Death by memorandum
The largest law firm in the world was rocked last year when a leaked memo revealed stunning levels of dissatisfaction and unrest among associates. Here are nine lessons that your firm can learn from the infamous Clifford Chance Memo.
By Gerald A. Riskin
On October 15, 2002, associates in the New York City office of Clifford Chance responded to a request for input from the firm’s partners with a memo – a very candid memo. Somehow, a copy got into the Financial Times of London and became public. The result has been pivotal for Clifford Chance and, maybe, the legal profession globally.
Clifford Chance is a great law firm. It’s not only the largest in the world, but in the eyes of a significant number of sophisticated clients, it’s the best. The legal profession is, however, very fragmented. If you put Clifford Chance on the eyeball of PriceWaterhouseCoopers, it would not interfere with PWC’s vision. Perhaps it is this fragmentation that has kept the legal profession from developing adequate sophistication in management.
Let me be clear that I abhor the fact that "The Memo" was leaked to the press. That was wrong. If there were a way of identifying those responsible, they ought to be reprimanded – possibly even disbarred. However, now that the cat is out of the bag, let’s convert this into a learning experience. This article will offer some constructive suggestions on how to become better and more profitable firms by enhancing the satisfaction of associates.
The most striking aspect of the scandal was that it was completely preventable. It’s sad that Clifford Chance allowed its relationship with its associates to deteriorate to the point where it would score "in the cellar" in the October 2002 American Lawyer Associates Survey.
But this does not suggest that the partners of Clifford Chance are not caring, giving people. It is likely that this mess was not caused by anything the firm consciously did, but what it failed to do. I assume that the firm’s management and, indeed, that in law firms around the world, have the best of intentions. The criticisms that I will levy in this article are aimed at naiveté more than any malicious act.
How, then, might a firm enhance the satisfaction levels of associate staff? This must be done without (a) turning over the reigns to the associates, or (b) encouraging blackmail or succumbing to it. It may be most useful to explore nine lessons we can learn from the complaints and suggestions contained in the Clifford Chance Memo.
|
The poisoned memo
"Clifford Chance, the world’s biggest law firm, was in full damage-limitation mode yesterday over suggestions that junior lawyers were ‘padding’ bills to reach their fee targets." So began an article in the October 29, 2002 Times (London) by Jon Ashworth that detailed a devastating leaked memo by associates in the firm’s New York office.
The memo itself arguably was penned with good intentions. It alluded to a recent "Associates Survey" in American Lawyer magazine that ranked Clifford Chance’s New York office as the worst firm in the country for associate satisfaction (the official ranking was called "In the Cellar").
"Clearly, that is terrible," said the memo. "Nevertheless, our research has convinced us that the AmLaw survey captured neither the breadth nor the depth of associate anger and frustration."
The full memorandum, which drew on the comments of more than 120 associates, is available at the Financial Times Web site (www.ft.com), but a few highlights are revealing. For example, the firm’s requirement that associates bill 2,420 hours per year…
• "angers, worries, and harries virtually every associate in the firm."
• "promotes misallocation of work to senior associates who ‘need’ the hours, when less expensive junior associates could do the work. Partners care only about associates’ billable hours."
• "makes me feel that management cares exceedingly about hours billed, but gives no thought to the quality of my work, let alone my career development."
• "is profoundly unrealistic, particularly in slow areas of the firm."
The memo also lists the following associate comments:
• "The partners ‘hate’ the associates."
• "The partners deeply resent paying the associates’ salaries and bonuses."
• "Some partners have lashed out at associates because of AmLaw survey results."
• "Being yelled at and told ‘We own you’ was also a winning moment."
• "I remember one instance where a partner introduced himself to an associate at a drinks party, not realizing that the associate (a) was in his group and (b) had worked for him for three years!"
The Times article also included these excerpts:
• "The firm spent much of yesterday reassuring clients, saying the negative feedback was limited to New York. Clifford Chance merged with the U.S. firm Rogers & Wells in 2000 and has been struggling to reconcile two very different cultures."
• "Allegations of ‘padding’ are highly damaging to Clifford Chance, which recently became the first international law firm to bill annual fees in excess of £1 billion." |
1. Get them involved
The memo notes that "many associates feel that the decision to have the outside consultant meet initially with only third- and fourth-year associates represents part of the problem and not the solution. Many senior and junior associates expressed feeling excluded from the process.... We are also concerned that the firm is looking for a ‘quick-fix’ to salvage the 2002 recruiting season and forestall mass resignation by associates."
I believe that most of those involved in law firm leadership around the world tend to manage as if they were solving a legal problem. They want all the facts (which they incorrectly assume they know, but usually are engaging in intelligent speculation and supposition), and then they want to unilaterally craft the perfect solution (which they discuss and debate in committee until the perfect camel is designed).
