business development

“Too many kids are doing law” – 10 non-legal jobs you can do in a law firm with a law degree

In 2018, on Canberra radio 2CC, the then Prime Minister of Australia Malcom Turnbull said:

“I actively discourage kids from doing law unless they actually want to be lawyers”.

Although maybe not apparently obvious (unless you are able to tie-in the relevance of the title of this post), Mr Turnbull’s comments were in reference to the number of students opting to study law here in Australia (where law remains part of a 5 year double degree) without any real desire to enter the profession.

As someone who had gone through the (admittedly English 3-year LLB undergraduate degree) university system in the early 1990s, I once heard it said that there were more students studying law than there were lawyers with practising certificates in England and Wales.

But here’s the thing, nearly all of us who had done our research (pre internet of things days), knew it. Most of us knew that a training contract was a far-off dream, especially as Student Loans were starting to kick-in.

Many didn’t even want to work in a Magic Circle firm – high street conveyancing was okay.

So are there too many people studying law?

Almost everyone I studied law with saw a law degree not only as a path to practising law but also as both an intellectual challenge and a gateway degree to better opportunities.

When considering that remark, keep in mind this was an era where having skills like a university degree (let alone one in law) allowed us to go overseas and work/travel (in my case that was 12 years in Asia and 14 years in Australia and I have still yet to see the inside of a court in England and Wales in any professional capacity).

So why am writing about all this now?

A couple of weeks ago The Law Society Gazette (England and Wales) wrote an article titled ‘Quarter of law grads face unemployment after university‘.

To which I posed a question on social media:

‘Do universities have a duty of care to ensure their students have real work prospects before accepting them onto their undergraduate program?

I think they do, but from many of the responses I received others think otherwise.

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I believe that if you pay 10s if not 100s of thousand of dollars to do a 5-year undergraduate degree in law, you should have some level of reassurance there is a reasonable chance you can actually be a lawyer. After all, on grades you should be in top 5% or so of students in the country.

10 ‘non-legal’ roles you can do in a law firm with a law degree

On the chance you do happen to do a 5 year law degree, don’t want to be a politician/diplomat and actually want to work in a law firm who aren’t offering you a Training Contract, then here’s my list of 10 alternative ‘non-legal’ roles you can do in a law firm with a law degree:

  1. Management (COO, CEO)
  2. Business Development/Sales
  3. Marketing
  4. IT/Lawtech/Innovation
  5. Pricing
  6. LPM
  7. Legal Design/LPI
  8. KM/Precedents/PSL
  9. HR
  10. Learning & Development

(NB: the use of ‘non-legal’ here is deliberate)

As always, the above represent my own thoughts only and would love to hear yours.

rws_01

What will the business of law look like in a post COVID-19 world?

Business Development image

uncertainty’:

The state of not being definitely known or perfectly clear; doubtfulness or vagueness.

Oxford English Dictionary

As we start to talk about the path/way out of COVID-19 lockdown, a number of pre-eminent thinkers in legal consulting have begun discussing what shape and form this might look like for our industry.

Notable among these have included:

  • Richard Susskind + Mark Cohen debating the future of the legal industry as excellently reported by Ron Friedmann on his Prism Legal blog
  • Patrick Lamb discussing ‘The Next Normal: Is There a Roadmap That Gets Us There?’
  • The team on the LawVision Insights Blog giving their views on ‘The Legal Profession in a “Post-COVID” World’, and
  • the excellent and very comprehensive series of blogs by Jordan Furlong under the themed title of ‘Pandemic’.

Then again, as Patrick Dransfield said in Asia Law Portal (Who knows what the future will hold?’) – nobody really knows what the future holds.

But isn’t that why we, as business developers, are hired? To try and give some insights to our partners on how the industry might look?

