Change, competition and clients

by with 0 Comments

Posted in: Clients, Competition

The pace of change in and around the legal profession these days can’t really be overstated. The external marketplace of legal services is transforming itself daily — vast numbers of non-lawyers are now supplying legal services to clients, who have more knowledge and leverage than ever before. Simultaneously, young lawyers are redrawing the internal map of the profession, forcing cultural change in the practice of law on a nationwide scale.

Whether we like it or not, major change is coming to the legal profession. We can’t stop the change, and we’d waste time and resources trying. What we need to do is understand the full breadth of what’s happening, quickly consider our options, and plot a course that best serves the long-term interests of lawyers — and of clients.

Maybe it’s a little late to start, but from here on in, we have to consider clients in every plan we make for the future of our profession. We have to think about what services clients want, how they want these services delivered, how much they will pay for them, and how they want that price to be set.

Lawyers have been long accustomed to deciding most of those things unilaterally. Not anymore.

This post originally appeared as the editorial in the July/August 2005 issue of National magazine.

Culture wars

by with 0 Comments

Posted in: Generations, Satisfaction

Every year, thousands of lawyers in their 20s enter the legal profession, while thousands more in their 60s leave it. In the result, we’re seeing a mass-scale infusion of new value systems into the legal profession — and the old and new systems usually mix like oil and water. The clearest value clash is revolving around how much of your life should be dedicated to your job, rather than to you and your family. Most new lawyers say: not that much.

Demographers argue over why this new generation cares more about spending time at home or with family than it does about professional advancement. But I can tell you this much: most new lawyers don’t really give a damn about law firms’ billable-hour targets.

And there’s the problem. Today’s legal culture (including the typical law firm compensation structure) is mostly ill-equipped to deal with this sea change. Boomer values — including devotion to the job, financial security and social status — have shaped the modern legal profession. But the profession’s newest members value self-fulfillment, job satisfaction, and family priorities more than they value overtime bonuses. This “problem” (as most firms still refer to it) is only going to get worse.

Time was, young lawyers shaped their family planning around their careers. These days, they’re shaping their career planning around their families. Law firms and legal employers that fail to recognize this change are in for a very rough ride.

This post originally appeared as the editorial in the June 2005 issue of National magazine.

Double happiness

by with 0 Comments

Posted in: Satisfaction

I came across an article recently that argued against pro bono expectations for legal practitioners. Lawyers should not be obliged to “give back to the community” because, among other reasons, conscientious lawyers haven’t taken anything from it — no more so than hairdressers or mechanics, for instance.

The term “give something back to the community” probably has earned criticism — overuse has turned it into something of an empty catchphrase. So let’s think about it for a moment.

In our feature article this month about happiness in the legal profession, we list seven steps by which lawyers can achieve greater personal satisfaction. The seventh point includes the simple yet powerful prescription: “Be grateful.” Gratitude is the expression of humility. It’s the emotion generated when we recognize how immense is our good fortune and how little our contribution to it.

We were born in or immigrated to one of the finest countries in the world — a country whose medical, judicial, and educational institutions are lavish by comparison to what you’ll find on most of the planet. On top of that, we personally had sufficient resources — intellectual, financial and familial, few of them authored by us— to enter and graduate from law school. Just 0.03% of Canada’s population belongs to the legal profession; that tiny sliver is us.

And we’re lawyers. Despite what we may hear or even think in dark, cynical corners, the law is widely admired and its practitioners accorded a social status surpassed by very few. When was the last time you were ashamed to admit, at a party or other gathering, that you were a lawyer? We’re pretty proud of being lawyers, and we can hardly be blamed for that.

But it would be blameworthy if we were to grandly accept the mantle of lawyer as some kind of birthright — if we mistook our good fortune for anything more than an inheritance of grace. It’s the recognition of how lucky we are that drives the best of us to share the gifts we’ve received with those less fortunate. We’re not “giving back to the community” — we’re giving away freely that which was given freely to us.

That’s why lawyers who give of themselves — of their talent and time — are some of the happiest and most satisfied people I know. Like everyone else who donates what they have, they realize how rich they are and are compelled to enrich others — and find themselves enriched in return beyond their expectations.

This post originally appeared as the editorial in the April/May 2005 issue of National magazine.

Dangerous hours

by with 0 Comments

Posted in: Billing, Innovation

Like anyone who’s served time in an office cubicle, I find great wisdom in your average Dilbert strip. A recent edition showed the employees mocking the boss’s mantra that “Change is good.” “Why don’t you triple our pay?” they ask. “Why don’t you work for free? Or would it be better to admit that change can be very bad?”

One of the objections to abandoning the billable hour has long been the lack of legitimate alternatives. But there are now many of them, adaptable for various types of practices, clients and files. Most importantly, leading members of the profession are starting to openly admit the billable hour’s limitations.

Why has it been so hard to move away from a system that neither clients nor lawyers particularly enjoy? Maybe because the billable hour renders lawyer revenue predictable and easy to compute — appealing to many law firm financial planners. Maybe because it generates handsome livings for many lawyers who see no need to fix what doesn’t appear broken.

Mostly, though, it’s about resistance to change — a very human trait, one that’s magnified in a legal profession trained to be cautious and rely on precedent. Lawyers are resistant to change for change’s sake — and as Dilbert has observed, that’s sensible. Change is good only if there are specific, measurable advantages to be gained, if there’s a legitimate case to be made.

With regard to the billable hour, that case is ironclad. It’s not just because clients resent paying for time spent rather than results obtained (something you wouldn’t accept from your accountant or mechanic). It’s not just because the billable hour discourages lawyers from integrating more closely with their clients’ goals and interests. It’s not just because billable-hour targets are the bane of thousands of lawyers’ lives.

It’s because the marketplace has shifted. Consumers of every stripe demand choice and customization — they’re not just purchasing products and services, they’re purchasing a feeling that their wants and needs have been considered and accommodated. They want the assurance of an established service provider coupled with the sense of individual attention. Increasingly, thanks to Internet businesses, they’re getting it — and they’re getting used to it.

Too many lawyers still believe they can sell their services according to what best suits their own needs and conveniences. Clients are poised to deliver a powerful message to the contrary: change is good.

This post originally appeared as the editorial in the March 2005 issue of National magazine.

[private]

This section should only appear to a logged-in member.

This section has been placed here for testing purposes only.

[/private]