March 28, 2006
The Underproductive Partner
Back on January 18, 2006, Ed Wesemann posted Avoiding the Nuclear Option, which addressed the issue of the underproductive partner.
Ed listed the following likely causes for this turn of events:
- The partner is lazy
- An outside event—midlife crisis, drugs, alcohol, health or emotional problems
- The area of law in which attorney practiced no longer keeps the partner fully productive
Wesemann’s observation is that the latter reason is the most common and suggests that the partner can be redeemed by retooling the partner for a new and growing practice area. I wish I could agree with Ed about the practice area problem. I do agree that a previously successful partner isn’t likely to suddenly become lazy.
My experience is that the personal issues are the most common and they are the most difficult for the law firm to resolve. Granted, drugs and alcohol are relatively clear issues, and the partner can either make a comeback or continue to spiral downward. The area that appears most difficult is the loss of energy that occurs in what should be the final 10 to 15 years of a successful career. At times, it is often related to health issues. I don’t have a good answer for it once it becomes a problem. But I do stress that the firm should have a formal program for involving each individual attorney in successful planning around 50 or 55 years of age.
The firm needs to know what the attorney is thinking. The attorney’s interests and goals concerning retirement should be openly discussed at this point, and the discussion should be updated each year to detect any changes in the partner’s thinking. The firm needs to know if the attorney is beginning to consider early retirement. The firm needs to know and participate in the decision, certainly if the attorney is considering working as long as he or she is productive. By 55, the role of the attorney should begin to shift away from client control to management, supervision, mentoring and new business development. Client relationships, practice area knowledge and relationships should be transitioning from the senior attorney to the newer ranks of the firm’s leadership.
If the firm’s expectations for its maturing partner changes in synch with the transitioning role described above, then the standards by which performance is judged should also change. Likewise, best practices would call for compensation plans that have the flexibility to compensate the maturing partner differently. “Old guys bring wisdom and experience—not muscle—to the hunt.”
But what if you have a problem that has to be addressed? I believe in a process called “three-step termination”.
- Step one: Meet and reach an agreement about the problem. [If an agreement can not be reached, go directly to step three.]
- Step two: Agree on a solution to the problem and a target date. [If an agreement can not be reach go directly to step three.]
- Step three: End or terminate the relationship.
It is called the “three-step termination” because the odds are that the termination is where it will lead. But there are exceptions. Sometimes, steps one and two solve the problem. The partner or employee returns to being a positive, happy contributor, and the firm wins by saving a valuable member of the professional team. As Ed says, don’t go straight to the Nuclear Option. Take the time to understand the cause. Maybe they are being judged in the wrong categories or they need to retool for a different area of law. If you have a problem that cannot be allowed to continue, then agree on a plan. Only go nuclear if the plan is not followed to a successful resolution of the problem.
Morepartnerincome.com is sponsored by Juris, Inc. For information about Juris® products and services for increasing law firm performance and partner income, go to www.Juris.com.
Related posts
Filed under Compensation, HR, Partner Agreements by Tom Collins