New York Lawyer
June 30, 2005

Q:
Partners in our firm can�t make a decision to save their lives. Things lag on forever. Why can�t they just make up their minds?

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

This problem is typical of law firms and of any kind of professional partnership, because there are still lots of expectations about governing by consensus, even with a small management committee charged with running the firm. The structure and feel of firm leadership often depends on size; these days, larger firms tend to have more layered and elaborate structures, with a corporate-style governance, while smaller firms cling to a more partnership-oriented model. The advantage to having a CEO-style structure is that there is a greater ability to direct the firm expeditiously. Still -- most law firms retain a partnership-style structure that emphasizes consensus, and consensus takes time.

A word in favor of consensus: When everyone moves toward agreement on a particular issue, it means people are more likely to be committed to the result and not be sabotaging an unpopular move. Also, it makes people feel that they have been included and therefore assuages large egos. Further, it preserves a laudable long-term goal of collegiality; people like belonging to an organization where, for the most part, they agree on the big issues.

But, as you point out, consensus building takes time, sometimes too much time. This sort of problem can prompt some very basic questions in a firm. What should be done in the future to ensure that the firm thrives and is as successful as possible? How can leadership behaviors help the firm thrive, rather than hurting it? What kind of leadership does the firm want to have -- a CEO style leadership; a small management committee, with other lawyers ceding influence (but also not having to worry about management issues); or a traditional partnership model with everyone participating?

A basic point is that it�s important to select managing partners, CEOs, or other members of management who actually have good management skills and are willing to brush up on those they don�t have. A big book of business is not even remotely an automatic guarantee of superior leadership skills, and often it�s the opposite. Moreover, you want leaders who actually believe in the importance of good management, rather than viewing it as a pesky side duty that only gets done, if at all, after everything else is done. In this day and age, it�s important for leaders to move swiftly when necessary, to take risks, and not dither when making decisions.

Beware of the lawyers who want to talk, talk, talk, but never actually do anything. It�s an easy and time-honored way to avoid accountability. At some point you need to cut the talk and get something done, even if it�s not precisely the best thing to do, if for no other reason than to counteract the inertia that arises when, historically, no decisions are made.

Indeed, the difficulties with acting quickly are legion, as you suggest. In this fast-paced world, slow decision making can injure or at times even critically wound a law firm. Many a powerful partner leaves a firm, with the perception that his or her present firm is not leading boldly enough. It�s important to act quickly in many matters.

Often this requires partners recognizing the urgency of a particular area, and acquiescing to new ways of doing things, both of which can be difficult. It requires trusting management and requires taking on real leadership. It requires that partners subordinate their individual desires and particular ideas about how things should be done and invest that leadership responsibility in one or a few people.

Sincerely,
Holly English