The decision to involve only third- and fourth-year associates was doomed, as any process that management might have unilaterally designed would have been doomed. Note this reference in the memo: "Let us help you construct the ideal firm. If you include us in the process and share information with us, we can achieve this goal. You have assembled a talented team of associates. We have trusted you with our development, our security and our careers. Treat us like colleagues. Treat us with respect. Treat us as future partners."
So, lesson one is about the process of involving the associates in joint problem-solving, which changes the mindset of those participating in the process. They participate in seeking solutions.
2. They want to be heard
It is common in organizations to set up methods to measure the satisfaction levels of personnel within the firm. But HR professionals in law firms must wring their hands, as we likely ask them to do the equivalent of operating while wearing a gag and straitjacket. Why do law firms resist systems that would allow ongoing or periodic feedback from their people?
It’s okay to say "no". Associates don’t mind hearing "no," provided there’s a sensible explanation. They want the truth. The memo said: "If you can’t afford to pay what other firms are paying, admit it." Law firms notoriously never get to "no" or convey difficult messages, because they won’t face the issue.
Survey your associates on an ongoing basis, and have regular associate meetings. I personally like the idea of alternating meetings, such that the associates have a partner or partners present at every second meeting, and letting the associates decide which partner(s) to invite.
Yes, they will ask hard questions and raise issues. Sometimes, the visiting partners will have to take the questions or issues under advisement and come back to a future meeting with a response sanctioned by management. The point is that dealing constructively with those questions and issues will enhance the firm and create an enviable relationship with associates. This leads to competitive advantage.
3. Manage their non-billable time
The memo said: "Associates felt that the additional 10% of ‘soft billable’ hours above the 2,200 hours of ‘hard billable’ was not actually counted in any meaningful way, but was rather a stick to coerce associates to do work for which they would receive no remuneration."
What do you want your associates (and partners, for that matter) to do with their non-billable time and to achieve with it? What is X supposed to be doing? Can X propose a plan for her non-billable time? Is someone managing the process?
List every associate in the firm. Now, person by person, ask, "Who is responsible for managing that person?" Not sure? Bzzzz! Wrong answer!
Many years ago, when I was a managing partner, I put a plant in a junior lawyer’s office and told him his future depended on the health of that plant. If it died, he was fired. I was kidding and he knew it, but it was my way of saying, with a little humour in the mix, that I wanted him to really try to nurture that plant. There is not one ounce of humour in my serious suggestion that the person responsible for worrying about the progress of an associate should be evaluated, in part, on the success of that associate.
4. Manage their billable time
"The idea that I could work hard all year and bill, for example, 2,100 hours – and in the firm’s eye, I wouldn’t even meet the firm’s ‘expectations’ – is totally ludicrous, offensive, and generally makes me crazy." Who could argue? Targets must be customized individual by individual.
Should there be generalizations as to the kinds of levels to be striven for? Fine. But general targets are meaningless by themselves, because they allow excuses. Management must remove the excuses. Providing meaningful feedback and customized, individualized objectives either dispenses with excuses or allows them to be dealt with sensibly.
By customizing targets, the assignment issue is diminished, if not eliminated. Look at these sobering references in the memo to the assignment process:
• "The assignment system is an ‘old boys’ club."
• "The assigning process is largely a mystery and work seems to be doled out on the basis of favouritism."
• "If the assigning system isn’t corrupt, ask yourself: why aren’t attractive female associates ever out of work?"
• "The firm feels like a fiefdom or a loose confederation of independent states. One cannot take an assignment that does not benefit the feudal lord of his department."
• "Replace the anarchic assignment ‘system’ in litigation with a genuine structure that ensures that all associates get equal access to work. Some associates suggested having each associate in litigation complete a weekly status report."
• "The combination of the billable hour requirement and the lack of a functioning, fair assignment system leaves associates to scrounge and compete for work. At least one partner has stated that this ‘system’ is desirable. The associates disagree vigorously and ask you to change it."
5. Give meaningful feedback frequently
The FT article commented: "Complaints over poor communications from partners to associates were widespread. Associates felt unsure what the firm expected of them that year or over the course of their careers, or what the firm even expected of itself. They felt it was unclear if they would be fired unexpectedly. They felt unnecessarily kept in the dark about where the firm was going (both metaphorically and literally)."
Law firms are typically environments in which you gauge how well others respect you by virtue of who is prepared to have eye contact with you. An associate who hasn’t had any eye contact in three months should go ahead and accept the headhunters’ calls – she’ll need them when the firm gets around to firing her.
