June 10, 2005
Fail to Align Profit Expectations at Your Peril
I wrote a few days ago about "the cautionary tale of Coudert," but with more background emerging from Legal Week's excellent coverage, some additional insight into the firm's truly alarming predicament is possible.
Let me preface all I'm about to say by repeating that I have good friends at the firm (albeit no inside information), and that it thus pains me to dwell on what by any lights is now a firm in distress. But I'm a big believer in the value of "lessons learned," and hope that some beneficial ones might be extracted even now, before the next chapter on Coudert is written.
Tim Newbold, the Legal Week reporter, sets the proper overall tone when he concludes: "Coudert’s current predicament is particularly poignant given the fact that it did so much to blaze the [international] trail." That predicament dates to Coudert's expansion efforts on continental Europe in the 1990's.
What went wrong? Fundamentally—and we have seen this happen before—both the profit capability, and the expectations, of its US and European practices began to diverge, now with potentially lethal results. While the US chafed at Europe's lower profits dragging down the mean, Europe's view was that the US had reneged on promises of investment, which would have brought them up to par. It matters not who was right; what does matter is it went unresolved.
Now, as a strategic matter, the firm faces a difficult cross-roads. It's safe to say most analysts view a merger as ultimately the best, or only, salvation for Coudert, but at the moment they're in a defensive, underperforming crouch: Not the stance from which to execute a merger-from-strength. If a merger is to be more than a distress sale, Coudert needs to take the time to restore its attractiveness—by, I would recommend, focusing on its strong Asian network and the indispensable New York office. But time is a luxury they may not have a lot of.
In short, they need to merge because they're weakened, but because they're weakened merger prospects are unattractive. My choice? Go for broke (perhaps literally) and try to rebuild on your own.
As I said, there is no schadenfreude for me in this sad tale. But there is at least one key lesson: When it comes to reconciling different profit expectations, you cannot survive half-pregnant. Make a choice; bite the bullet; become, perhaps, a different firm. But a healthy one.
Posted by Bruce at June 10, 2005 7:52 AM | TrackBackPosted to Compensation | Finance | Globalization | Leadership | Strategy 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.