitable revenues. Some are integral to maintaining a deep and lasting relationship with clients. Ideally, a firm should be able to define its expectations of each practice based on a portfolio analysis – and the practices should be able to pursue a valuable role within the firm in response to those expectations.

Using and Applying the Tool in a Law Firm Setting

Portfolio management is a straightforward process in which management (or a strategic planning committee) ranks practice along two critical dimensions. The attractiveness of the market in which the practice group competes; and the relative market position/strength of the practice group. Each of these dimensions is discussed in more detail below.

Market Attractiveness

The attractiveness of any given market is a function of a variety of factors – some purely objective, others more subjective. The key to using the portfolio analysis tool is to agree on a consistent set of “attractiveness factors” and each factor’s relative importance.

Some examples of market attractiveness factors follow.

  • Competitive intensity influences the attractiveness of a market. Highly competitive markets may not be as attractive as those with less competition. Note that a separate tool designed for assessing competitive intensity is discussed in some depth in a subsequent chapter.
  • Rate sensitivity is an issue in many legal market segments. Markets or specialties that do or can bear premium billing are clearly more attractive than those with a high degree of rate sensitivity.
  • Market growth is another obvious factor in rating the attractiveness of markets. Patent litigation was attractive throughout the 1990’s and 2000’s in large part because of the consistent growth in that market.
  • Market size must also be considered. A large market is generally more attractive than a small one. A large, growing market is even better.
  • The needs and demands of the firm’s existing client base is usually a factor. For instance, if virtually all of the firm’s corporate clients need and use the firm’s tax services, the tax market would be rated favorably on this particular factor.

Other factors might also be included in this analysis such as historical or future profitability; regulatory and other external influences on the market; and the technology required (now and in the future) to compete effectively in the market.

Relative Market Position/Strength

The other dimension to consider in a portfolio analysis is the relative market position of each practice group. The key word is relative – to key competitors and to the needs and expectations of the market.
Again, a variety of factors determine the relative market position of a practice. Some examples follow.

  •  The relative quality of lawyers and/or work produced is a key factor, but is often difficult to rate objectively. Third party ratings can serve as a proxy here (e.g., number of attorneys listed in Leading Lawyers or tier ranking in Chambers).
  • Practice profitability (measured by contribution, realization, revenue per lawyer, net income per partner, or other means) can be an indication of relative market strength. As noted above, profit potential can also serve well as a factor in determining market attractiveness.
  • Market reputation/perception can be a strong indication of a practice’s relative strength. Is the practice considered the leader, among the leaders, at parity with most firms, lagging other firms, et cetera?
  • Market share – locally, regionally, or nationally – is another key measure of relative market strength. Unfortunately, law firms generally have to rely on the number of lawyers they have in a given area as a surrogate for market share. Nevertheless, share and share growth are good measures of relative market position.

Plotting the Portfolio

Assessments of each practice group’s relative market position and the attractiveness of the practices’ respective markets can be viewed graphically by juxtaposing the two dimensions (market position and attractiveness) on a matrix. At a basic level, market attractiveness and relative market position ratings can be broken down to three “generic grades” – high, medium, and low.

The result is a three by three matrix like the one pictured below.

The matrix suggests relatively generic strategies.  Naturally, the specific strategies a firm should pursue depend on many factors, some of which reach well beyond the scope of this analysis.  Nevertheless, portfolio management is an extremely valuable tool in making resource allocation decisions among practices.

*                *               *               *               *               *               *               *

There is considerably more discussion of both the generic strategies and a “how to” on applying the portfolio management tool in a real world setting in the book.  And, we are happy to discuss the tool with you directly over the phone (312) 543-6616 or in the comments section below.

Practice Group Management Effectiveness – Follow-up to the February Survey Results

Posted on by

The results of our February 2012 strategy question of the month generated a number of follow-up discussions, as well as some very intelligent and insightful correspondence with readers. We thought it warranted a bit of follow-up here on the blog.

Our primary conclusion from the survey can be summarized simply – focus practice group management on activities that really make a difference in the performance of the group. The most effective groups are driving additional, valuable services to their clients. AND, they are improving financial performance at the same time (perhaps as a result of that). The least effective groups are expending valuable time, energy and resources on activities that do not matter on balance.

The subsequent discussion underscored some of our own experiences working with practice groups and practice group leaders. In particular, that discussion was a reminder of the substantial and important advantages larger firms have vis-à-vis practice group management.  Those advantages include having the scale to provide valuable support services to their practice groups.

  • Marketing Support – Larger firms have deep enough pockets (and deep enough marketing departments) to line-up resources to directly support their practice and industry groups’ broad marketing efforts. That helps free-up partners to focus on business development and cross-marketing.
  • Financial and Operational Support – Larger firms also have administrative personnel and information systems that help practice leaders drive profitability. Our March 2012 strategy question of the month deals directly with profit management – we encourage you to take two minutes to participate in this month’s survey.
  • Technology and Vendor Support – Practice group leaders in larger firms do not have to worry about managing technology and third party vendors – they have support staff available to take care of that. Again, they are free to focus on things that really matter.

For readers in mid-size and smaller firms, the question becomes, “What can we do to overcome the scale advantages the bigger firms have in this area?” Our short answer is to keep the practice group leaders’ responsibilities as streamlined and simple as possible.

Knowing they only have limited hours in any day/week/month to devote to practice group leadership, ensure that time is focused on just a few things: 1) cross-marketing into and out of the group; 2) the single most important profit driver for that practice (whatever that might be); and 3) putting their people in position to be successful. Everything else is secondary in a smaller firm setting.

For those interested in additional reading on the subject, we would suggest a couple of articles (note, both are pdf).

