Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the current recession, partners whose practices depend on transactional areas of the law have experienced a significant decline in business. Some firms may have the resources and client work to carry them. Others may not. “Re-engineering” underutilized partners, although not the easiest solution, could be the least objectionable.
Your firm may be faced with the dilemma of dealing with underused partners for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the firm recently lost a large client, and now there's not enough of a particular type of work to go around. Or maybe the firm made a strategic decision to alter its practice areas, and certain partners work in a department that will cease to exist.
As difficult as it may be, given friendships among partners, the firm needs to come to grips with the fact that it probably can't afford to keep those partners around, at least at their current status. The options are few:
Many factors must be taken into account as a firm considers whether re-engineering a partner is the best alternative.
Re-engineering of partners, as a practical matter, has received mixed reviews from managing partners of firms that have attempted it. Depending on age, experience, and personality, certain partners may be able to re-establish their positions as major contributors to their firms by obtaining training in other substantive areas.
However, embarking on this course of action is a complex and sensitive issue that requires considerable planning and discussion.
Ongoing Need
It is essential to determine the extent to which there will be an ongoing need for the expertise to be developed and whether the firm can continue to pay the partner's direct and indirect costs during this training.
It makes little sense for a partner to invest his or her time to develop a narrow specialty to satisfy the needs of a casual client unless that specialty has the long-term potential for retaining and attracting potential clients and proving profitable.
Other issues that must be addressed during the planning process include:
The firm's desire to retain under-used partners notwithstanding, care must be taken not to encourage the experienced, more profitable senior associates to seek employment with other firms because of perceived career limitations.
Youth and Pliancy
Re-engineering partners into new specialties has been most successful when the individuals are relatively young and pliable, both personally and professionally. Retraining of mid-level and older partners has been most successful when they can learn a specialty that is related to their areas of interest. This requires an accurate assessment of that partner's aptitude and interests, as well as the demands of the new area of law.
Sometimes a partner may not be amenable to changing his or her practice area. An established litigator may be intellectually capable of learning corporate law but may not be interested in doing so. On the other hand, a partner may not be able to make changes. A partner who practices general corporate law may not have the temperament to become an effective litigator.
Much of the relearning cannot be done on the partner's own time. During the time that a partner is learning a new area of law, firms usually lower their production and billing targets for a specified period. The partner's compensation should not be appreciably altered during this learning period.
In addition, the partner usually receives an increase comparable to what other partners at the same level receive. However, if the firm's income level shows only a slight increase or remains the same, the base salary or draw may continue, but that partner may not be permitted to participate in bonuses at the same level as other partners.
In the end, it may be unrealistic for the firm to expect an established or older partner to be willing to learn an entirely new area of the law. If a partner is not willing to make the effort, then some difficult decisions will likely have to be made about modifying his or her status.
Joel A. Rose, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is president of Joel A. Rose & Associates, Inc., a firm of management consultants headquartered in Cherry Hill, NJ. He may be contacted at [email protected] or 856-427-0050.
In the current recession, partners whose practices depend on transactional areas of the law have experienced a significant decline in business. Some firms may have the resources and client work to carry them. Others may not. “Re-engineering” underutilized partners, although not the easiest solution, could be the least objectionable.
Your firm may be faced with the dilemma of dealing with underused partners for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the firm recently lost a large client, and now there's not enough of a particular type of work to go around. Or maybe the firm made a strategic decision to alter its practice areas, and certain partners work in a department that will cease to exist.
As difficult as it may be, given friendships among partners, the firm needs to come to grips with the fact that it probably can't afford to keep those partners around, at least at their current status. The options are few:
Many factors must be taken into account as a firm considers whether re-engineering a partner is the best alternative.
Re-engineering of partners, as a practical matter, has received mixed reviews from managing partners of firms that have attempted it. Depending on age, experience, and personality, certain partners may be able to re-establish their positions as major contributors to their firms by obtaining training in other substantive areas.
However, embarking on this course of action is a complex and sensitive issue that requires considerable planning and discussion.
Ongoing Need
It is essential to determine the extent to which there will be an ongoing need for the expertise to be developed and whether the firm can continue to pay the partner's direct and indirect costs during this training.
It makes little sense for a partner to invest his or her time to develop a narrow specialty to satisfy the needs of a casual client unless that specialty has the long-term potential for retaining and attracting potential clients and proving profitable.
Other issues that must be addressed during the planning process include:
The firm's desire to retain under-used partners notwithstanding, care must be taken not to encourage the experienced, more profitable senior associates to seek employment with other firms because of perceived career limitations.
Youth and Pliancy
Re-engineering partners into new specialties has been most successful when the individuals are relatively young and pliable, both personally and professionally. Retraining of mid-level and older partners has been most successful when they can learn a specialty that is related to their areas of interest. This requires an accurate assessment of that partner's aptitude and interests, as well as the demands of the new area of law.
Sometimes a partner may not be amenable to changing his or her practice area. An established litigator may be intellectually capable of learning corporate law but may not be interested in doing so. On the other hand, a partner may not be able to make changes. A partner who practices general corporate law may not have the temperament to become an effective litigator.
Much of the relearning cannot be done on the partner's own time. During the time that a partner is learning a new area of law, firms usually lower their production and billing targets for a specified period. The partner's compensation should not be appreciably altered during this learning period.
In addition, the partner usually receives an increase comparable to what other partners at the same level receive. However, if the firm's income level shows only a slight increase or remains the same, the base salary or draw may continue, but that partner may not be permitted to participate in bonuses at the same level as other partners.
In the end, it may be unrealistic for the firm to expect an established or older partner to be willing to learn an entirely new area of the law. If a partner is not willing to make the effort, then some difficult decisions will likely have to be made about modifying his or her status.
Joel A. Rose, a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is president of Joel A. Rose & Associates, Inc., a firm of management consultants headquartered in Cherry Hill, NJ. He may be contacted at [email protected] or 856-427-0050.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.