Blanchard, Michael - The Seven Forces That Shape Law Firm Strategy

TTTHHHEEE SSSEEEVVVEEENNN FFFOOORRRCCCEEESSS TTTHHHAAATTT SSSHHHAAAPPPEEE

LLLAAAWWW FFFIIIRRRMMM SSSTTTRRRAAATTTEEEGGGYYY

BByy

BByy MMiicchhaaeell BBllaanncchhaarrdd

MMaayy 22001155

990 La Quinta Drive

Webster, New York 14580

585-662-8720

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Blanchard / Seven Forces that Shape Law Firm Strategy / 2

Introduction

In the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis, and over the seven years since, much has been

written about the “new normal” in the legal profession. This legal industry structure is changing,

and the competitive marketplace is becoming increasingly segmented (Fig. 1). Questions abound

regarding the corresponding strategy and business model changes that law firms must make to

grow and sustain market share and drive improved profitability. Lean Six Sigma, LPM (legal

project management), LPI (legal process improvement), AFA’s (alternative fee arrangements),

CSM (client service metrics), are just a few of the concepts and management disciplines being

discussed and employed by law firm’s today that seemed irrelevant for the last forty years in the

legal profession. Unfortunately, the ability to achieve organizational engagement for, and in, the

implementation of these concepts as they relate to strategy development and execution continues

to be a challenge for most law firms.

Figure 1


Underpinning this challenge is the unique culture associated with a business model that

essentially is built on a loose confederation of individual lawyers and practices sharing overhead.

Where, at the end of the day, real equity is determined by client relationships and control given

the absence of enforceable non-compete covenants. Where profitability metrics are “looked at”

but seldom applied in the compensation process. Where gross receipts and number of lawyers

managed are king, even if it is at a loss. Where for generations the business model has been

steeped in rewarding effort versus value, client receipts versus profits, autonomy versus

efficiency, and client hindrance versus client service.

So how do lawyers and law firms create organizational engagement and a transformative

culture required to develop and execute a successful strategy? By shifting the focus of strategic

planning to the seven forces that affect a firm’s ability to serve its clients and make a profit.

Successful law firm leaders today are analyzing the legal industry structure, its extended

competitive forces, and building strategies that go beyond direct rivalries. They understand they

are a business in a mature marketplace. They study the economic and technical elements that

shape the industry’s structure. They identify the relevant competitive forces and the strength of

those forces as they relate to the firm and its practice areas. They understand their internal and

external strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. They plot out a competitive position

for their firm and its practice areas that will increase profitability and compensation from top to

bottom. They develop supporting strategies to serve as barriers to entry to mitigate or lessen the

threat of attack on their market share. And finally, and most importantly, they know how to lead

and drive organizational transformation required for shifting culture and behavior to successfully

compete in the new normal.

This article discusses seven organizational and competitive forces that shape law firm

strategy. Whether the firm is a large international or national firm, a regional firm, a boutique, a

small firm, a practice group or solo practitioner, the application of theses seven forces is


universal. While the forces analysis framework presented here (Fig.2) is an adaptation of

distinguished Harvard Professor of Economics Michael Porter’s "The Five Competitive Forces

that Shape Strategy", published in the Harvard Business Review, January 20081, it identifies two

additional and unique legal industry competitive forces that law firm leaders must cope with as

part of the their approach to developing and executing competitive strategy – governmental

regulations and the alignment of compensation and culture.

