Harvard Study Lays Out Keys to Collaboration Among Lawyers

Editor’s Note: The author of this article is a scholar at Harvard Law School who is writing a book about the legal profession. This article is the third of a three-part series and serves as the foundation for a chapter in her forthcoming book. Read Part One and Part Two .

By Heidi K. Gardner, Distinguished Scholar, Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession

True rainmakers don’t need to be convinced to collaborate: referring work to colleagues and developing a loyal team capable of extraordinary client service is the only way they can build an enormous portfolio. But it’s no surprise: the bigger the account, the more stressful leading it becomes. The more sophisticated the client, the more likely it is that the advisors with the specialist technical expertise needed to address their complex issues are distributed throughout the firm and possibly around the globe. To appropriately tailor large-scale solutions, domain experts must work closely with colleagues in the local market who have deep contextual knowledge. The combination of large, distributed and global would be tricky enough, but we also have to acknowledge that those needed experts have their own client priorities which often don’t align with the rainmaker’s.

Based on our research at Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession , we focus on barriers and solutions for experienced rainmakers who are looking to take collaboration in their client account teams to the next level. Future posts will address collaboration between lawyers and their clients – but we think that fixing issues of collaboration amongst partners is pretty foundational before you start extending it outside the firm.

In our prior posts in this series, we shared empirical evidence on the ways that collaboration can boost a lawyer’s rainmaking capabilities, resulting in higher business development revenues, a heightened personal reputation, and stronger client retention. Clearly the barriers to true collaboration can be quite daunting, and we offered a range of solutions to mitigate the obstacles – no silver bullets, but ways practical ways to make a difference.

[caption id="attachment_2963" align="alignleft” width="244"][Image “https://www.flickr.com/photos/99781513@N04/" (src=https://bol.bna.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/15006459346_66928c0091_o.png)]Illustration by Scott Lewis (Flickr/Creative Commons)[/caption]

Before we dive into more issues and solutions, let’s recognize that highly experienced rainmakers are likely get a number of additional benefits beyond the ones we discussed in prior posts.

Financial benefits of collaboration for experienced rainmakers:

The more experienced the rainmaker, the more likely they are to focus on client profitability – often because firms hold key client leaders to a higher standard. The ultimate question, then, is whether multipractice service increases profits and not just revenue. The fear, of course, is that once you get deeply embedded in a client with huge teams from across your firm, the client will start using their buying power to demand discounted rates and other freebies. Why bother doing more work for less money? Our research suggests that this possibility is real, but that – on average – clients served with multipractice engagements are more profitable in the long run. Although I can’t share detailed findings for confidentiality reasons, I’m allowed to reveal this: data from some major international law firms shows that the profitability (in percentage terms) holds nearly steady as more practices are included in a client’s service mix. Naturally the numbers shift depending how narrowly you define practices, which “magnet practice” anchored the initial relationship, and so on, but the results on average show fairly steady margin rates even as the account size grew.

Data from some major international law firms shows that the profitability (in percentage terms) holds nearly steady as more practices are included in a client’s service mix.

Given that these law firms are earning about the same percentage on much higher revenues, it’s clear that their overall profits stemming from cross-practice service are significant. Plus, if you take into account the significantly lower cost of sales for repeat versus new clients (does your firm capture this data?), then the balance tips further toward the cross-practice work. I strongly encourage you to undertake similar analyses with your own data; if you find a different pattern, then it should trigger deeper inspection about the mix of practices, nature of your negotiations, and so forth. Overall, I expect you’ll find a pattern that illustrates what one Fortune 100 CFO recently told me about the link he has observed between his company’s outside advisors’ services and their profits: “Margins rise with complexity.”

But let’s be clear: These benefits only flow if clients are delighted by the value their legal teams provide. As Ben Heineman, GE’s former GC, has written, “Bigger isn’t necessarily better.” No GC is willing to pay for inefficient lawyers handing off work among themselves. They expect their legal teams to use adequate project management discipline to control quality and avoid billing for unnecessary work, poor work, and rework. Gurus like David Maister have been saying that for decades and we took the point for granted in prior posts. But at commentators’ urging, we’re now making it explicit.

