General business development issues

What is the ultimate dead-end job?

On reading the title, how many of you thought:- law?

The title of this post is actually taken from an article in today’s South China Morning Post by Peter Guy – ‘Banking – the ultimate dead-end job‘

The article is a great read and while I would ask you to read Peter’s article in full; if I can, I’d ask you to take in some of the following comments he makes:

Even as a traditional service industry, investment banking used to beckon candidates with a sense of excitement, like you were entering an elite and exclusive club.

Growing interference and lower pay are driving the smartest and most innovative people away from the once-superior banking industry

Today’s deadening layer of bureaucracy is discouraging many new hires from spending more than two or three years in a bank before leaving the industry entirely or seeking positions in hedge funds.

Older, more senior bankers whose careers straddle pre- and post-financial crisis have few career choices and must subjugate themselves to the compliance-led and rules-driven banking culture until retirement.

Alternatively,

who wants to work and lead a dumbed-down organisation?

Acritas’ Sharplegal Survey: Vive La Différence – or you’ll lose work!

The days of the male dominated culture in law firms are numbered if said firms want to have any chance of continuing to win work from the growing number, as well as importance, of female in-house general counsel according to the latest research undertaken by Acritas’ Sharplegal (an annual global legal market survey of over 2,000 general counsel) revealing how differently male and female buyers approach the purchase of legal services.

Bottom-line take out from the covering article – on the Acritas website – announcing the survey result that should get every male law firm partner and their business development team’s thinking caps on is this:

Firms that are able to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of their female client’s business and her needs also stand to gain higher levels of favorability from her – an all-important step on the path to winning work.

This statement is also directly reflective of Lucy Siebert’s (international counsel at Australia’s Telstra) comments at the recent Legal Week Asia regional ‘Corporate Counsel Forum’, held at the end of November 2014, where she stated that:

We [Telstra] specifically look to see that they’re ensuring the best possible talent pool for us – not just white Anglo-Saxon males. We’ve got a very strong diversity policy and so we expect that to be something that is also important to our panel firms.

Crucially, law firms who are looking to win a greater share of work from female in-house counsel should note:

When asked what drove the likelihood to recommend a firm, a much higher proportion of women than men spoke about responsiveness as a deciding factor.

And specifically that:

Not only was it the quality of communication that mattered to female in-house counsel, but also the speed and level of interaction they experienced.

Interestingly, the survey also reports that:

43% of women working in senior in house legal roles said they used LinkedIn on a daily or weekly basis, compared with just a third of men. Furthermore, only a quarter of women said they never used the social network, compared to two fifths of men, suggesting that new business approaches to women may be better made online than ‘on the golf course’.

A final ‘thought for the day’ is the following by Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of Acritas [commenting on the survey findings]:

“A change in thinking and culture is needed if men want to impress an increasingly influential group of female in-house counsel who value business understanding and efficient communication over reputation, personal relationships and trust when choosing their preferred legal partner.”

Does your law firm have a ‘Big Ideas Project’

Last week I read about ‘The Big Ideas Project‘, a product of the Progressive Change Institute. I have to admit to being an admirer of projects like The Big Idea Project; but news today that Clifford Chance had appointed Amsterdam managing partner Bas Boris Visser as its first ‘global head of innovation and business change’ got me to thinking:

I wonder how many law firms have adopted a Big Ideas Project to help them decide what innovation and business change they need to be adopting and implementing if they’re to be more client-facing?

And, more specifically,:

If law firms aren’t adopting something like this internally – why not?

Are you paying attention to market trends?

On my train journey to work this morning I read the following passage from a recent blog post (‘Ignore Market Trends: Strategic Planning’s Third Deadly Sin‘) by BTI Consulting Group’s The Mad Clientist:

People think they pay attention to market trends. But, the reality is—they almost totally ignore them.

Knowing the trends means next to nothing. Even understanding the trends means little. Taking specific action based on the trends means everything. Take action: craft strategies and tactics specifically to take advantage of the current trends or use the trends to guide your plans.