Figure 2

Porter’s Five Forces Model Seven Forces “Legal” Model

Industry Rivalry (Intensity) Industry Rivalry (Intensity)

Threat of New Entrants Threat of New Entrants

Power of Suppliers Power of Talent/Service Providers

Power of Customers Power of Clients

Threat of Substitute Products/Services Threat of Substitute Service Providers

Governmental Regulations

Alignment of Compensation & Culture

After years of relatively predictable growth in profits and compensation, principally driven

by consistent year over year growth in demand for legal services and relatively moderate

pressure on price increases, the legal profession is grappling with the effects of a maturing

marketplace and transformative industry structure. Demand for legal services contracted sharply

in late 2008 and 2009, experienced a corrective bounce in 2010 and 2011, but has moved


sideways since 2012. The legal marketplace will continue to mature and experience further

segmentation. In today’s intensely competitive environment law firms must be decisive and have

a clear and focused strategy. Equally important is the alignment of leadership and culture to

ensure accountability in execution of the strategy in an aggressive manner - to protect its turf.

Law firms historically view competition too narrowly. Managers of law firms tend to define

competition as today’s direct rivals geographically, by size or practice areas. In today’s “new

normal”, a law firm strategy formulation process must include a “true” industry analysis, an

understanding of its competitive position and ability to cope with its competition, as identified by

the seven competitive forces that shape the legal industry structure (Fig. 3). By thinking more

holistically when considering practice strategies, law firms can attempt to shape the forces in

their favor. Firms that recognize that competition goes beyond direct rivals and includes other

forces and competitive interaction, will be better equipped to develop more focused and effective

strategies to stake out and protect their competitive position. The goal of this analysis framework

is to help change the way lawyers, practice groups and law firms think and approach the process

of strategy formulation and execution.


Figure 3

The seven forces legal strategy framework is based on Porter’s notion that competition for

profits goes beyond known or established rivalries and related intensity, and includes other

competitive forces. The extended rivalry that results from the other competitive forces, defines

the industry structure, and shapes the nature of competitive interaction throughout the profession.

Industry structure drives competition and profitability. Understanding the competitive forces,

and their underpinnings, provides the basis for the industry’s current profitability, and provides

the foundation for anticipating and influencing competition and future profitability. A healthy

legal market structure should be as much of a competitive concern to law firm leaders as their

firm’s own competitive position. This level of industry analysis may have seemed irrelevant or

unnecessary in the past. Today, it’s a buyer’s market, replete with new entrants, service

substitutes and commoditization pressures consistent with any maturing industry. Beyond direct


rivalries and markets, lawyers and their firms need to understand the impacts of extended rivalry

forces to position their practices to deliver profitable work that creates the highest value to their

clients, and lessens vulnerability to attack.

1. INDUSTRY RIVALRY

At the center of any law firm’s competitive marketplace is the most powerful and

influential force – the rivalry amongst existing competitors. In every legal market there

is fierce competition amongst dominant providers. As the growth in demand for legal

services has leveled off, the supply of lawyers continues to grow. This surplus of supply

over demand is, by all accounts, expected to continue for the foreseeable future. At the

same time the growth of in-house legal departments has quietly emerged as a new threat

to law firm market share, as well as, a new competitor in the talent market. Between

2009, when average legal spend of corporate counsel was at its lowest point in a decade,

and 2014, the overall market showed some signs of recovery, but the dollars captured by

outside law firms remained relatively flat.

According to BTI Consulting Group, Inc’s research on corporate counsel spending

outside firms captured 65% of the average total legal spend of the Fortune 1000 in 2009

($28.1 million). By comparison, in 2014, outside law firms captured 57% of the average

total spent of $34.6 million. While the average total dollars paid to outside law firms

increased from $18.5 million in 2009 to $20 million in 2014 or 8%, the amount spent on

internal legal departments increased by 51%, climbing from $9.6 million in 2009 to $14.6

million in 2014.2 So while the overall average legal spend in the marketplace has

recovered to pre-2008 financial crisis levels, the market share captured by outside firms

in shrinking and illustrates the intensity of industry rivalries.

Today firms need to be vigilant in defining and delivering on their value proposition.

Aggressive approaches to demonstrate value distinction and unique differentiation required


to win business away from competition must now be at the center of any firm strategy. To

compete effectively and win business profitably, clients and prospects need to see the real

benefits of a firm’s services over those of the competition.