As Ben Heineman, GE’s former GC, has written, “Bigger isn’t necessarily better.”

Deeper benefits of collaboration for experienced rainmakers:

Experienced rainmakers have gotten past the nerve-wracking stage when they were unsure whether collaboration would ultimately pay out. Now that they’re reaping the return on their investment, they can focus on some of the emotional and other less tangible rewards that come from collaborating. Clearly, money is important not only for purchasing power, but also as a status indicator. But most lawyers conform at least somewhat to models of normal adult development: the older and richer they get, the more likely they are to seek meaning. And that’s where collaboration helps, too.

1. Intrinsic motivationof complex work: Lawyers tend to crave intellectual challenge. Collaborating across disciplinary boundaries allows them to move up the food chain in their clients, advising people whose challenges are increasingly complex and interesting. As one partner said, “If I’m doing work just in my specialty, then I’m almost certainly talking to clients with a narrow scope and more limited responsibility. Once I move into more sophisticated work, I move up toward the c-suite, and that’s when conversations get interesting.”

2. Power: When a CEO is in crisis and she calls on your team for advice, it’s a heady experience. Whether it’s advising the world’s business elite, directing hundreds of lawyers in a worldwide account team, or winning awards for legal innovation in a major client — all are sources of heightened power and prestige, and they are likely the result of a collaborative effort.

3. Issue spottingfor opportunities or problems: Experienced rainmakers who build up a large client service teamandwho keep open the lines of communication reap huge advantages. First, more brains inside the client increase the odds of someone finding out crucial intelligence before your competitors do. On the flip side, it’s often the frontline lawyers who gain a real sense of how the client feels and whether they have concerns. The most successful professionals are ones who cultivate an environment in their teams that encourages members not only to stay attuned to client issues and opportunities, but also to relay those messages directly to the partner in charge. One lawyer co-leads a client service team that stretches from Asia to Europe to the US spends enormous effort nurturing these relationships with his team. He said, “I want to focus on building trust with my partners so that I can give them feedback, they can give me feedback – I want to be first person to know, not last one, if I’m doing something stupid.”

4. Legacy: As the Chair of one major firm told me, “Some lawyers are more partner-like than others. Just as entrepreneurs want to leave a solid business behind for their children, these partners are motivated to pass on a strong client relationship to the next generation.” Research has found that building a legacy – that is, leveraging your achievements and values to help others succeed after you’re gone – is a prime source of enduring happiness. By helping to institutionalize the client relationship across multiple partners, experienced rainmakers build their legacy.

These benefits come at a price, however. Below we explore a couple of the main issues, and focus on how to address them.

Research has found that building a legacy – that is, leveraging your achievements and values to help others succeed after you’re gone – is a prime source of enduring happiness.

Developing a committed, accountable team

As a rainmaker, you probably can’t function without colleagues who are willing drop their “own” clients when your higher-priority client needs them. But as one partner said about partners in his firm, “People no longer feel the same personal accountability to each other that makes them interrupt their own agenda to help on another partner’s client. I feel like I need to negotiate or incentivize, whereas before people would just do the right thing for each other.” So what can you do?

After you’ve targeted the experts whose contribution you need, start by figuring out (1) what holds each of them back and (2) what would personally motivate them.Be creative about what strings to pull for each partner. For example, one partner may be reluctant to give up time on his local clients because he fears losing autonomy over his work and becoming dependent on others to “fill his plate” with work from key accounts. Help such partners to develop a roadmap for how their relationship will evolve within the client and the wider account team. Give them a vision for how they will become embedded in the client team, and assure them that you’ll provide opportunities for them to get in front of key executives to build their own relationships and reputation. Ask current team members to vouch for your efficient leadership, generous credit sharing, and lack of micro-management (of course, this hinges on you actuallybeinga good team leader!).