Feedback involves the negative as well as the positive. I am not talking about being critical of the third paragraph in an opinion or being silent about a draft pleading and redoing it without ever telling the associate, never assigning work to him again, or maligning him in front of the partners. I am talking about feedback that is organized by relevant category and includes praise and reinforcement for talent and effort, and constructively suggests where areas of weakness can be strengthened.
The response I hear more often than I care to think about it is, "If you don’t get any negative feedback, assume you are doing okay." Would great athletes accept coaching like that? Not for a nanosecond.
6. Communicate!
The FT article also observed: "The surveys indicate that associates feel that partners have little interest in talking and even less interest in listening. The associates depicted partners as aloof."
Communication is encouraged through the management of individuals as well as the associate meetings referenced earlier. Those may not be enough. Management may have to work hard to ensure that much more communication occurs. It will never be good enough, but it can get a lot closer.
The associates are desperately trying to convey this in this reference: "If you choose to do one thing to improve partner-associate relations, at least say ‘hello’ in the hallways. It sounds like a small thing, but simply talk to us. Get to know the associates; you might even like a few."
Dig deep. Have a passion for finding additional and better ways to communicate. (Consider making this article required reading for every single partner.)
7. Enforce your values
"About one-third of all respondents referred in one way or another to the lack of a grievance mechanism," the memo said. "Many associates either do not know whom they can turn to or, worse, do not trust the person in charge of a particular issue."
To put it bluntly, no partnership can afford to allow a few of its ranks to abuse the associates. It is too costly in both human and financial terms. Associates have choices (at least, from time to time) and when they do exercise them, abuse-tolerant firms lose out.
I caution you not to lull yourself into complacency, thinking that only Clifford Chance has this challenge. Are you certain that none of your partners are committing similar sins?
So create a trusted safety valve committee or individual to whom associates can turn to deal with delicate problems. Some firms have the equivalent of an ombudsman or trusted committee (selected by the associates), to whom sensitive complaints can be made without attribution and where action will be taken.
8. Train your people
This isn’t a "nice to do" lesson – it’s essential! Look at these references in the Memo:
• "Absent partners cannot provide informal training."
• "Ways exist to train associates. Even if they cannot bill the time, include associates on calls and bring them to meetings. You should also encourage us to use pro bono matters to foster legal skills."
• "We find it ironic that a British firm ranked last in training. Some of the more junior associates and laterals chose to join the firm exactly because the British influence would encourage training. It appears that we were wrong."
• "Associates believe that many partners have abdicated their responsibility for associate training, or even for managing associate life."
Meet with your associates and interactively determine the kinds of training that they think would help them be more effective for themselves and the firm; then make some sensible decisions and implement at least some training. This includes non-substantive areas like client-relations skills training, management skills, and even leadership skills.
9. Your associates are on your side
Remember, even if they have concerns, most associates want you to win and they want to win with you. The following reference in the memo supports this contention: "Thank you for reading our memorandum. Please remember that the driving force behind this memorandum was the associates’ conviction that we can build the finest law firm in the world and move from worst to first."
In conclusion, if you come at this with optimism and a positive attitude and trust your associates in the aggregate (initially overlooking the risk of there being a bad apple or two in the barrel), the rewards that await you are substantial both in non-financial terms as well as financial.
Have the courage to invite your associates to explore these issues with you. Make your firm a happy family. Happy families are high-achieving, demanding environments where trust and loyalty abound.
Gerald A. Riskin, a consultant and former law firm managing partner, is a co-founder of Edge International, a global consulting firm. This article was adapted from "Associate dissatisfaction: The chance that Clifford Chance took," which can be obtained in PDF format by writing Gerry at riskin@edge.ai.
Illustration: Robert Johannsen
|
english
Les nouveaux westerns
Clifford Chance, le plus grand cabinet d’avocats du monde, traversait une crise lors de la publication d’un mémo démontrant le haut niveau d’insatisfaction de ses avocats. Un duel entre associés et salariés qu’il vous est possible d’éviter.
La première scène se déroule ainsi: le Financial Times de Londres, publie, en octobre 2002, un article insinuant que les avocats du cabinet Clifford Chance devaient gonfler leurs heures facturables afin d’atteindre les quotas requis par leur lien d’emploi. La source? Le coulage d’un mémo en provenance des avocats salariés du bureau de New York qui énonçait les récriminations de ces derniers quant à leurs relations avec leurs supérieurs.
