Change is the order of the day in Big Law.  In fact, it appears that rapid and strategic evolution in the midst of current market forces is the key not only to profitability, but perhaps in some cases, the key to survival.

Much has been written about Big Law’s new approach to associates, including compensation, expectations, demand and satisfaction.  Less has been said about the new reality facing partners in Big Law.  Nevertheless, the changes are sure to be just as significant.

Simply put, gone are the days when a partner in Big Law could comfortably rely on his or her ability simply to service firm clients.  Firms will be increasingly rigorous in their evaluation of partners’ ability to develop new clients and new business.  This rigor will be applied in the current time to assess the extent to which members of the existing partnership can or should remain with the firm.  Where a partner cannot demonstrate business development skill or precedent, the odds are reasonably high that such partner will be asked to consider career options outside of the firm.

This trend will also affect associate promotions to partner.  As firms return to a version of the “up or out” model, firms will create more meaningful ways to assess senior associates’ business development potential. 

Bottom line—in the new era of Big Law, partners will have to be excellent practitioners as well as skilled business people.  

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Founder and Principal with Zelinka, Prince & Parsons, LLC.  She can be reached through  www.ZPPpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

There has been great speculation all year about how the broader recession would ultimately affect Big Law.  Some predicted a fairly moderate bump in the road, remedied by some quick associate layoffs, while others imagined a dramatic change in the way that Big Law operates, ranging from revised fee structures to new compensation programs to restructured partnerships.

As we enter the final lap of 2009, it has become very clear that the latter is closer to the impending reality—Big Law is in the midst of a dramatic and permanent change.  In meeting after meeting with Big Law leaders, the same story emerges:  Big Law needs an extreme makeover, and many firms expect to reveal the specifics of their own plans in early 2010.

As far as talent management goes, I feel confident that we can expect major revisions to how Big Law firms compensate and promote associates.  We will see an increasing abandonment of the lockstep model.  We will see fewer “non-discretionary” bonuses.  We will see a far more robust commitment to conducting meaningful lawyer evaluations.  We will see a greater focus on understanding what makes a successful partner within a given law firm.  We will see a diminishment of the now bloated “non-equity” partner tier.

At the partner level, it appears that some of the more difficult decisions have yet to be made.  On a business level, Big Law cannot continue to support large numbers of non-equity partners who do not contribute solid numbers to the bottom line.  I predict that we will see a very significant restructuring effort at the partner level across most Big Law firms.  We will see underutilized partners needing to move beyond the Big Law space, and for many senior lawyers, that will be a challenging undertaking.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Founder and Principal with Zelinka, Prince & Parsons, LLC.  She can be reached through  www.ZPPpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

Most lawyers who are not currently employed in Big Law are not necessarily aware of the uncertainty facing many law firms. Lawyers working inside of companies, government agencies or non-profits are asking, “Can I get hired today in Big Law?” The better question is “Should I seek a position today in Big Law?”

My best advice today is a resounding “No.” Here’s why:

• Big business is expecting an ongoing contraction in its use of outside legal counsel
• The majority of Am Law 200 firms are struggling to cope with vast overcapacity
• We have not seen the end of Big Law layoffs or even the full extent of the major changes that are coming to this industry
• Longstanding law firms have dissolved based on a single bank’s decision to freeze or terminate a line of credit
• Firms have announced a policy of “no layoffs” and then conducted major layoffs only two months later

In short, no on knows (including Big Law) where Big Law is headed or how hard it will be hit in the long run.  If you are not currently employed in Big Law, now is not the time to move in that direction.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners. She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

I just posted an article that summarizes the survey results conducted by Altman Weil—in short, I would say that Big Business and Big Law do not see eye-to-eye on how the future of their relationship will unfold. 