Another partner may decline to participate because she is already swamped with other high-profile client work. Ask yourself, do you really need this specific guruor would another, perhaps slightly more junior, partner be a reasonable alternative? If you absolutely need the guru, you may need to use a combination of relationships, flattery, and upside potential in terms of revenue and even greater reputation-boosting work – and then still settle for getting her brief attention.

Instead, where possiblestart to take some calculated risks by involving less obvious players on your team. Even though you might need to invest some more energy in getting this partner fully up to speed, the move is smart because “hungry” junior partners are more likely to commit time and energy to your broader client effort. Over time, developing a pipeline of capable contributors makes you less dependent on overly busy partners who might become bottlenecks. And it sends you on your way to developing the legacy benefit, mentioned above.

Overall, experienced rainmakers can attract loyal, high-quality team members by becoming a great leader to work with. For each new matter explicitly clarify objectives and make sure people know how they fit into the overall picture – doing so increases motivation and decreases rework. When new members join the team, clarify objectives not only for the specific project but also brief them on the client’s culture, values, and service expectations. Further, your team members shouldn’t have to guess whether their contributions are up to par. If yougive people constructive, honest, and timely feedback, you’ll maximize their ability to learn from your project, which is one of the key benefits individuals gain from collaboration.

Finally, share credit and recognition generously.

For each new matter explicitly clarify objectives and make sure people know how they fit into the overall picture

Leading distributed teams – especially if they’re global

Experienced rainmakers know that managing any large team is complicated, but when members are distributed across offices – especially international ones – significant coordination costs arise: projects delayed due to incompatible schedules; cross-cultural or linguistic misunderstandings on cross-border work; technology failures causing missed deadlines. International matters are particularly challenging because each partner may be working with different assumptions and ways of engaging the client.

[caption id="attachment_2962" align="alignleft” width="376"][Image “https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidstanleytravel/10828321805/in/photolist-huRYPx-i7UkrA-bw3Z18-5USMf-3o2TyM-q8etKh-y87Si-2SmfSo-bSvwBn-5Z7SF5-3dUqD-d8dGmu-5Z7uNb-4XAx5F-ed2oZX-d6cgAU-sSmQQ-sErfJ-28Z6w-brDcKB-5Z3E9z-rtPp8r-iRejX-ed873d-d6cg8s-d6cgLo-6fDb12-5QmSxr-6i3oGN-pk6kcA-sqcQh3-6GivdF-rshdTy-5Zcivs-bDANQY-4ZnmdW-fQsxjA-fQbqYz-d8dtSu-d8dFkC-d8dG2Y-gFRdb-qScF7Z-e3SNyF-4YeXC5-9r9FrC-a5Znzg-5Z7J47-5Z7Hsh-8SrMLW” (src=https://bol.bna.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/10828321805_28a0711779_z.jpg)]Photo by David Stanley (Flickr/Creative Commons)[/caption]

A French lawyer working on an international, Paris-headquartered client felt pressure by his co-account leaders in the US and Asia to drive for faster growth. He countered, “I understand that I need to be very active, but in the French culture cannot be quite so aggressive as elsewhere. For Paris clients, you need to be pushy without seeming to be pushy. It’s a delicate equilibrium that outsiders don’t grasp.”

One of the things that makes working at a distance so complicated is that it affects both the way we feel and think – and any viable solutions have to address both. A colleague from INSEAD, Prof. Mark Mortensen , is an expert in making virtual collaboration smoother, and we just teamed up to write a forthcoming piece in Harvard Business Review. Here are some of the highlights:

• Focus on commonalities,especially your shared goal of exceptional client service, in order to overcome the “us and them” thinking that is typical of distributed teams.

• Arrange regular touchpoints– ideally by video, but phone is still much better than email – to share task-related information. If you only do this on an “as needed” basis, it’ll probably fall through the cracks because we often don’t recognize when distant colleagues need our knowledge. Beyond the obvious benefit of coordinating the actual work, regular communications help keep team members engaged and accountable to the client team.

