Which Managing Partner Do You Most Admire? (And Why)

I just learned the results of a survey distributed last month by Edge International asking law firm leaders two fascinating questions:

• Which law firm Managing Partner/Chair/CEO do you admire most for their leadership? [Outside your own firm.]
• Why does that individual stand out in your mind?

Now, the identities of the "winners" are fascinating in themselves, but far more significant to me is why those individuals were deemed standouts.

The envelope, please:

#1 by a wide margin, receiving 13% of all votes cast, was Bob Dell of Latham & Watkins, who was elected Chairman in 1994 at age 42. On his watch, Latham has grown from 598 lawyers in 11 offices to more than 1,900 lawyers in 24 offices, nearly one-quarter of them in Europe and Asia.

Tied for second with about 6.5% of all votes apiece were Regina Pisa, Chairman and Managing Partner of Goodwin Procter and Lee Miller, Joint Chief Executive Officer of DLA Piper.

Also in the top ten, alphabetically by firm, were:

• Ben F. Johnson, III: Managing Partner, Alston & Bird
• Cesar Alvarez: President & CEO, Greenberg Traurig
• Bob Odle (retired): Managing Partner, Hogan & Hartson
• Patrick McCartan (also retired): Managing Partner, Jones Day
• Ralph Baxter: Chairman & CEO, Orrick
• T. Kennedy Helm, III: Firm Chairman, Stites & Harbison, and
• Keith Vaughan: Chair & Managing Member, Womble Carlyle

Two aspects of this list strike me, one wonderful and one not so. The wonderful characteristic is the extremely broad array of firms represented, from very large (Jones Day, Greenberg Traurig, Orrick) to regional (Stites & Harbison). Clearly one can excel as Managing Partner in a wide array of contexts, and it's gratifying the voters evidently appreciated that.

Not so is that two of top ten are now retired. Combine this with the remarks by Patrick McKenna, an Edge Principal, releasing the results, who said that they received a significant number of emails from people who wanted to respond but didn't know enough of their peers to cast a vote, and you have at least a one-dimensional portrait of a group of law firm leaders who may feel relatively isolated.

But the second question is more powerful: Why did you single out that person for excellence in leadership? If you ever thought the job of the MP was "to first do no harm" and to be a passive caretaker, that's not why these individuals are admired.

• Committed to making change happen
  • Continually pushing the envelope in bringing business principles to the law firm environment
  • The firm appears well run but he knew it needed to change and led the way
  • Insisting on continuous re-invention as the legal cimate changes
  • Driving changes that are "elegant and inspiring"
• Has an ambitious agenda
  • Isn't afraid to fail some of the time; sets high goals
• Handles the tough issues directly
  • Doesn't shrink from tough calls
  • Listens very hard but then takes decisive action
• Aligns people behind his vision for the firm
  • Has mastered the art of building consensus
  • Understands where his partners want to go with the firm and gently guides them to bigger goals
  • Spends a lot of time talking with partners about the firm's future direction
• Maintains core values
  • Has rejuvenated a great firm in danger of getting too comfortable
  • Reaffirms core values that made the firm great
  • Focuses on values

Did you think you'd ever hear people saying of Managing Partners they most admire that, "If you haven't failed, you haven't set your sights high enough?" Digest that.

Ten years ago that criterion for excellence would have been inconceivable. But as they say in New York, "you should live so long." Apparently we have.

Pass the virtual champagne.