Everyone understands the benefits or value in paying 1000%+ markups for next day

delivery of a package even though the service of picking up a package at your door and

delivering it to a specific address is the same. But when it absolutely needs to be there next

day by 9:00 am we pay for it because we understand the value of the premium service.

Law firms need to build strategies to demonstrate value from the client’s perspective, not

the law firm’s perspective, to compete in today’s mature legal marketplace.

2. THREAT OF NEW ENTRANTS

There is a growing realization that it is difficult to effectively compete in a

segmenting market with a traditional “full service” strategy. Segmentation within the

industry is continuing and different strategies are evolving for different segments. Just as

it is impossible to be all things to all people, firms that provide a wide array of services at

varying degrees of value straddle many markets and fail to optimize their competitive

position or economic structure.

Historically, U.S. legal market segmentation was best defined by size (number of

lawyers), scope of services (variety), and geographic footprint (ability to represent clients

in a particular market). Except in the major capital markets, most regions in the US were

dominated by a limited number of “full service” firms with the scale and scope of

services required to win premium high value work. This meant pursuing a strategy that

involved cross-serving clients with a range of services with varying degrees of value and

profitability.

Clients tended to be locally based or required local legal counsel that a firm based in

other regions was unlikely to provide. This allowed many firms to more easily stake out


their competitive position as “go to” firms and defend against competition from new

entrants to their geographic markets. It also meant that the larger, highly regarded “full

service” firms were in greater control of geographic pricing structure service innovation.

The strength of the threat of new entrants was low to moderate in most markets as the

investment required to successfully enter and win market share could prove to be a

significant barrier to entry. The larger the client the bigger the firm, the bigger the firm

the lower the risk or vulnerability to attack on market share and wallet share.

As the complexity and variety of services required grew, clients naturally progressed

up the chain of law firms in their market(s) and unless a firm increased its number of

lawyers (scale) and practice offerings (scope or variety) they would be vulnerable to

attack from those that did. Occasionally, some groups might splinter off a larger market

incumbent and create a new competitor in the middle and lower tier, but the strength of

that type of new entrant was relatively low to incumbents in those tiers. Even if it did

occur, the strength of that direct rivalry, at least initially, would be low. They would be

in the fight for the control of current clients and related market share with their former

firm or firms, thus, unlikely to pose a significant threat to incumbents’ existing market

share. Overtime the strength of the new entrant could grow in terms of competition for

the supply of new legal work to the tier. In some instances, this type of new entrant

represented more of a threat to potential talent loss rather than client and market share.

The strategy to protect the firm from being vulnerable to this type of attack would, of

course, be a great compensation system, or at least one that is perceived to be fair and

equitable in both its process and results.

Today’s legal market segmentation looks quite different. In response to client’s

specific needs, the decline in the growth rate for services relative to the supply of legal

talent, continued commoditization and efficiency pressures, the impacts of technological


innovation, the complexity of a servicing clients in a global marketplace, and the era of

free agency, law firms are defining new market positions and adopting more focused

competitive strategies and corresponding cost structures to profitably gain market share

and wallet share. Divestitures, often viewed in the legal profession as a sign of weakness,

are now considered to be strategies that strengthen competitive position, shareholder

value and client service.

Many smaller firms and boutiques are now successfully competing for, and capturing

work from corporate clients previously reserved to the largest firms in a market. As the

marketplace continues to experience further segmentation, the value proposition of

smaller or specialty firms is emerging in importance to corporate counsel. The relative

portion of legal work given to the largest full service firms has declined in recent years

and will most likely continue as in-house legal departments invest in more cost effective

and efficient management of outside counsel relationships and the procurement of

services. Littler Mendelson, the largest U.S. based law firm exclusively devoted to

representing management in employment and labor matters, is an example of one firm

that has used a boutique strategy to not only become a dominant player in labor and

employment on a national level, but also, to successfully enter smaller local markets and

win market share from larger incumbent full service firms. A key element of their

strategy is providing employers with a unique mix of national and local knowledge. This

strategy serves as a recruiting tool for attracting the local market’s best and brightest

labor and employment lawyers while simultaneously gaining access to local clients and

market share.