What’s your next move?

and it got me to thinking how my #BizDevTip blog post from yesterday fell short:

How many of us pay attention to market trends, but then don’t take any immediate action based on that information?

In law firms, where the wheels of approval can be slow at best, my bet would be most of us…

In 2015 the challenge we face is ourselves

Happy New Year to you all.

At this time of year you’ll likely read your fair share of articles predicting what the year ahead will bring. You may even read the odd article or two on the trends that are likely to impact on our business during the course of this year.

I should state for the record that I enjoy reading these articles and in many cases the predictions are not too far off the mark.

Indeed, in previous years I would have been one of the first to gaze into my crystal ball and give you my prediction on the 10 or so issues that we are most likely going to face in 2015.

But not so this year.

To my mind the biggest challenge we, as business developers, face in 2015 is the fact that our business development efforts have been missing their mark in recent years.

To be clear, this is not a message I’m sending out there as a business developer.

I wish.

No, this is something our clients are telling us loud and clear.

In short, we, as business developers, have not been listening to what our pay masters are telling us.

Crucially, in 2015 we are also likely to see our marketing and business development messages lost in the noise surrounding chatter around AEC, ASEAN (as the region decides whether 2015 really is the year) and other such regional and global initiatives (Free Trade Zones being one).

While each of these will undoubtably be important factors for our business over the next 12 months, it is my belief that none is likely to lead to our down fall.

For the answer to that question, again we only need look at the resounding message being sent to us by our clients (yes, our clients), over a prolonged period now:

business development activities by law firm [in Asia] in 2014 missed their mark.

In 2015 then, we business developers need to be lifting our game and constantly asking:

what can we, as a law firm, be doing differently that will help our clients win more work, generate more revenue, and earn them higher rates of profitable return?

Alternatively, carry on as normal in 2015 and don’t be surprised if, at year-end, this is the result:

“If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got.”

-Henry Ford

Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia – really?

Yesterday I read an article on the lawyersweekly.com.au website by Felicity Nelson titled ‘Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia‘. This article cites recent research done by Acitas, including:

45 per cent of multinationals require legal advice in South East Asia;
34 per cent of Australian multinationals’ legal spend now goes outside their home jurisdiction; and
60 per cent of Australian in-house counsel surveyed said they needed legal advice in South East Asia

There is no doubt in my mind that Acitas research is both good and thorough. I have high regard for them.

But there is one niggling issue I have with the title of this article and that is this: while it would be fair to ‘Australian’ law firms (such as Minter Ellison or Clayton Utz) are not particularly active on the ground in South East Asia – and we can debate the merits of that strategy till the sun comes up – it’s a far cry to then extend that argument to say:

Law firms are failing to support clients in South East Asia.

And why do I say this?

Well, some firms with a presence is South East Asia and Australia – and who therefore must have a strategic plan around meeting their multinational clients needs in both jurisdictions – include:

Allen & Overy
Baker & McKenzie
Clifford Chance
DLA Piper
Linklates – Allens
Norton Rose Fulbright

Keep in mind that these are international law firms with an actual presence in South East Asia and Australia with a declared strategy of having multiple offices in order to meet the needs of their multinational clients. They’re not ‘fly-in, fly-out‘ operators; so they don’t have to worry about some of the very real strategic and cost issues that Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of Acritas, points out in the article and which I made only yesterday around organic growth and local knowledge acquisition!

My only question having read Nelson’s article is this then:

What the Hell are these firms doing if, as is alluded to in the article title, a large proportion of Australian and multinationals in-house counsels’ needs in South East Asia are going unmet?

and having read the results of Acritas’ survey in the article,

What do these firms plan to do to meet these very real needs now?

* I would recommend you read the Lawyers Weekly article, it raises w hole host of additional issues not covered in this post

Does my law firm need an Asian strategy?

