Law Practice Management Asked and Answered Blog

Category: Partnership

« Earlier | Later »

Jan 08, 2020

Law Firm Partner Compensation and Performance Reviews

Question: 

Our firm is a fourteen partner firm in the northern suburbs of Chicago with ten partners and four associates. We are a general practice firm with different partners focusing on specific practice areas. Our partner’s compensation is determined by a three member compensation committee.  The compensation committee uses a combination of quantitative data based upon working attorney fee collections and client fee originations and makes a subjective determination regarding other contributions that a partner has made to the firm. The problem that we have is the compensation committee does not have a way to effectively measure the other contributions that are being considered subjectively. We would appreciate your thoughts.

Response: 

Your problem is a common problem. While it is easy to measure working attorney, responsible attorney, and originating attorney fee collections, billable hours, realization rates, and other hard measures of short-term financial performance, (it is hard to capture the subtler aspects of partners’ contributions such as mentoring new lawyers, firm management, idea development) and its virtually impossible to measure the long-term present value of each partner’s work and contribution.

The key is to make the subjective considerations more measurable. Many firms are supplementing the easily measured economic contributions per partner with additional measurements to determine the actual value per partner and incorporating into their compensation systems. Some firms:

Partner performance reviews are often avoided like the plague by many firms. They are time consuming and it is hard to give candid feedback to colleagues. However, without partner performance reviews neither the partners nor the firm will reach full potential. When partner performance reviews are used not only to review performance but to set measurable goals this data can be incorporated into the compensation system and provide additional hard data for providing a true measure of partner contribution and value.

Click here for our blog on compensation

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Sep 18, 2018

Law Firm Shareholder Admission Criteria

Question:

Our firm is a small firm of two shareholders and two associates based in Bakersfield, California. The firm was formed fifteen years ago by the two existing shareholders. We have never made any additional shareholders but we believe that we owe it to our associates to have some guidelines as to what we are looking for in future shareholders. A partner track program/document if you will. Do you have any suggestions?

Response:

I believe you should have at least a general set of guidelines laid out in writing. For example:

Associates that have been seven years in practice and two years or longer employment with the firm as an attorney and consistently performing as outlined below are eligible for Equity Shareholder level review based upon equity shareholder level openings, competencies attained, performance, and behavior.

  1. Seven Years in Practice and Two Years or Longer Employment with the Firm as an attorney.
  2. Individual Production Requirement
    1. Annual Billable Hour Expectation
      1. The firm has an annual billable expectation of 1800 billable hours.
    2. Origination Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $100,000 or more per year for a minimum of three consecutive years.
    3. Generated (Working Attorney) Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $300,000 or more per year for a minimum of three consecutive years.
    4. Responsible (Managed Revenue) Fees Collected
      1. The firm has an expectation of $400,000 or more per year for a minimum of three  consecutive years.
  3. Competency Level Attainment at Shareholder Level
    1. Knowledge
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
    2. Skills & Abilities
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
    3. Work Management
      1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
  4. Character and Commitment 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to have the commitment and character that the firm expects of shareholders. This includes a “firm-first” and teamwork attitude and behavior. Lone wolfs and mavericks will not be considered for equity shareholder status.
  5. Professionalism 
    1. The firm expect professionalism in the firm of dress, appearance, and behavior in dealing with personal in the firm, clients, prospective clients, referral sources, and colleagues and other professionals outside the firm.
  6. Client Service and Business Development 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to be performing at shareholder level.
  7. Supervision and Mentoring 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to be supervising and mentoring junior associates, paralegals, and staff.
  8. Client Satisfaction 
    1. The firm expects associate candidates to have a client satisfaction rating average over the last three years of 4.0 (maximum rating is 5.0) or higher as measured by the firm’s client satisfaction questionnaires that clients complete at the conclusion of a matter.
  9. Other Factors Considered – Associates should: 
    1. Be willing to share in the risk and reward of ownership and invest time and capital in the firm.
    2. Have a firm-first orientation and share the vision and core values of other equity owners in the firm.
    3. Add value to the firm and pay for themselves, cover their costs and share of the firm overhead, and generate enough work to keep other attorneys busy.
    4. Act like owners of small businesses.
    5. Contribute to the management and marketing of the firm.
    6. Mentor younger attorneys.
    7. Follow firm policies systems and procedures.
    8. Contribute capital, sign for the office lease, firm credit line, and share in other financial obligations of the firm.
    9. Be good marriage partners considering the other equity members in the firm.
    10. Exhibited the ability to supervise junior associate attorneys, paralegals, and staff.
    11. Successfully tried cases (litigation attorneys).
    12. Demonstrated the ability to either originate new client business or developed such a relationship with existing clients or referral sources that clients have sent business to the firm as a result of the relationship.

Associates selected for admission should be notified by the Executive Committee/Managing Shareholder and a meeting will be scheduled to discuss whether the Associate has a tentative interest in taking this step. If the Associate is interested in taking this step and after executing a non-disclosure agreement, the Executive Committee/managing shareholder should then prepare a detailed proposal outlining the mechanics and details required for admission. The proposal will include firm financial information, the buy-in or capital contribution requirement, and a copy of the firm’s shareholder agreement and equity shareholder compensation plan.

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Jul 19, 2018

Law Firm Structure and Elevating Associates to Partnership

Question: 

I started my firm as a solo nine years ago in New Orleans. My practice focuses on maritime defense litigation. Over the years I have added associates and currently I have six associates working for me. I am overwhelmed with work – from the legal work that I am doing in addition to the business development and firm administration. My thought is that I should consider restructuring the firm by making some of my associates partners so I can offload and share some of the administrative responsibilities. I would like your thoughts. What are other firms in my situation doing.