Today, the strength of the threat of new entrants is high and traditional strategies to

bar entry are no longer effective. In fact, failure to align new strategy with evolving

industry structure and segmentation could prove to be fatal for many firms. As


competition intensifies, the ability of a firm to demonstrate and differentiate its value

proposition will be determined more by its unique service expertise and value creation in

its service delivery model than size or scope of services.

3. POWER OF TALENT & SERVICE PROVIDERS

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the American Bar Association, legal

sector employment from 2010-2020 is projected to generate an annual surplus of 22,700

law graduates who won’t find full-time employment that a law degree requires. While

44,000 law students are projected to graduate every year, there will only be 21,300 new

lawyer positions. Absent a significant uptick in the demand curve for legal services this

annual surplus of new lawyers will further exacerbate overcapacity and continue to drive

down the bargaining power of lawyers relative to employment and compensation.

Adding to the oversupply of talent is the fact that more experienced and extremely

capable lawyers with minimal or no books of business, or those, that through no fault of

their own, find themselves in the unfortunate position of having a practice that, due to

market conditions and firm economic structures, can no longer be strategically justified

as a “loss leader”. Some are being let go as part of divestiture strategies increasing

downward pressures on bargaining power of talent (lawyers). Conversely, those with

established, controllable, portable books of business or unique legal expertise in

emerging markets like media & technology or cybersecurity & data privacy, will be in

even greater demand and capable of higher bargaining power as firms seek to offset flat

demand by increasing market share through laterals, mergers and acquisition. Overall,

the bargaining power for legal talent is benign giving way to creative strategies for

staffing and leverage to support profitable adoption of alternative fee arrangements.

In addition to legal talent, the structure of the industry is changing relative to

business management and service providers in the law firm business model. “New


normal” challenges and complexities are also driving change in the set of skills and

abilities required for the traditional positions of Executive Director or COO. Historically,

these positions tended to be more functional implementers, and now they are being relied

upon to lead and drive strategy. The CIO or IT Director function, if you are large enough

to have one, will need to have the skills to move the firm’s technology function from a

support role to a value creation role in the delivery of client services. As the legal market

continues to become further segmented, and with pricing pressures expected to continue,

the CIO will play a greater role in service delivery innovation and the client

engagement/business development process. Positions with the title Chief Strategy

Officer, Director of Pricing, or Director of Legal Project Management are further

examples of law firms recognizing the need to be run more like a business. To effectively

compete, firms are increasingly turning to highly qualified non-legal professionals with

higher levels of skill and expertise to lead new innovative roles. These are just a few

examples of how the business leadership, talent and skill requirements are changing in

the industry and need to be addressed as part of a firm’s strategy. The bargaining power

of this new class of non-lawyer business managers will be strong moving forward.

The third talent element of this force resides with third party service providers.

Many firms will continue to turn to outside service providers as a strategy to ensure the

most innovative, efficient process and value to the client. As the marketplace matures and

technology disruption proliferates, the power of these value chain suppliers will grow.

E-discovery is an example. In the new world of social media, email, mobility, BYOD

and metadata, electronic discovery requirements and complexity will continue to evolve.

While some of the largest firms have been able to mitigate the threat of e-discovery

disruption on their business model by developing propriety solutions in house, most firms

will continue to look to outsource this process or establish some form of a relationship


with a third party vendor for these needs as required. Whether the firm’s strategy

includes outsourcing this part of their service delivery model or is lucky enough to have

the investment capital to build this capability in-house, the cost of talent to develop and

lead these transformative solutions will come at a price.