PLEASE TAKE TWO MINUTES TO COMPLETE THE MARCH 2012 STRATEGY QUESTION OF THE MONTH
PROFIT DRIVERS FOR 2012 AND BEYOND

PRACTICE GROUP MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Posted on by

PRACTICE GROUP MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

FEBRUARY 2012 STRATEGY QUESTION OF THE MONTH

This month’s strategy question of the month focused on practice group management.  Specifically, we looked at the question of whether there is a link between what we ask practice groups (and their leaders) to do and perceptions of how effective those groups are.

The key take-away lessons from the survey:

  • The effectiveness of practice group management remains mediocre overall with an average rating of 5.86 (on a 1-10 scale);
  • The most effective groups focus considerably more on cross-marketing efforts and financial performance than the least effective groups;
  • The least effective groups are more likely to be working on knowledge management and practice support vendor integration than the most effective groups.

The survey asked two questions.  First, law firm leaders were asked to identify what responsibilities practice group leaders were given in their respective firms (from a list formatted as a “check all that apply” question).  Second, law firm leaders were asked to rate the overall effectiveness of practice group leadership at their firm (where 1= not effective, 5 = moderately effective, and 10 = extremely effective).

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS

As noted above, ratings of overall effectiveness remain mediocre on balance.  Roughly, one quarter of managing partner and/or COOs consider practice group management at their firms to be highly effective.  Well over half consider practice group management to be only moderately effective.  The remaining respondents consider practice group management at their firms to be largely ineffective.

 

HIGHLY EFFECTIVE GROUPS

The key question then becomes, what distinguishes the most successful groups from the least successful groups.  Note that both highly effective and ineffective groups have some common responsibilities: marketing and new business development (coordination and planning); people management (work flow management, professional development oversight, and planning for entry level hiring); and team building (encouraging teamwork and morale and coordinating group level planning).

Highly effective groups did differ in important ways.

  • First, and most dramatically, highly effective groups were almost three times more likely to be expected to plan for and coordinate cross-marketing activities – both inbound (i.e., seeking work from clients of other groups) and outbound (i.e., encouraging cross-marketing the groups’ clients to others in the firm).
  • Second, highly effective groups were more likely to be asked to focus on the financial performance of their groups – both profit planning and day-to-day administration and hygiene.  In fact, the highly effective groups were almost twice as likely to be involved in financial planning and profit management as the least effective groups.
  • Although less common overall (see overall expectations below), leaders of the more effective groups were considerably more likely to be involved in firm level strategic planning than leaders of less effective groups.

Leaders of the most effective groups were also moderately more likely to be involved in lateral hiring (planning for and executing that hiring), in setting partner compensation, and in acting as a channel for inter-practice and firm level communication.

INEFFECTIVE GROUPS

The less effective groups were considerably more likely to be given responsibility for activities that were – on balance – not priorities across the larger survey sample.  The less effective groups were considerably more likely to be involved in activities that rated at the bottom of the longer list of responsibilities of practice leaders (see the section below on practice group responsibilities).

When compared to the most effective groups, the less effective groups are more likely to be working on two things in particular.

  • First, the less effective groups are nearly twice as likely to be working on knowledge management activities (e.g., form files, brief banks, etc.) than are the most effective practice groups.
  • Second, the less effective groups are much more likely to be working on the development or integration of new practice support vendors (e.g., LPO vendors) into the practice than are their counterparts in other firms.

The less effective groups also appear to be somewhat more directly involved in the entry level recruiting process than their counterparts in more effective practice groups.

To some extent, the differences the most and least effective practices may reflect the size of the responding firms and/or the availability of non-lawyer support.  However, differences regarding the heightened focus on cross-marketing and profit management cannot solely be dismissed as being a function of firm size or the availability of support resources.

GENERAL EXPECTATIONS OF PRACTICE GROUP LEADERS

The survey provided a useful snapshot regarding what responsibilities are most (and least) common for practice group leaders.

The most common responsibilities:

And the least common responsibilities:

*                                  *                                  *                                  *

We will return next week with some follow-up discussion of both this month’s findings – as well as last month’s findings regarding partner compensation systems.  Until then, we welcome your comments below and/or via email to jsterling@sterlingstrat.com.

 

Practice Group Management Responsibilities – Question of the Month

Posted on by

Our strategy question of the month for February focuses on practice group management.  Specifically, we are asking law firm leaders to share their own experiences relative to what practice group leaders are expected to do at their respective firms.  The list of potential responsibilities is long, but many firms focus on a narrower set of responsibilities.

We are interested in learning what practice group leaders are expected to do.  In addition, we hope to link those findings to perceptions of the overall effectiveness of practice management.  So, you will find two questions below.  The first is a “check all that apply” question listing many responsibilities practice group leaders could be expected to take on.  The second is a simple rating scale – how effective overall is practice management at your firm?

We recognize that firms have different terminology for their practice groups (e.g., sections, service teams, practice groups, etc.).  Further, we realize that in many firms practice management occurs at two levels – one focusing on larger, all encompassing groups (e.g., the transactional lawyers, the litigation and dispute resolution lawyers); and the other focusing on more discrete groups (e.g., structured finance, public finance, class action litigation, toxic torts, etc.).  For purposes of this survey, we are looking at the smaller, more discrete groups – so, focus your answers on that level of practice management.

Results will be published here on our blog after the President’s Day holiday.  Deadline for responding to the survey is midnight, February 18th.  All individual responses will remain confidential and anonymous.  Feel free to contact John Sterling with any questions that might arise (312) 543-6616 or jsterling@sterlingstrat.com.

If for some reason you do not see the survey in the window below, click the link here and you can complete the survey at a secure secondary site.