Systems

• Author: Randall Kiser
• Profession: International authority on attorney and law firm performance
• Pages: 199-235

8

Systems

Systems are at the intersection of law rms’ policies, strategies, pri-

orities, and values. Systems determine whether concepts and ideas

become actions and programs. ey also serve as tests of the sin-

cerity, depth, and durability of law rms’ commitment to changes

that are publicly espoused but may be privately deprecated. Until

changes are embedded in systems, law rms have not made the

tangible investments that demonstrate they are genuinely commit-

ted to turn sentiments into operations.

Although systems are often perceived as being dull and unin-

spired, they actually represent a law rm’s view of its attorneys and

clients. Systems ultimately reveal the attitudes and beliefs that pre-

vail at a rm, and they strongly aect how attorneys perform their

work and how clients are treated at that rm. Systems that strictly

curtail individual initiative and autonomy, for example, may reect

a lack of trust, while systems that enshrine independence may

indicate that attorney autonomy is more important than uniform

client service standards. When no system exists to implement an

espoused rm goal, as often occurs with diversity and inclusion

eorts, that goal is functionally inconsequential and intended to be

overlooked and eventually forgotten. Systems, in short, determine

whether an intention evolves into a practice.

199

is chapter identies and discusses seven types of systems

essential to eective law rms:

1. Quality control, feedback, and evaluation systems

2. Attorney compensation systems

3. Technology and information management systems

4. Lateral attorney integration systems

5. Succession planning

6. Attorney wellness systems

7. Pro bono systems

is list is not exhaustive but instead identies seven systems nec-

essary to meet minimum standards of eectiveness.

Quality Control, Feedback, and

Evaluation Systems

Law rms are usually diligent about conducting formal associate

attorney evaluations. But they falter in evaluating their own part-

ners and eliciting feedback from clients. As discussed below, law

rms would benet from changing the method and timing of asso-

ciate attorney evaluations, reducing palpable biases in evaluating

female and ethnic minority attorneys, implementing regular part-

ner evaluations, and obtaining client feedback.

Associate Attorney Performance Evaluations

Employees dread performance evaluations, and their unease is

matched by their employers’ anxiety in providing them. One in

four surveyed employees “said they dread such evaluations more

than anything else in their working lives.”1 Most employees, more-

over, think performance evaluations are unfair or inaccurate.2

eir distrust of performance evaluations may be well-founded.

1 Heen, Sheila, & Stone, Douglas. (2014, January–February). Finding the coach-

ing in criticism. Harvard Business Review. Weber, Lauren. (2017, September 1).

As workers expect less, job satisfaction rises. e Wall Street Journal. (Employ-

ees are least satised with these ve work components: recognition, perfor-

mance review, educational/job training, bonus plan, and promotion policy.)

2 Hancock, Bryan, Hioe, Elizabeth, & Schaninger, Bill. (2018, April) e fairness fac-

tor in performance management. McKinsey Quarterly. Heen & Stone, supra note 1.

200 American Law Firms in Transition: Trends, Threats, and Strategies

In one study, for instance, managers who shared responsibility for

directing employees’ work rarely agreed on an employee’s ratings.

“If one said seven, the other said below a four or a ve,” states R. J.

Heckman, president of Leadership and Talent Consulting at Korn

Ferry. “ere was a shocking disagreement on very basic areas.”3

Reecting their own anxiety about presenting evaluations, most

managers fail to complete performance reviews thoroughly and on

time.4 ey also are unable or unwilling to participate in dicult

feedback discussions with employees.5 Given managers’ reluc-

tance to provide timely and meaningful feedback, it is no surprise

that 58 percent of executives believe that “their company’s current

approach to performance management did absolutely nothing to

drive engagement or performance.”6

For many attorneys, the most dicult part of their work is evalu-

ating subordinate attorneys and working with them to correct their

performance deciencies. When asked what keeps her up at night,

Barbara Levi Mager, General Counsel and Global Head of Legal at

Sandoz, responded,

It is not legal issues or cases that keep me up at night, it is people.

e emotional part is the hard part; when you have a conver-

sation about gaps in performance or with someone whose self-

image is radically dierent from your own perception. How do

you convey your message with clarity and show respect at the

same time? How do you nd the right balance of challenging

and supporting? How do you stay true to your own judgment but

keep an open mind for dierent opinions?7

3 Charan, Ram, Barton, Dominic, & Carey, Dennis. (2018). Talent wins (p.115).

Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

4 Heen & Stone, supra note 1.

5 Ibid. When reviews are conducted, it is critical to limit them to observable

behavior; avoid comments about an employee’s thoughts or motives; evalu-

ate only behavior than can be independently veried; and focus exclusively

on employee actions that are directly linked to client service and rm perfor-

mance. Cappelli, Peter, & Tavis, Anna. (2016, October). e performance man-

agement revolution. Harvard Business Review.

6 Charan, Barton, & Carey, supra note 3 at 116.

7 Major, Lindsey, & Africa. (2018, March 6). Sandoz GC Barbara Levi Mager on

following your passion. e American Lawyer.

Systems 201