4. POWER OF CLIENTS

The shift in power and strength of clients as a competitive force in the shaping of the

industry structure has been nothing short of titanic in the past five years. At the top of the

pyramid, corporate counsel and in-house legal departments are exploiting the weak

strength of the power of talent, the emerging influence of substitute service providers and

the intensity of industry rivalries to drive up innovation, efficiency and value creation

while driving downward pressure on pricing. While the seed for this structural shift in

behavior and industry structure at the highest levels can be traced back to the ACC

“Value Challenge”, its influence and effects now stretch across all markets and segments.

At the bottom of the hierarchical pyramid or value curve are the lawyers and firms

that have built their practices by providing legal services of a personal nature to

individual consumers. At this level, the disruptive influence of technological advances in

access and efficiency related to low value repetitive legal services has been significant

and a key driver of further commoditization. Like corporate counsel, individual

consumers of personal legal services are also demanding more value for their legal dollar.

They are no longer satisfied with paying for effort either. The power of clients as a

competitive force at this level of the market is extremely high. Lawyers and law firms

competing at this level must be highly systematic and efficient in the delivery of their

services. They will continue to be challenged in their attempts to devise appropriate and

corresponding cost structures at the price point dictated by the marketplace. Creative


strategies to leverage people, process, and technology will be critical to withstand

intensely competitive pressures and ensure survival at this level.

At no time in the industry history has the power of clients as a competitive force been

higher. LPM, LPI, LPO’s, AFA’s, Lean Six Sigma, and client service metrics are all

examples of how the power of clients is shaping industry structure and the related

strategic imperatives for law firms. Suffice it to say, these fundamental shifts in client

demands for better value, efficiency and client service are permanent. In fact, their

intensity will strengthen as the market continues to mature and segment.

5. THREAT OF SUBSTITUTE SERVICES

The threat of new service providers in the legal industry has traditionally and

exclusively meant from other lawyers and law firms. New or substitute providers could

only mean more lawyers and/or more and larger firms and practices pursuing growth

geographically, by industry or practice area. Whether they were start-up offices or the

result of mergers, acquisitions, or laterals, their DNA was similar, they were lawyers

offering legal services. The threat and meaning of substitute service providers now

expands beyond legal competitors and lawyers. Technology, software, business process

engineering firms, as well as, legal process outsourcers (LPO’s), limited service providers

and DIY websites are all examples of the strength of this emerging competitive force in

the industry.

The growth of on-line limited service sites like LegalZoom, Nolo, and Rocket Lawyer

are examples of DIY sites gaining market share for personal and small business services.

LegalZoom’s filing for $120 million IPO in 2012, after growing the company revenue

from $109 million in 2009 to $156 million in 20113, is evidence of the growing

acceptance of this substitute service option, at least in the personal services and small

business arena.


Microsoft, a perennial innovator in the software industry, was one of the first to

recognize or validate the innovative force and opportunities afforded by legal process

outsourcing when, in 2009, they turned to Integreon as its LPO partner to handle contract

review of high volume, low risk contracts involving repeatable steps. The collaborative

venture between LeClairRyan and UnitedLex in 20134, in the launch of the LeClairRyan

Legal Solutions Center, demonstrates that firm’s knowledge of the changing industry

structure and the strength of this competitive force. Their strategy to shape this force in

its favor by turning over the responsibility for the operations of its Discovery Solutions

Practice to UnitedLex, a leading global provider of legal and business technology and

consulting services, provided access to investment capital, best-in-class technology and

quality control processes to assist clients with obtaining more comprehensive, value-

based services at a lower and more predictable level. This is one example of the type of

innovative thinking that will be necessary to be successful in the future.

The disruptive influence of technology in the legal industry cannot be overstated.

While the barriers to “outside” entry in the legal market were high and insulated by the

requirement of a license to practice law, the advancement of technology and the

complexity of servicing clients in a global economy, has enabled new industry

participants to identify opportunities to enter the market and change the legal industry’s

structure by leveraging technology software solutions and project management or

business processing engineering expertise to unbundle the legal service delivery process.