• Take time to share the personal updates, even though it feels like a luxury. The resulting trust and familiarity are vital when a true crisis erupts.

Juggling the Producer-Manager roles

We’ve long known about the Producer-Manager Dilemma – the challenge of leading other professionals while continuing to generate and execute work (Prof. Jay Lorsch at HBS has been writing about it since the late 80’s). But the problem is truly exacerbated for experienced rainmakers because the burden of both of those roles is higher: their producer obligations extend to both originating and executing, while their leadership responsibilities and administrative burdens for account team(s) also intensify. For example, every partner needs to spend time managing client relationships but one law firm reported that their lead client partners spent up to 700 hours per year on non-billable client development work. That figure only counted the “officially recorded” time, whereas interviews with those partners suggested their actual hours were significantly higher when considering time spent internally on team briefings, clearing conflicts, handling billing issues, and so on. Which responsibilities tend to suffer most when the pressure hits hardest? Almost inevitably, pressured rainmakers neglect the leadership actions such as communicating and team-building that are essential for developing and sustaining effective collaboration.

Experienced rainmakers can take some fundamental steps to staying focused on actual client and team priorities, instead of getting bogged down in admin. Here are a few of the tactics you can try:

1.Know the individual client’s true priorities and preferencesso that you can focus on actions that will be genuinely value-add --and not merely self-aggrandizing. Yes, there are times when only you can handle a situation. But are you inserting yourself where it’s absolutely essential, or are there times when a trusted junior would do a great job and welcome the opportunity for more client exposure?

2.Set an agendathat reflects your critical business objectives on both the client and team-building fronts.Link team-building issues to concrete business outcomes(as in, “Coach Lisa on handling client objections so that she can negotiate the XX terms”) so that it’s clear why leadership responsibilities are as mission-critical as producer ones. Then prioritize your own actions ruthlessly and realistically. Delegate where possible – especially the things that are good “stretch opportunities” for up-and-coming leaders. (Are you sensing a theme here? Do you do it frequently and well?)

3.Seek feedback and actually listen to it. You need to find a few people who (1) understand your agenda, (2) can observe whether your actions and decisions are consistent with the agenda, and (3) will tell you the real truth about your impact – whether you like it or not. When client activities heat up, you’re most likely to neglect behaviors such as communicating priorities to a new team member, but these high-priority situations are exactly when leadership is most important. Many rainmakers could use a refresher– see this post on the power of feedback. Just remember the words of a wise person, “The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.” (Gloria Steinam).

4.Leverage all the talent you can muster .As discussed in Part 2 of this series, you must develop a cadre of experts whose competence and character you trust so that you can build up a capable client-service team. But the most clever rainmakers also think broadly about talent –for example, asking the firm’s marketing specialist to coach associates on writing, requesting support from human resource professionals to help you run better onboarding for new team members, and training a capable assistant to scan bills for inconsistencies before the client sees them. In firms where business support professionals are treated like second-class citizens, you can develop a real advantage by seeking out and respectfully leveraging hidden gems.

Summing up and next steps: Even the most experienced rainmakers face significant challenges in today’s competitive legal arena. The financial and intangible benefits of providing excellent client service expand as the client responsibilities increase – but so do the challenges and frustrations. Experienced rainmakers can shift the benefit-cost balance by improving capabilities in three primary areas: Developing a committed, accountable team; more effectively leading teams that are distributed across offices or even countries; and successfully juggling the Producer-Manager roles. In this short post, we can only touch on these tricky areas, but hope that it provides an impetus for deeper reflection and conversation.

I am writing a book based on this research to be published by Harvard Business Press in 2016, and this article appearing on Big Law Business will serve as a foundation for one of the chapters. I’m currently developing a Board of Contributors to periodically review preliminary ideas from the manuscript and provide input, critiques, and examples. If you’re interested, please contact me:hgardner@law.harvard.edu.