With that in in mind, for what it is worth , here are my two cents on some of things we may look forward to over the next 18 months:

  • The industry will remain fundamentally the same – as it was pre COVID-19 pandemic days unless there are structural changes to the business model. And, as I understand it, the trust partnership business model that is currently used in most common law jurisdictions makes the talk of change easier than the reality of change (in that nobody today would likely start a new law firm under a partnership trust structure).
  • Technology and working from home will play role – it goes without saying that both technology and working from home will play a part in the future, but how big that role will be in an industry built on presentism still remains to be seen.
  • Uncertainty will feature heavily –  we are flying blind here and most of us have no experience to drawn on. Even those of us who have been through this several times have now come to accept this time is different.
  • Consolidation will likely feature prominently – with The Law Society Gazette (England and Wales) reporting in the past week that ‘71% of high street firms face collapse‘ I would foresee a similar scenario playing out here in Australia. Only I doubt it will apply to high street firms, who should do well out of the expected growth in wills & estates and family law matters, as much as it will likely apply to the middle market where there still remain far too many firms representing far too few clients.
  • There will be an increase in lateral hiring – for the reasons above.
  • Cashflow/credit facilities will help – Warren Buffet is reported to have said that “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” Well, the tide has never been lower and we will see in the coming days who still has the ear of their banker. Arguably those with big trust accounts and/or on the panel of one or more Big4 bank panels will benefit.
  • How much office space do law firms really need? – it will be interesting to see if rent footprint decreases. Rental space – and whether to remove parts of the business to less expensive rental footprints (see Herbert Smith Freehills to Macquarie Park and McCabe Curwoods to Chatswood for example) – has been an issue for some time and one of the big take outs from this may well be a lot more Hot-desking!
  • The Big4 see opportunity – as EY reported this week, the Big4 are not going away. If anything, as this chart shows, they’ll be upscaling their charge

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 8.37.41 pm

  • A need to be even more client and sector focusses – with the team at Adam Smith, Esq looking at the following areas of need:
    • Insolvency, restructuring and distressed assets
    • Private equity (I’m not 100% sold on PE in Oz)
    • Regulatory investigations and dispute resolution a/k/a litigation
    • M&A
    • Tech and all the ancillary practices it spawns, including IP

From an Australian law perspective I would add Insurance law (going to be more claims made) and all forms of Government (Government will be spending big on Infrastructure, Health, Education and others).

But all of the above are my views and so to finish this post I’m going to turn to one of the great take-outs of this week for me – a post by Trish Carroll who interviewed 12 final year law students to find out how they were feeling in the middle of Covid – ‘Is Covid-19 the mother of all disruptors for the legal profession?‘ – and this is about as close as we will get to how the future of law will look.

As always though, interested in your thoughts/views/feedback.

rws_01

 

Stress in legal affects more than just lawyers

Business Development image

I want to start this post by acknowledging how far the discussion around mental health and wellbeing has moved within the Australia legal industry since the death of Tristan Jespon in October 2004. In part I put the moving of this needle down to the work of my good friend Justin Whealing while he was editor of Lawyers Weekly and in part I put this down to the continued work of Jerome Doraisamy, also of Lawyers Weekly and Minds Count (the new name for The Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation). Don’t get me wrong though, there are many many others who have played both active front-line and support roles in ensuring the issue of mental health and wellbeing is taken more seriously in our profession (see RUOKAY Day for example).

That said, while I think all of these initiatives and discussions are fantastic and are standouts that should make us extremely proud of the direction the industry is taking in Australia, almost every single conversation that I have been involved in on this issue has related to the mental health and wellbeing of lawyers – and, more specifically, junior lawyers. So it was great to see a report published earlier this month by fSquared Marketing on the issue of ‘Legal Marketing Mental Wellness’.

The subtitle of this report – ‘Stress in legal affects more than just lawyers’ – sets out the parameters of the journey the reader is about to undertake. And if you are left in any doubt about this, one of the first paragraphs of the Report cuts to the rub of the issue and totally grabs your attention and is also so very true.

It reads:

What about the legal marketing and business development professionals who are tasked with growing firms how is their mental health? They work in the same high-pressure environment as attorneys after all, and often under their direct management. Might the traditional pyramid structure, with equity partners at the peak, lead to stress cascading down the hierarchy to fall on the shoulders of the marketing and BD staff?

As someone who has worked on the front-line for over a decade my response is – ABSOLUTELY!

Taking a look at some of the responses I was particularly saddened, although not overly surprised, by these two graphs:

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 8.50.11 pm

Screen Shot 2019-09-25 at 8.58.37 pm

both of which were followed up by:

  • When reflecting on their own experiences, 83% of respondents listed their level of stress as at least a 7 on a scale of 1-10. No respondents reported feeling “very little to no stress”.
  • 71% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “I have too much work assigned to me.”
  • 76% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “There is a lack of resources in my department/assigned to marketing.”