These new entrants will offer and drive greater efficiency solutions for delivering low

value repetitive legal processes, as well as providing solutions for greater control and

management of outside counsel relationships by in-house legal departments for

strategically important and high value legal services. The strength of this competitive

force is moderate but is likely to intensify.


A second strain of substitute service providers is also emerging. The Big Four

accounting networks and consulting outfits PwC, KPMG, EY and Deloitte have all been

developing their legal services lines of business, principally in countries like the United

Kingdom and Australia where recent legislation has opening up access to their legal

industry. The Legal Services Act of 2007 by the Parliament of the United Kingdom

permitted MDPs or multidisciplinary practices allowing attorneys to share fees with other

professionals without restriction to encourage competition and the Big Four have seized

the opportunity. And while their impact or strength as a competitive force in the US

market is low today, the expectation should be that these substitute service providers will

strengthen as a competitive force, especially for work from multi-national clients with

global footprints. EY Legal’s announcement on May 13, 20155, of the launch of a

financial regulatory practice in London with 12 lawyers, including two partners from

Baker & McKenzie and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, demonstrates the growing strength of

this competitive force and the implications to U.S. law firms operating abroad.

6. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS

Governmental regulations is included as the sixth force in the seven forces legal

model because of the disruptive implications, both positively and negatively, they can

have on the industry structure and in the determination by law firms for the scale and

scope of services offered to their clients. Legislative actions and regulations help

determine and shape emerging markets for legal services where unique expertise can

create a value differentiator. The Affordable Care Act, cyber security & data privacy,

media & technology, and compliance are a few examples of areas where legislative acts

and regulations are evolving and creating competitive opportunities for new legal

services. Governmental regulations also create the potential for pricing elevators to

highly specialized, competitively positioned, premium work and profits.


Alternatively governmental regulations can, and do, threaten firms competitively.

When legislation is passed, it may render services irrelevant or imposes additional service

requirements that disrupt a firm’s underlying cost structure and ability to deliver such

services profitability. An example of the potential strength that this competitive force can

have in shaping the legal marketplace was the passing of legislation to increase the estate

tax basic exclusion amount in New York. The exclusion had been set at $1,000,000 per

person since 2002. The new law immediately bumped the exclusion to just over

$2,000,000 for 2015 and will increase to $5,000,000 by 2017. Many trust and estate

lawyers in New York will likely experience an evaporation of services and market

potential. At $10,000,000 per couple the demand curve for legal services and strategies

to limit estate taxes obligations begins to drop off precipitously while the number of

highly qualified and talented estates lawyers will not. Rivalries amongst direct

competitors will intensify in pursuit of a larger share of a smaller market.

Legislative acts and changes in regulations are dynamic forces that can help firms

remain relevant to their clients and identify strategies to take timely advantage of

emerging opportunities.

7. ALIGNMENT OF COMPENSATION & CULTURE

The seventh force in the seven forces model is alignment of compensation and

culture. While, on its surface, alignment is the basic purpose of creating strategy and not

a competitive force in Porter’s model, it does have unique relevance to law firms. Given

the unenforceability of non-compete covenants and the current U.S. restrictions on non-

lawyer investment (equity), the alignment of compensation takes on the characteristics of

a separate force that can mitigate critical strategies used to create barriers for new threats

– excess cash, borrowing power and funding of innovation (R&D). If the “real equity”

stakeholders (those with control of significant clients and portable books of business) are


to make investments in their firm and/or other partners’ practices that don’t yield

immediate compensation returns, they must see the value of the investment. If they do

not, they will not engage and implementation and accountability will collapse. Worse,

they may undermine the efforts of others to engage by leveraging loyalty within their

silos.

