December 22, 2004
How to Change Everything
More from the redoubtable FT about what may transpire from marketplace forces released after (the widely expected) adoption of the Clementi Commission recommendations in the UK. (If you don't know what the Clementi Commission is, as one of my law professors would have scolded with juicy delight, "you haven't been paying attention," but I choose to view life through a mellower lens, so take a look here.)
We start from the premise that the prospect of injecting public capital into a law firm—or even admitting non-lawyers to the ranks of equity ownership in a private firm—is anathema to a large swath of the profession. Indeed, as Sir David himself puts it, "Certain lawyers dislike being described as part of an industry. They see a conflict between lawyers as professionals and lawyers as business people."
Rare is the expressive pith with which this captures much of what this blog aspires to be about. Are the "profession" and the "business" strange bedfellows? I would answer with more than a resounding, "No;" I would answer that the virtues of each enhance the strengths of the other.
But let's clarify what engages our attention here: Not that the UK equivalent of the American Automobile Association, or the supermarket chain Tesco, are making noises about starting up their own branded law firms to serve the consumer masses. Rather, we're interested in the implications for the Magic Circle and blue-chip firms.
Far and away the most important, I believe, will be the pressure—indeed, the inevitability—of allowing and inviting professional managers in firms to become equity participants. The implication is clear: Participating pari passu in ownership with a firm's senior lawyers "puts you in a different place mentally," as one such aspiring manager nicely puts it.
That running a major law firm today is largely like running any other big company can no longer be denied. And senior management's expectations about the availability of the full arsenal of compensation tools, including equity, should be no different. When this happens, it will have profound cascading effects analogous to the opening up of the market for lateral partners in the 1980's—which, it is not too much to say, changed everything.
Posted by Bruce at December 22, 2004 9:43 AM | TrackBackPosted to Compensation | Cultural Considerations | Finance | Leadership | Partnership Structures Printer-friendly version
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
"Adam Smith, Esq. is, and will remain, the definitive
voice on law firm strategy."
—David
Jabbari, Global Head of Know-How, Allen & Overy
"I just don't know what the profession would do without you."
—Chairman, AmLaw 25 firm
“Constantly stunning.’—Managing Partner
"I read three things: The Wall Street Journal, The Economist,
and Adam Smith, Esq.—and I tell my partners to do the same."
—Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm
“You have a fascinating niche which you cover ever so much better than
does the conventional legal press.”
—Walter Olson of Overlawyered
“Required reading: Amazing.”—Venture Capitalist
"You're the brand name in law firm economics. There is no one out
there—repeat, no one—who covers this business better, or thinks about
it more creatively, than you. I tell people this guy is really, really good."
—Chair/Managing Partner, AmLaw 50 firm
Business Pundit
CorporateCounsel.Net Blog
Conglomerate
BusFilm by Larry Ribstein
Business Pundit
Carnival of the Capitalists
Chicago Boyz
Ensight
Marginal Revolution
Ronald Coase Institute
Stephen Bainbridge
"Adam Smith, Esq.,"® an inquiry into the economics of law firms, and the maroon banner, are a federally registered trademark belonging to Adam Smith, Esq., LLC, which is partially owned and controlled by Bruce MacEwen.
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.