And the following two highlighted comments made me sad that I personally am not delivering on my duty to my team and that the industry more generally really needs to address this issue:

“Much of the stress would be alleviated with stronger leadership from firm management, as well as from growing the marketing/business development team.”

“It is unfortunate that law firms segregate mental health awareness between lawyers and non-lawyers. Somehow they feel that staff (with whom they work directly) do not suffer from the same level of stress that the lawyers do.”

As damning as that last statement is – and never underestimate how damning it is, I want to end this post on a positive note, and that is this:

62% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement: “My team’s ‘wins’ in marketing are celebrated”.

I certainly hope my wonderful team think so!

rws_01

*if you are having issues in this area, no matter what firm you are from, never feel shy to reach out. I don’t promise to have the answer (frankly I won’t), but I will try and help you find that answer.

Would you use an unlicensed or unqualified legal advisor?

Last Friday’s (April 26) The Soul of Enterprise Free Rider Friday podcast (Millionaires, Marxists, and Minimum Wage) with Ron Baker and Ed Kless, included a ‘stack’ (their term not mine) by Ed on the news that “Kim Kardashian Is Right: Lawyers Shouldn’t Have to Attend Law School”. As someone who knows absolutely nothing about the Kardashian family (nor wishes to), not much in that – apart from the comment that Ed and Ron go on to make in respect of Episode #225 of their series of podcasts in relation to “occupational licensure”.

In short Ron and Ed talk about the fact that there are some jobs around the world where you need a ‘licence to practice’ – examples: a barber (hat tip to Ron’s Dad there), an accountant, and even a lawyer.

On the back of the Kim Kardashian issue, Ed and Ron then go on to ask this question:

If you know someone isn’t qualified (e.g., don’t have a law degree) or isn’t licensed (e.g. have a practising certificate), should you still be able/allowed to ask them for professional advice – provided that you sign a waiver/agreement/whatever stating that you know that persons isn’t qualified or licensed to provide the requested advice?

Never, no way, stupid idea.

And I would agree with you.

But wait, we’re all adults here and should be allowed to determine our own future and make our own decisions.

Exhibit A: this is an excerpt from the British Government’s website (April 2017) in relation to obtaining legal advice in Thailand:-

“There is no restriction on any Thai national , with or without a law degree [bolded and underlined for emphasis by me], to offer you legal advice.”

Now Thailand is a civil law jurisdiction with a codified law, but still…

…leaving aside the whole issue of how stupid you may or may not need to be take legal advice from a non-licensed, non-qualifed expert (bought a pre-pack will lately?) – here’s a precedent.

There are “lawyers” who advise “on the law” who are not educationally qualified (as opposed to possibly life) or institutionally licensed.

Interesting as that all is though, that’s Thailand – hardly the US, UK or Australia.

Well hang on a second…

Listening to Ed and Ron’s podcasts there are States in the US where you can now obtain ‘legal’ advice from someone who isn’t qualified or licensed, provided that you sign a waiver saying that you knew this to be the case.

And, in my view the following comment from legalfutures.com – reporting on The UK Legal Services Consumer Research Report 2019 yesterday:-

A smaller majority (58%) would be prepared to use freelance solicitors, due to arrive this November with other Solicitors Regulation Authority rule changes, if they could save money on fees.

means they are not a long way behind.

As always though, interested in your thoughts/views/feedback.

rws_01

* if I have misrepresented or misunderstood my take-outs from Ed and Ron’s podcast, then I apologise to them.

 

 

The perfect storm for #OldLaw?

In my last post I mentioned that I may post some further thought I had on this year’s Altman Weil Chief Legal Officer Survey.

One further comment on the Survey findings I did want to make relates to what I consider to be ‘the perfect storm’ brewing for the so-called #OldLaw or Traditional Law firm model.

And the best thing about this post is that my point can be made by showing you the following three easy to read charts from the Survey:

Chart 1

QUESTION: What are the chances you’ll be spending more money with me – your outside counsel – in the medium to long-term?

aw-1

[click on chart to expand]

ANSWER: Not an awful lot!