Des insatisfactions découlant du nombre d’heures facturables escomptées, 2 420 par année, et de leurs conséquences sur la vie des avocats du bureau. Le mémo parlait de « frustration et d’inquiétudes », de « mauvaise affectation des dossiers vers les avocats séniors afin qu’ils puissent combler leurs quotas d’heures », de l’effet du stress causé par la quantité d’heures facturables requises encourageant la répétition des tâches et le gonflement des heures facturées. Des commentaires qui faisaient aussi état de mauvaises relations entre les associés et les non associés. Des exemples tels que « les associés nous détestent », « il déplaît fortement aux associés de nous payer et de nous accorder un bonus » et « si je pouvais changer une chose, ce serait la façon dont les associés travaillent avec nous mais cela est toutefois impossible parce qu’ils ne s’en soucient pas vraiment. »
La publication d’allégations de gonflement des heures a été, on le présume, préjudiciable à Clifford Chance. Mais au-delà des pertes économiques, on devine que les critiques des avocats non associés ont aussi fait mal à l’interne même si elles résultaient, fort probablement, d’une incompréhension mutuelle. Voici les leçons à retenir de ce mauvais film.
1. Impliquez vos avocats salariés
Le mémo pointait du doigt le processus d’évaluation de la satisfaction des avocats salariés et le sentiment d’exclusion créé par le fait que le consultant externe engagé n’avait rencontré que les avocats de trois ou quatre ans d’expérience. Lorsqu’on doit résoudre un problème d’insatisfaction, le processus est aussi important que la solution. Ne cherchez pas de solution de façon unilatérale, permettez aux non associés de participer à cette quête.
2. Écoutez vos avocats salariés
Sondez vos avocats salariés périodiquement et tenez régulièrement des rencontres de non associés. Soyez prêts à voir poindre des questions difficiles mais souvenez-vous qu’ils souhaitent avant tout connaître la vérité.
3. Gérez leurs heures non facturables
Quelles sont vos attentes face au nombre d’heures non facturables de vos avocats salariés? À quoi souhaitez-vous qu’elles soient utilisées? Est-ce que quelqu’un est en charge de gérer le processus? Si vous ne pouvez répondre à ces questions, il est grand temps que vous preniez les mesures nécessaires pour cesser de gérer votre bureau du haut vers le bas. Demandez à l’avocat non associé de vous proposer un plan d’utilisation de ses heures non facturables et trouvez quelqu’un pour gérer le processus, illico!
4. Gérez leurs heures facturables
Adaptez les objectifs d’heures à atteindre en fonction de chaque individu. Bien sûr, un repère est nécessaire mais une norme uniforme ne sert personne. En adaptant les objectifs à atteindre aux spécificités de chaque avocat, vous éliminez aussi les possibilités de plaintes quant à la répartition des dossiers. Vous éviterez d’avoir à composer avec des commentaires tels que « le processus d’assignation des dossiers est un mystère et le travail semble distribué avec favoritisme » ou « le nombre d’heures facturables requis combiné à l’absence d’un système juste de distribution des dossiers oblige les non associés à se faire compétition auprès des associés afin d’obtenir du travail. »
5. Offrez fréquemment de la rétroaction
Le mémo de l’affaire Clifford Chance relevait le peu de connaissance qu’avaient les employés salariés des attentes du cabinet envers eux. Ils craignaient d’être mis à la porte de façon subite. Fournissez du feed-back, parlez du positif, abordez le négatif. Ne vous contentez pas de vous plaindre de la rédaction d’une procédure, de la rédiger à nouveau au complet et de ne plus jamais rien demander à son auteur. Organisez une évaluation par thèmes, incluant une reconnaissance des bons coups et des commentaires constructifs pour améliorer les faiblesses identifiées.
6. Communiquez
Il ne s’agit pas uniquement de communiquer de façon globale, à l’intérieur des mécanismes du cabinet. Parlez à vos avocats salariés, souriez dans les corridors, cherchez de nouvelles façons d’entrer en contact avec eux.
7. Traitez des situations délicates
Créez une instance vers laquelle les non associés pourront se tourner s’ils vivent une situation délicate au sein du bureau. Pensez à un ombudsman ou à un comité dont les membres auront été choisis par les avocats salariés.
8. Formez vos gens
Rencontrez vos avocats et déterminez de façon interactive quel genre de formation leur serait utile et serait profitable au cabinet. Il pourra s’agir d’amélioration des connaissances dans d’autres domaines que le droit substantif. Pensez à développer des habiletés en administration ou au niveau des relations avec les clients.
9. Souvenez-vous que vos avocats non associés sont de votre côté
Rappelez-vous que même si les avocats salariés de votre bureau expriment certaines récriminations et inquiétudes, ils ont à cœur le bien-être du cabinet et souhaitent le faire évoluer avec vous. Ayez le courage de les inviter à le faire, transformez ce duel en ruée commune vers l’or! |
