Combining firms to create a new enterprise

(3 of 4)
As firms get larger and larger, what’s the best way to retain lawyers?

Rudnick (pictured): I think the answer is, you have to give people an environment in which they can achieve their success. You have to provide financial success and you have to figure out how to make the place feel small even though it is large. You do that on both a formal and informal basis.

On a formal basis, you have things like practice groups, and subgroups, and retreats, and things of that sort. On an informal basis, it requires the leadership of the firm to reach out and to listen and to touch people, and make sure that [members of the firm] know that what they are doing is appreciated. And if they have concerns, being open to those concerns.

That’s probably a third of the answer. And if we knew the other two-thirds, we’d be done.

Matteson: I would certainly agree with that. I think partners today are very tied to their clients. One of the challenges is for a law firm to furnish to its partnership those tools that the partners need to initially attract and then retain those clients. Chicago is a highly competitive legal market. Many other fine firms would be thrilled to attract some business from our firms.

I think partners are looking for ways that the law firm can give them more tools. A combination of firms provide greater depth and more offices and that may be very important to certain partners whose practices are national in scope.

LoVallo: One of the reasons we did the combination was the recognition that the practice, our clients’ needs and our partners’ needs, are more national and international. A certain amount of extra investment has to be balanced out in terms of getting people to still feel the sense of partnership and smallness. They need the bigness but they want the smallness in terms of feel. You have to invest in both … If people see their clients threatening to go elsewhere, not because of their lack of service to them, but because the clients need a wider platform, that is going to cause a much bigger problem that can’t be solved by intimacy. It’s balancing both.

Kenedy: Intimacy or integration. I’m in charge of our firm’s integration committee so that’s always on my mind as a result of the merger. In terms of tools for your lawyers to help them build their practice, but also feel part of the other offices that have just joined together, we strongly encourage, for example, cross-selling amongst the offices, within practice groups, so that lawyers get to know one another better.

And I know for a fact that our chairperson is in a different office literally every day of every week visiting every lawyer and learning about their practices, and learning about what they need to be successful. And there is really no substitute for that in terms of making the firm seem smaller.

What type of lawyer works best in a large law firm?

Rudnick: Somebody who in kindergarten on his or her report card it said, ”plays well with others.” Somebody who has demonstrated some leadership. One of the things that is a particular opportunity in a large firm, but also a responsibility, is, you’ve got to be a self-starter. You’ve got to look for those opportunities. You’ve got to look to develop relationships, and somebody who can do that is more likely to succeed.

Kenedy: I’m going to add entrepreneurial — self-starter and entrepreneurial — since you are expected to develop and maintain existing clients, but also expand and bring in new clients to the firm.

LoVallo: It’s the extroverted team player. Team playing is very important in a large organization. People who are too full of themselves, first of all, they don’t take full advantage of the opportunities within the organization, but they can also really detract from the spirit and the trust that’s essential for a partnership to do well.

Being an extrovert makes it easier. I think in a bigger organization the firm does everything it can to bring the opportunities out there, but you need somebody to meet you at least halfway in spotting them and going after them, and maybe putting teams together and thinking about how they can use these things and get excited about it. I think for people who are more introverted, I do think the bigger organization is harder. It’s not to say they can’t succeed, but I don’t think it is as natural for them.

Kenedy: The same sort of people who do well at big universities, that went to top 10 universities or Big Ten universities instead of small private colleges because they miss their parents. People that do well at the University of Illinois will probably work well at a big corporation or in a big law firm. Perhaps a shyer, more introverted person at a smaller private college will not do so well. It’s a generalization, but I think it tends to be true.

Matteson: I actually think large law firms are more diverse than one would assume. There is a place for all kinds of personality types as long as you have those fundamentals of being a good team player, being pretty ambitious, enjoying working hard, and enjoying the challenges. Since the combination I’ve just been sort of bowled over by the variation in the type of partners and associates that I’ve met. They don’t fit a single pattern, but just enough so the stereotype fits, but there are just as many exceptions, and it’s neat to get to know those people.

LoVallo: One of the advantages of going to a bigger firm is somebody doesn’t have to think, ”Well, am I the type of person for that organization?” In a firm of 30 people you can sense that there’s a certain type of person and you can start to feel like an outsider. Sort of like the big university, there is always some group or several groups that you fit into and so I think they’re naturally more diverse. It creates a level playing field socially and, I think, professionally.

What will be the trend in law firm growth - specific to Chicago?

Matteson: I’m not sure whether the number of lawyers in Chicago has increased that much. What we’ve seen is a lot of new players in the Chicago market, and then a reshuffling of the deck laterally. I think you have to look at the economy of Chicago. It’s not a single-industry town, not a single-company town. I think the Chicago legal market is less vulnerable to economic downturns than other regions of the country, but it can, no doubt, be affected adversely by a recession …

LoVallo: I think there is consolidation going on and reasonable growth. But I think it’s more a process of consolidation, and with that there may be some segmentation … I know of very large firms trying to get more focus and not feel compelled to practice in every area … I think that is a difference. The large firms 30 years ago really felt they had to practice in almost every area to be a full-service firm. I think things are getting reorganized.

Rudnick: You phrase the question in terms of within the Chicago market, but I think what is going to be increasingly important is: what is the Chicago office a part of? What other services, what other jurisdictions can the firm deliver to clients starting in Chicago that will actually have national and international legal needs? I think that we will continue to see some consolidation and some growth and some segmentation within the Chicago market.

But I think what will drive a lot of that will be what each of those firms have that’s beyond Chicago. If you think about the mergers that are just at this table, these are transactions that occurred without local combinations. These are transactions that created geographic platforms. These are not transactions that have to do with bulking up interests within Chicago.

Pages: 1 2 3 4