Chart 2

QUESTION: If you are not giving me – your outside counsel – the work, then who are you giving it to (ie, who is my main competitor)?

 

aw2

[click on chart to expand]

ANSWER: Yourself!

Chart 3

QUESTION: When you do give me work, what are the chances that you are going to ask me for a discount?

aw3

[click on chart to expand]

ANSWER: Very likely indeed!

Have to say, reading these three charts I’m left with the feeling that outside counsel are in for a very rough ride unless they are 100% focussed on what they want to do, and who they want to do it for!

RWS_01

The BIG takeout from this year’s Altman Weil CLO Survey

Altman Weil published the 2016 edition of its Chief Legal Officer Survey overnight Australian time. I may well post some more of my thoughts on this year’s content in the coming days, but what I wanted to share with you immediately is what I consider to be one of the most damning charts I have ever seen as it relates to business development, legal spend, and client relationship management:

altman-weil-clo-survey

That’s right, when asked the question:

Considering the ten law firms that receive the largest portion of your outside counsel spend, in the last 12 months how many of those firms have provided you with an analysis of spending data that was useful to your law department?

An overwhelming majority of CLOs (73%) responded “none”.

So, if you work for a law firm looking to differentiate your services; then the answer is it really isn’t that difficult.

RWS_01

Why asking someone to work 2,000 billable hours a year will kill their spirit

Business Development image

According to a post by Casey Sullivan of Bloomberg, earlier this week US law firm Crowell & Moring announced that it would increase its billable hour requirement for associates, from 1,900 hours per year to 2,000 per year. This new target will take effect 1 September 2016, but on the plus side 50 pro bono hours will count as billable.

15 Years ago I would have cried out “all kudos to you”. Back then my yearly billable target for an English ‘Magic Circle’ firm was 1,400 hours and I flogged my guts out to achieve that. So if you can effectively put 50% of billables on top of what I was doing (and trust me when I say I wasn’t going home at least one day a week), then you’re a better person than I (or so I would have said then).

But if you really need validation of what asking someone to work 2,000 billable hours a year means, then I would like to recommend you read “The Truth about the Billable Hour” by no less an institution than Yale University. In that publication, Yale caution aspiring lawyers that if you are being asked to “bill” 2201 hour, you need to be “at work” (includes travel time and lunch, etc.) 3058.

Taking that further, from an Australian law perspective, if you are being asked to bill 2,000 hours a year then you need to bill 8.3 hours a day (assuming a 48 week year and you never get sick; which, if you are being asked to do this, you most likely will be). That means you are very likely going to need to be “in the office” around 12 hours a day – and that assumes no write-off by your partner or leakage.

But here’s the question: “What difference does this make?

I ask this because I wholly agree with the following comment my friend Kirsten Hodgson made when I posted a link to this article on LinkedIn:

“why would you reward the number of hours someone spends working? Surely it would be better to focus on how to deliver value smarter and more quickly. This doesn’t incentivize innovation or any type of process improvement.”

Exactly right, you’re measuring all the wrong things!

Leaving aside the Balance Scorecard argument, asking someone to do 2,000 billable hours a year doesn’t take into account:

  • client satisfaction
  • realisation (it’s a utilisation metric)
  • working smarter
  • innovation

or many other metrics.

And for those who may point out the benefits of this including 50 hours pro bono I say this: the Australian Pro Bono Centre National Pro Bono ‘Aspirational Target’ (ie, where we would like to get to), is 35 hours per lawyer per year.

But probably more importantly than all of this is this:

–  if you ask someone to do this, then you really leave them very little time to do anything else.

This really should be a concern, on the business front because you leave almost no time whatsoever to train them in the business of law – ie, you kill any entrepreneurial spirit they may have. And, crucially, the only metric that really counts to them is that all important 2,000 billable hours (keep in mind that like I was, they’re very young). Which for a profession that has the mental health issues we do, is not good.

For all of these reasons, I’m hoping no other law firm follows this. But sadly I think they will.

Oh, and if you are a law firm client reading this post you might just want to look up whether your local jurisdiction has a “Lemon Law” rule that applies to provision of a service.

RWS_01

Survey: The role pricing specialists play [or don’t] in RFP responses

Last week the USA’s J Johnson Executive Search, Inc and the UK’s Totum published their combined ‘RFP Survey Responses: U.S. and U.K. Data 2016‘.

