This is the fourth in a series about questions that Articling Students and new Associates should ponder while trying to determine whether they have landed in the right place.
This time I will address the Chief Technology Officer (the “CTO”). Of course, being lawyers we need a definition, so let’s use this one from Alexander Gillis and others at techtarget.com:
In Parts One and Two, I set out some questions that articling students and young lawyers should ask about their firm’s Managing Partner and Practice Group Leader.
Today I will tackle the much trickier issue of the Chief Operating Officer (the “COO”).
In Part One, I set out some questions that articling students and young lawyers should ask about the Managing Partner. This time let’s talk about your Practice Group Leader (the “PGL”).
When articling students or young lawyers enter a law firm of any size for the first time, they see the carefully cultivated image that the law firm promotes and are often thrilled to be part of a legal fantasy world where every lawyer is dynamic, brilliant, experienced, strategic, and practical.
Over time they get to know the lawyers and other key players, and eventually figure out what is real and what is not.
I once proposed raising our hourly rates and was met with furious resistance by the head of our litigation department who assured me that no assessment officer would ever permit lawyers to charge the amounts that I had proposed. He was a brilliant litigator and he was completely correct. However, he was not much of a businessperson and had not considered how rarely our accounts were assessed. I was more than willing to lose all of the assessments and rake in the extra dollars on more than 99% of our files.
Those of you who do not attend partners meetings may not know that a common agenda item is why the associates are not working hard enough.
And those of you who follow the statistics are aware that only 25% of partners in Canadian law firms are female. This means that the problem is primarily defined by men, who identify the mothers of young children as part of the problem. Which indeed they are since they often undertake a disproportionate share of the childcare responsibilities and have less time to bill hours.
Law firm partnerships like to project the image of a cohesive unit. One strategy that they employ is to insist that although Partners may disagree with each other in a Partners’ meeting, once they leave the room, they all must support the group’s decision.
Another is to require that Partners act as though they like each other, especially when they don’t.
This is for the young folks looking for jobs in private practice early in their careers. Here is what matters and what does not matter so much. Ignore this at your own peril (and I am sure that a great many of you will both ignore it and eventually be in peril.)
The other day I heard a story about a furniture store in Toronto that was known to cater to the wealthy. The owner purchased an unusual item in Vietnam for twenty dollars. He brought it back to his store and promoted it as a one-of-a-kind item from an exotic destination. He sold it to someone with more money than brains for $10,000. The person who told me the story swears that she has fifth-hand knowledge of the incident and that it is absolutely true. Having shopped in that store once, I do not doubt it.
Welcome to the concept of value billing. Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them.
If any among you have not yet happened upon the writings of H.L. Mencken, you should correct that. Among his many pithy quotes are the following gems:
One of H.L. Mencken’s quotes that seems particularly apt for law firm management is this one: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”