I go to a lot of meetings at which the state of the Asian* legal market is discussed during the course of a year. At a lot of these meetings, it is taken as a given that the relevant/respective law firm “needs” to either be in Asia, have an Asian strategy, or both. But, as is the case with a lot of prospect mining in this industry, short consideration seems to be given to the pitfalls of getting involved, and the most important strategic question of the lot:

“Why?”

as in:

“Why do we (as a firm) even want to be involved in the cutthroat market of Asia?”

is all but glossed over.

Keep in mind that most law firms won’t make money in their first few years of involvement in the region (and I should know, I have first-hand experience helping with the success of a start-up law firm that later became part of Clifford Chance). Indeed, some firms have been active in Asia for over a decade and still haven’t made any real money (and now exist on the principal that they have “a lot invested in the region”). And with a number of firms saying they want to grow revenue by 30 or so per cent year-on-year, if you do decide to get involved in the region then your firm’s commitment can easily and quickly translate into millions of dollars.

With all of this in mind then, it is important that your strategic reasons for being involved are more than simply a partner’s desire to live somewhere a little more exotic than cold, windy [insert name of city] or because you heard on your train ride to work this morning that XYZ company may give you a job in Rangoon at some unspecified time in the future.

More specific questions your firm needs to be asking include:

does the firm have short-term, medium-term and long-term strategic goals in place that will help measure whether your foray into the market has been a success?
has the firm identified which of your existing client base is active in the region?
do any of your firm’s clients have strategic growth plans for the Asian market?
are your firm’s potential clients in the region growth prospects, or are they mature players whose account you need to keep?
is your firm pursuing an aggressive acquisition policy or more conservative rear-guard protectionist policy?
how are looking to grow in Asia – lateral hires in the markets we want to be in (preferred method for South East Asia)? Or are we relocating partners from elsewhere into the jurisdiction (favoured method in Korea for example)?
what performance related metrics has the firm put in place to encourage its partners to be actively involved in the strategy (for example, is there cross-referral profit points?)?
what local issues will the firm need to include? – For example, how many law firms send lawyers to Asia without sending them on a cultural awareness or language program (in the same way as government departments do)? Why is that I wonder?
what are your competition currently doing/likely to do in the near future in the region? Importantly, do they have a chequebook that is likely to cause me considerable pain?

These are just some of the issues your firm should be thinking through if it wants to get involved in the potentially lucrative Asian market.

And the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

The Asia-Pacific legal services market had total revenues of $80.4bn in 2013
The Asia-Pacific legal services market enjoyed compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.9% between 2009 and 2013
The Asia-Pacific legal services market is forecast to enjoy an compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7% for the five-year period 2013 – 2018
The monetary value of the Asia-Pacific legal services market is forecast to be $112.9bn by the end of 2018

Unsurprisingly then, you won’t be alone. There were approximately half a million active lawyers in the Asia-Pacific legal services market 2013.

—–

* It is critical, when looking at your “Asian” strategy, that you think of the whole of Asia – Indonesia; Korea; Myanmar; Malaysia; Philippines; Singapore; Thailand; Taiwan; Vietnam; as well as China. In other words, Asia is more than just China. If China is your market strategy, that’s fine but don’t call it an “Asian” strategy, call it a “China” strategy. Likewise, if ASEAN is your target market, call it an ASEAN strategy, not Asian.

Is The Tail Wagging The Dog In The Modern Law Firm?

Everyone thinks it, so let’s just come out and say it:

“Fee earners in Australian law firms are over-managed by ‘non-lawyers’ these days!”

Last week (10 December), Justin Whealing – editor of http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au – wrote an article headed [Australian] ‘Partners unhappy and over-managed’.

The article provides a fascinating insight from “one of Australia’s leading legal recruiters” [Whealing’s words] into several aspects of current thinking (or whinging) among dissatisfied law firm partners, including that the partnership of some of Australia’s larger and global law firms are unhappy that:

“They are losing their sense of proprietorship and sense of being a partner and feel more like an employee… Senior management aren’t listening enough to partners in making decisions.”

Sorry, but my levels of sympathy are low.