A fairly evenly distributed demographic of large (defined as being 600+ lawyers), mid-sized (defined as being 100-600 lawyers) and small (up to 100 lawyers, for the U.S. only) law firm respondents, insights from the survey include time spent responding to RFPs, persons within firms charged with project managing responses, as well as tools and expertise made available to responding teams, in both the U.S. and the U.K.

As with most surveys of this nature however, it is the role that pricing plays that typically grabs my attention and given this survey’s combined U.S. and U.K. perspective even more so in this case.

Given ongoing market pressures, it should surprise no one that responses of “strong” from the U.S. (58%) and the U.K. (64%) to the question of what current “price pressure” for proposal & RFPs were fairly similar.

rws-5

 

A little more surprising to me was the difference in responses between the U.S. (40%) and the U.K. (60%) to the question “when developing proposals and RFPs, I have easy access to” the answer was “pricing guides/professionals“.

 

rws-7

 

Now don’t get me wrong, even these days I think it is particularly progressive and somewhat comforting to know that 60% of my colleagues in the U.K. have access to some sort of “pricing guide/professional”.

Until, that is, you get to see who actually gets to sign-off (i.e., the “decision maker”) on the all important issue of pricing in RFPs in the U.K.. Here, and I kid you not, the response in the U.K. of “pricing specialist” (that same person who 60% claim to have some form of access to – either via guides or in person) was 5%.

I think that is worth repeating – 5%.

Put into context, that means in the U.K. pricing in your RFP is more likely to be signed off by Marketing & BD (9%) or Finance (14%). Indeed, in the U.K., “It varies” is likely to have more of a say on final pricing in the RFP response than the so-called pricing specialist.

rws-4

I’m not so sure why the results of this particular survey so surprise me. After all, time and time again survey results show that we typically say one thing about pricing, but do quite another.

What I will say though is this: if you have access to a pricing specialist, and pricing by your pricing specialist is being determined in 5% or less of your RFP responses, my guess is going to be one of two things: (a) you have no idea if you are making money from your RFP “wins”, or (b) more likely, you are leaving money on the table big time!

RWS_01

* images should be enlargeable, apologies if they appear a little blurred.

#BizDevTip: Develop Value Groups

Business Development image

Over toast and coffee this morning I read a cracking post on the LexisNexis Business of Law Blog by Carla Del Bove titled “Understanding the Science Behind How Clients Think“. The post provides some good tips for law firm business developers and marketers, but includes an absolute gem of a tip: “Develop Value Groups” (number 2 in the list), which Carla Del Bove describes as being:

“A value group is simply a group of influential business professionals (e.g. CFOs of major corporations or office managers of the top five consulting firms across the country, etc.) who meet either quarterly, or three times a year and share a common interest.

The first step involves figuring out who the firm’s target group is and then finding a common theme that draws them in and keeps them engaged. Some examples of this include: inviting members of the group to a prestigious event or using a prominent key note speaker for meetings. Most important, they say, is there needs to be a clear purpose for getting together and participants need to get some value out of the meeting. Lastly, they agree, value groups are less about quantity as they are about quality.”

Really useful tip by Carla that I thought I would pass on to you. Make sure you read the rest of Carla’s post and if you would like to get updates on other business development and marketing related material I read each week, feel free to sign up to my free weekly Mail Chimp update (or email me if you want to be added to the subscriber list).

RWS_01

How long before we see a ‘Red Team’ service in #Auslaw?

Business Development image

Of note overnight (OZ time) was news that Bernero & Press (Wendy Bernero and Aric Press) have launched a service called: ‘The Red Team’.  Described as being “A Lifeline for Marketing and Business Development Departments” the aim of The Red Team is to provide:

“…high-quality, experienced marketing, communications, and business development professionals to law firms on a project basis or to fill temporary needs.”

Sounds very similar to the sort of lawyer placement service we are seeing from the likes of Crowd & Co here in Australia, only in this case the target market is specifically support services.

I have to say that outsourcing back office services such as marketing and business development was something I saw becoming popular in Asia during the Asian Financial Crisis in late 1998 and I have often wondered when we would see such a move take hold in the West.

Today may just be that day.

RWS_01