While the article speaks for itself, there is another point that is worth highlighting—the fact that many in-house legal departments see themselves further shrinking in size this year and also handing out less work to outside counsel.  This survey is one more indicator that Big Law lawyers would do well to anticipate significant changes in demand for their services and to begin thinking about a “Plan B” for their career.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

Study: Law Firms Have “Little or No Interest in Change,” CLOs Say

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/06/study-says-law-firms-dont-want-change.html

Posted by Brian Baxter

An annual survey of chief legal officers conducted by legal consultancy Altman Weil has found that law firms aren’t exactly embracing the forces of change that many claim are sweeping the legal industry.Altman Weil’s 2009 Chief Legal Officer Survey received responses from 183 CLOs–about 15 percent of the 1,222 corporate law departments invited to participate. Sixty-two percent of respondents worked for companies with over $2 billion in revenues.”This year, in the midst of an unprecedented financial shift, we wanted to learn if the talk about a changing model of legal service delivery–in terms of pricing, staffing, and law firm selection criteria–was being translated into action,” said a statement by Altman Weil principal Daniel DiLucchio, Jr. 

The study revealed that 25 percent of CLOs surveyed said they were putting a ‘high’ amount of pressure on their outside panel firms to change “the value proposition in legal service delivery,” as opposed to simply cutting costs. Another 37 percent rated the pressure as medium, while 38 percent said there was a low degree of pressure on outside law firms to change.  When asked how serious firms are in changing their service models, only five percent of CLOs surveyed said firms are serious about changing their structure. Another 20 percent gave firms some credit for implementing efforts towards change, but an overwhelming 75 percent rated firms as having “little or no interest in change.” 

“This is a dramatic vote of no confidence from [CLOs],” said DiLucchio. “Either many law firms just don’t understand that clients today expect greater value and predictability in staffing and pricing legal work, or firms are failing to adequately communicate their understanding and willingness to make real change. In either case, it’s a big problem.”

The survey also indicated that corporate legal departments expect to curtail their use of outside counsel in the next 12 months. Forty percent of respondents stated that less work would go to firms this year, up from 26 percent last year, and 27 percent of CLOs surveyed stated that they have reduced their in-house staff of attorneys so far in 2009.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

Lots of lawyers are on the move these days for all sorts of reasons.  Some are fed up with Big Law and want a career that is more suited to who they are.  Others are fed up with their current firm and want to make a lateral move that will enhance their practice.  Still others are being told that the changing economy means that senior-level, non-equity players will no longer have a home in their current firm.

Whatever the reasons, every successful move is designed around the future and not the past.  While the past can be helpful in defining what we do not want, it is truly only part of the picture, and oddly enough, focusing on what we don’t want typically just gets us more of it.  The critical step for anyone making a change is to stop and ask “What is it that I really want?”  It is about looking broadly at career, life, and self and imagining this integrated picture to be exactly the way we want it to be.

This can be a tough exercise for lawyers, who are trained to generate endless lists of potential risks and problems with each and every scenario they consider.  When we work with lawyers in creating a future vision, nearly every great idea is followed by “but. . . .”  Left unchecked, most lawyers will talk themselves right out of every good idea they have, opting instead for the current circumstances, as intolerable as those circumstances might be. 

Risk-based thinking needs to be set aside when creating a vision for the future—limitless and “ideal world” thinking is the way to go.  Let doubt and worry give way to excitement and possibility.  Once the vision exists, the risks and problems stop seeming so important anyway. 

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

We see it all over the news—the recession has hit; Big Law is reeling; the law firm model cannot continue unchanged; law firms are wrestling behind the scenes with an enduring level of over-capacity.  And speculation among legal industry leaders about how and when this will all improve runs rampant. Of course, there are many hopeful predictions.

But if you speak with corporate leaders (as I have), a not-so-hopeful prediction emerges.  It goes something like this:

“We in corporate America have been paying inflated legal fees for years, mainly because we were not under any particular pressure to reduce them.  There is a form of laziness and inertia that exists inside of companies, and until market forces intervene, we all tend to operate under a number of assumptions that flow out of a “business as usual” attitude.  While this recession has been painful, it has also been good for companies.  It is forcing us to make tough decisions, and if we are laying off 500 or more of our own employees, you can bet we will also scrutinize every dollar we spend on outside legal counsel.  We are embracing a new way of doing business, and by the time the economy turns around, we will have learned how to operate leaner and meaner—there will be no going back.”