Do I believe that partners in today’s Australian law firms feel disenfranchised?

Yes; without a doubt.

Do I believe that this feeling is more pronounced when the partner in question is a member of a firm that has been involved in a merger – either domestic or international – as the article indicates?

Again; yes, I do.

But…

“…Senior management aren’t listening enough to partners in making decisions.”

Seriously?

I have very little sympathy for this argument – and the reason I say this is two-fold.

First, today’s business environment necessitates that major law firms move away from a partnership structure and towards a corporate one. Simply put, a global law firm with over 300 partners would be impossible to manage if each partner had an equal vote on all decisions relating to the day-to-day operational issues of the firm. Nothing would get done. So, in order to achieve the objectives of the partnership as a whole, a central committee of expert professionals needs to be formed to manage and run the day-to-day operational business of the firm.

Second, by definition a partnership is the sum of all of its parts. So, even if we were to say that the partnership should rule the roost on partnership issues – including both strategic and operational issues (and no corporate structure is needed), then said partnership needs to act in the interests of the collective and not the sole interests of one partner. If a partner doesn’t agree with this approach, then the partner in question should set up as a sole practitioner and avoid the complex issues of being involved in a partnership.

In other words, the power in a partnership structured law firm vests with the partners.

However, does a better balance than currently exists need to be drawn?

Undoubtedly, the answer here is ‘yes’.

Having a central committee (board) who carries out the wishes and instructions of the partnership, as decided at the annual partners meeting, is one thing. Having an executive committee who dictates to the partnership how the partnership needs to be managed and the strategic direction that partnership should take is quite another.

And there is little doubt that following the global expansion of a number of law firms this balance has misaligned (funnily enough, in many cases, at the suggestion of outside ‘management consultants’ the partnership itself has hired).

Overall though, while I would agree that a case can be made by the partners that the pendulum has probably swung too far towards management telling the partnership what they must do – aka, the tail is wagging the dog – if the partners of these firms truly wish to wrestle control back from these ‘non-lawyer’ managers, then they need to move away from the an attitude where they talk in corridors about…

“No one appreciates a micro-managed performance-based system”

…and start to take the bull by the horns and spell out what the joint strategic vision and goals of the partnership are at the next partnership meeting and then dictate that strategy to the management committee running the operational aspects of implementing said partners’ agreed strategy.

Alternatively, in Australia at least, there is the option to list your firm and become a shareholder of the business.

Can a falling A$ make selling Australian legal services easier overseas?

As regular readers will know, I have written a fair amount in the past (see here and here) about how a depreciating Australian Dollar (A$) is likely to be unkind to the Australia-based partners of international law firms operating here. It was, therefore, pleasing to see a post ( ‘Will international ﬁrms still call Australia home?’) on the Australasian Lawyer website yesterday that largely echoed many of the comments I had previously made.

So, with (1) the Australian legal press and a number of eminent managing partners echoing my views, and (2) an A$ hovering around the 87c on the US$ mark, a new question now comes to mind:

Can a falling A$ make selling Australian legal services easier overseas?

The answer here will depend on your law firm, its culture and client base. But, assuming that your firm actively encourages cross-border collaboration (and there is a whole different post there), the short answer should be yes.

If that’s the case, then some of things you need to be considering include:

How recently did I update my website profile/CV? Are all my deals Australian-based? Am I showing regional experience? Indeed, am I using regional keywords in my website profile or only local Australian used ones?
What sectors in Australia are likely to benefit from a falling A$ (tourism?)? Do I have expertise or a story to sell here?
A falling A$ should make assets in Australia more attractive to international purchasers (case in point: pension funds looking at real estate?). What am I and my colleagues doing about this?
What is the Australian Government’s current policy towards a falling A$ and foreign direct investment (FDI)? Is there a story to tell here (and there most likely is if you look closely enough)?
Are there regional developments that I could take advantage of (for example, development of arbitration courts in Singapore and HK?)?
Are there any free trade agreements (FTAs) in pace that make the falling A$ attractive (export markets?)?
When was the last time I talked with my clients to see how they were being affected by market/currency fluctuations and what steps they are putting in place to get the most out of this (manufacturing/FMCG?)?
Is there any way I can help my clients out with the current environment (put them in contact with clients in Asia?)? Maybe I can/should attend a regional trade or industry conference.
How often am I communicating with my colleagues in Asia, US and Europe to discuss work opportunities (including the chance to work in US$s?)? [time differences may have put this off before; but if I can bill in US$s, suddenly 2am conference calls don’t look so bad!]
What local or regional opportunities (tenders, capability statements, etc) are my business development team working on? Is there any way I can get in on this?
What regional panels are my firm on and can I look to develop these? If so, who is the relationship partner?
Should I be considering a secondment to another office in our firm network or to a client outside Australia (Asia, Europe, US) [especially if I can charge US$ for it!]?

Clearly you will need to make sure that you are meeting your clients’ expectations. You will also need to make sure you have in place a fee mechanism that is considerate of the exchange rate, while being beneficial to you and your firm, and also allowing everyone to prosper from the situation.

But, at 87c on the US$, the value proposition of an Australian lawyer active outside of Australia (such as in Asia) should have become a lot easier to communicate today than it was a year ago.

Now for a word of caution:

if you have been billing a client (especially one outside Australia) for several years in A$s, now is not the time to suddenly, and without notice, start billing that same client in US$s.

Strange as it may seem, clients will quickly see through this move. So make sure you give this issue careful consideration (as clients have also been known to talk with each other!).

I know the Burberry brand but that doesn’t mean I buy from them

I know the iconic luxury goods brand ‘Burberry’. Established in 1856, Burberry have been clothing the rich and famous pretty much continuously since. In Sydney they have a flagship store at 343 George Street. Here’s the kicker though: I have never knowingly bought anything from Burberry.

While this may all sound fascinating, you could well be asking yourself about now what this has to do with the selling of legal services? And it wouldn’t be an unreasonable thought too.

So without further ado, let’s move on to the issue at hand.

Last week saw the publication of the Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Brand Index 2014 to much fanfare. As Acritas themselves proclaim, the Index:

“…reveals the firms which are adapting most successfully to the changing market and winning client loyalty and favorability as a result.”

And while this would seem to be a pretty compelling reason to analyse the Index more closely by itself, managingpartner.com goes on to comment, according to the results of the Index, that:

“Multinational clients are more likely to instruct law firms which have a strong multi-jurisdictional presence and capabilities and a collaboratively working style and value focus”.

All I can say is – “Wow!”. If this is truly the case, then it goes without saying that the Index should be considered one of the most important and compelling benchmarks in the industry and it needs to be in the reading list of every managing partner, business development director and head of finance. Because the simple fact is, if my firm isn’t on and near the top of this list, I need to be very concerned.

But, before the panic starts to set in, how is the Index compiled?

Ahh, well here is where it seems to start falling apart. According to the Acritas website,

“The Sharpelegal Global Elite Brand Index is determined through four open-ended questions from the full survey to find out from general counsel:

the first law firms to come to mind

the firms most considered for multi-jurisdictional deals

the firms they feel most favorable towards

the firms most considered for multi-jurisdictional litigation.”

Did you notice that there was/is not a single open-ended question to the effect:

Did you actually buy legal services from this firm?, or
If you bought legal services from this firm, in how many different jurisdictions did you buy them in?, or
Did you use the same firm of lawyers in multiple jurisdictions in one transaction during the course of the last 12 months?

And therein lies the problem with the Index: while it is certainly really nice for my ego that my firm is one of the most recognised legal brands in the world (and just to be clear, I don’t actually work for the firm that came out top in the Index by some margin -Baker & McKenzie), the simple fact is that this doesn’t pay the bills.

Which brings me back to Burberry, a brand I most certainly know, would consider buying from (if I won the lottery), and feel very favourable to, but from whom I’ve never actually purchased anything…