Given the lack of any other strategies or restrictions limiting the portability and ease

with which lawyers and their clients can move to other firms, coupled with restrictions on

equity and investment capital from outsiders, firms must fund innovation through

operations and profits. If the wrong partner or practice group decides they are not

onboard with the firm’s direction, then the bottom could fall out on the underlying

economic structure and service capabilities, upon which, and for which, the strategy was

developed. If law firms were able to place restrictions on competition from their former

lawyers, and clients were not free to change counsel at a moment’s notice, without

restriction or paying their bills, then this force would not need to be uniquely relevant to

the legal industry as a key force in shaping strategy.

For law firms, alignment of compensation is critical to both cultural engagement in,

and accountability for, competitive strategy, especially given the “loose confederation”

culture trait. Each member and employee of a firm or practice group must understand the

firm’s vision and their expected role and responsibility for achieving the vision. They

need to be recognized and rewarded for changes in behavior and accomplishments that

contribute to the vision.

The current compensation systems of most firms are steeped in rewarding individual

versus organizational or team performance. Individual performance and compensation

metrics like billable hours, working attorney receipts, and client originations drive the

behavior and culture of law firms. Seldom are non-billable investment type contributions


to improve efficiency, profitability, or promote and drive a “firm first” or team

philosophy adequately recognized and rewarded in compensation. For law firms to

change behavior and transform their culture to support their strategy, they must develop

corresponding compensation approaches to create the alignment.

The structural conflicts of interest in a firm’s compensation system can, and do,

directly affect a firm’s culture and ability to efficiently support improved client service

and value creation, as well as, limit the effectiveness of its strategic planning efforts.

Some, like Edward A. Bernstein, have gone as far as to suggest that the American Bar

Association consider a rule requiring that law firms disclose their partner compensation

systems to their clients. In his article, published in the Illinois Law Review, Bernstein

examined the relationship between law firm compensation systems and partner incentives

to serve firm clients. While he did not take a position regarding the better of the two

typical approaches to law firm compensation, “eat-what-you-kill system” or “lockstep

system”, he did suggest the following:

“….whatever the benefits of the “eat-what-you-kill system” and other motivational

systems that shift risk to the partners, they come at a cost. The cost includes the

creation of a potential conflict between the personal interest of the firm’s partners

and clients that, among other effects, reduces the value of the firm’s services

because acting in the best interest of a client exposes a partner to the risk of being

second-guessed.”6

While I do not share Bernstein’s opinion or suggestion for a new rule to require law

firms to disclose their compensation systems to their clients, I do believe his article is

another example of the internal struggle or force faced by law firms in finding the right

compensation system, and the right balance, to drive behaviors that best serve client’s

needs, the partner’s needs and the firm’s needs.

In the final analysis, if a law firm’s strategy is not aligned with its compensation

system, then its compensation system must be part of its strategy. Without it,


organizational alignment and transformative collaboration needed to drive strategy and

innovative value creation will not occur.

About the Author

Michael Blanchard is founder and principal of Law Practice Advisory Group, LLC, a

management consulting firm exclusively devoted to counseling lawyers and law firms on

strategy, leadership development, compensation and business operations. He can be

reached at [email protected] or by calling 585-662-8720.

References

1. Porter, Michael, "The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy", Harvard Business Review,

January 2008,

2. “The BTI Market Outlook and Client Service Review 2015”, www.youtube.com, January 2015.

3. “LegalZoom Files for $120M IPO, Saw $156M Revenue Last Year”, Anthony Ha, TechCrunch.com,

May 11, 2012.

4. “LeClairRyan Partners with UnitedLex in Launch of Innovative Legal Solutions Center”, UnitedLex

Press Release, October 30, 2013.

5. “Accounting Firm’s Legal Arm Expands in London, Plus Lateral Moves”, Brian Baxter, The AM Law

Daily, May 13, 2015

6. Bernstein, Edward A., Of Counsel, Greenberg Traurig LLP, “Structural Conflicts of Interest: How a

Law Firm’s Compensation System Affects Its Ability to Serve Its Clients”, Illinois Bar Review,

November 11, 2003.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.youtube.com/

Documents

Blanchard, Michael - The Seven Forces That Shape Law Firm Strategy