So, why are we asking legal industry leaders how the future of Big Law will look?  At the end of the day, there is no need for Big Law without big business.  And it is big business that will determine the future of Big Law.  The current generation of corporate leaders has seen the light, and Big Law is in for some permanent changes—like it or not.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

Law firms have begun the clear process of deconstructing the long-lived “lockstep compensation” structures that associates have always enjoyed.  This move probably makes very good business sense, and it will add an important measure of flexibility as Big Law continues to right-size its talent base in response to the declining demand for legal work. 

What does this mean for Big Law associates?  Oddly, it probably means even more pressure and longer hours as associates try to justify their existence and seek to avoid layoffs or reductions in salary and bonus.  Under the lockstep regime, the periodic downtime enjoyed by associates between intense matters did not threaten their compensation or job security.  As lockstep disappears in favor of “merit-based” compensation, associates will increasingly be evaluated by the only data point that big law firms reliably measure—billable hours.   

Let’s face it—for all of the lip service paid by law firms to conducting meaningful associate performance reviews, none of us inside of Big Law have ever been clear to what extent they are ever considered relevant.  And judging from how many firms laid off lawyers across numerous offices—without any consultation with supervising lawyers or any regard to associate contributions or responsibilities—the new “merit-based” systems will simply translate into an analysis of how beneficial any particular lawyer is to the firm’s bottom line.  And maybe that’s all that ever really mattered anyway.

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

What would force a bright, accomplished, motivated individual to stay in a situation that is creating abundant misery and dissatisfaction?  Perhaps there are hundreds of specific answers to that question, but underneath them all is probably one major issue—fear. 

Most people do not embrace positive change because they are afraid to do it.  And perhaps the most powerful question any of us can ask is what are we afraid of? 

As a lawyer in Big Law, one has a perceived sense of financial security, solid identity, outward success, predictable context—the list could go on and on.  The idea of leaving Big Law sends most lawyers into spasms of fear about losing one or all of the above, and so the idea of staying at any costs seems the lesser of two evils. 

What is interesting, however, is that when we work with a lawyer to identify with specificity his or her fears and then to dissect them, one by one, we learn that they are completely imaginary.  They are nothing more than stories that have been made up, and when we test them against reality, they do not hold water.

So, if you are an unhappy lawyer in Big Law, ask yourself why you haven’t left.  Be rigorous and honest.  List out your fears and conduct a true “worst-case” scenario.  Consider your substantial rate of success in life and the very significant resources at your disposal.  The odds are high that you are afraid of things that are very unlikely to materialize. 

As Mark Twain said, “I have had a long life full of many troubles, most of which never happened.”

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post 

Many professionals today are in the midst of examining their next career move—some out of necessity and some as a solid risk-management measure.  Either way, there is an important aspect to taking a solid and profitable next step, whether that next step involves a lateral move, a new industry, starting a new business or purchasing a going concern. 

Above all, focus on your strengths. 

Having worked with countless professionals making career changes, I have learned that the most important piece of work we do is to identify an individual’s strengths and consider career moves that emphasize those strengths.  Look around—every successful person out there has simply chosen to focus intently on what he or she does well, as opposed to giving a lot of attention to weaknesses.  For example, no one really cares if Tiger Woods is an accomplished writer—and perhaps he is—but he has focused his professional efforts on the thing he does well naturally—golf.

While Tiger Woods is an exaggerated example of success, he is a perfect example of how focusing on strengths can pay off big.  The bonus is that for most people, and lawyers are no different, their strengths also tend to be their favorite endeavors.

Whether you are coping with a layoff, worried about future job security in Big Law or just plain unhappy in your current law firm or professional situation, now is the time to start thinking about your strengths.  Ask yourself these questions—and go beyond your current position—perhaps as far back as your youth:

• What comes easily to me?
• What skills, talents or abilities have I been praised for?
• What do others seek my advice for?
• When do I feel on top of my game?
• What is my core genius?

The answers to these questions are the key to identifying truly solid options for your next career move. 

Elizabeth Zelinka is a Consultant and Career Strategist with Zelinka & Prince Search Partners.  She can be reached through her website at www.zpsearchpartners.com.

Tweet This Post