Response: 

Years ago when I started in this business there were solo practitioners and there were multi-attorney firms that were partnerships. There were not many multi-attorney firms that were what I call sole owner firms – firms will many attorneys and just one owner. This has changed. More and more attorneys don’t want to be in partnerships with other attorneys. Sometimes this is a result of bad experiences in other partnerships. In other cases they simply want to go it alone. Also, more and more associates don’t want to take on the stress and financial obligations of partnership – they simply want a job that provides them with a decent income with work life balance. I have law firm clients with sole owners, fifteen to twenty attorneys, and fifty to seventy staff employees. These firm owners have hired firm administrators, marketing managers, and other such talent to offload the administration. While these firm owners have been enjoying the fruits of sole ownership eventually they will have to reevaluate their situation when they begin planning their succession and exit strategies.

I think you have to ask yourself the following questions:

  1. Is adding partners the best way to offload your administrative responsibilities? Should you hire a firm administrator?
  2. Are  you ready for partners?
  3. Do you have associates that meet your requirements for partner admission? Have you thought about these requirements?
  4. Do the associates that you would consider for partnership have an interest in being partners?

Give this some more thought – don’t just make partners to have partners or to have someone to handle administration.

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Feb 06, 2018

Partner Withdrawal from a Law Firm

Question: 

I am a partner in a law firm in Walnut Creek, California with four other partners and three associates. We are a general practice firm and our clients are primarily individual clients. I have a good relationship with my other partners. I have decided to leave the firm and join a larger firm in San Francisco. I have notified my partners in writing of my intention to leave and they are supportive of my decision. Therefore, I anticipate a amicable withdrawal. Since this is the first time that a partner has left the firm for any reason we are not sure what the next step is. Please share with us any thoughts that you have.

Response: 

It sounds like you will be fortunate enough to have an uncontested withdrawal. Leaving a partnership takes planning and foresight. If your firm has a partnership, shareholder, or operating agreement your have a starting point. However, even if you have such an agreement, I have found that in most cases there are still a myriad of issues and details that still have to be resolved. You and your partners will still need to negotiate the terms for your withdrawal and ultimately sign a withdrawal or separation agreement. Your partners may be unhappy about certain issues, or in you leaving, but in the end, will do the right thing either because they have to or because they want to.

While there are a lot of moving parts and details to tend to the major issues that have to be resolved when a partner withdraws from a partnership involve:

I suggested you start by developing a project plan outlining all the tasks and sub-tasks with start dates, target completion dates, dates competed, and to whom is assigned to each of the tasks that are going to have to be accomplished. At the top of the list will be to negotiate a withdrawal or separation agreement that addresses the above issues and minimizes your risks and future liability. Here is a checklist you can use to get started:

  1. Review the firm’s current partnership, operating, or shareholder agreement to ensure that you follow any and all withdrawal requirements.
  2. Identify all assets and liabilities, on and off balance sheet, and come to an agreement with your partners on the status of those assets and liabilities and any ongoing responsibility that you may have.
  3. Identify all contracts, liens, mortgages and other obligatory documents that name you personally or where you otherwise act as a personal guarantee or surety.
  4. Based on the above information, negotiate withdrawal terms.
  5. Have yourself removed from all obligatory documents and/or where you a personal guarantee or surety.
  6. Draft a withdrawal agreement that documents everything, and have it executed properly by each of your partners.
  7. If there is a long-term commitment by the firm to you to pay you money over time, or retire some form of debt, consider mechanisms to enforce those commitments, including the right to audit or security interests.
  8. Make sure your name is removed from all firm formation documents, including to the Operating Agreement (for an LLC), Partnership Agreement, Shareholder Agreement or Bylaws, Corporate Register (if a C-Corp or S-Corp, Articles, and with the IRS, if your name was used as the responsible party when your FEIN was obtained.

Once you have a withdrawal agreement in place you can begin to address some of the other tasks that will have to be addressed. Review your state’s rules of professional responsibility concerning withdrawal – particularly those pertaining to client notification, conflicts of interest, etc.

Click her for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

 

 

 

 

Nov 22, 2017

Law Firm Growth – Partnership/Merger

Question: 

I am the sole owner of a six attorney energy law practice in Houston. I have had my practice for twenty years and have enjoyed the independence of being the boss but I am tired of being solely accountable for the success of the practice, having to do all the management, and having all the worry and stress. I believe I have reached the point where I am ready for a partner or partners and I believe that the practice can be positioned for growth if I bring in a lateral partner, make a couple of my associates partners, or merge with another firm. I welcome any suggestions that you may have.

Response:

Whether you bring in a lateral partner, elevate your associates to partnership, or merge this will be a major step for you and you will need to do some serious soul searching. Here are some general thoughts:

Partnership is like a marriage. You must marry the right person or persons. Most partnerships that fail do so as a result of partnering up with the wrong partners. Compatibility is critical. Consider:

  1. Long term goals of both parties
  2. Work ethic computability
  3. Common interests
  4. Money and compensation

Thinking of merging? Research indicates that 1/3 to 1/2 of all mergers fail to meet expectations due to cultural misalignment and personnel problems. Don’t try to use a merger or acquisition as a life raft, for the wrong reasons and as your sole strategy. Successful mergers are based upon a sound integrated business strategy that creates synergy and a combined firm that produces greater client value than either firm can produced alone. Right reasons for merging might include:

  1. Improve the firm’s competitive position. Increase specialization – obtain additional expertise.
  2. Expand into other geographic regions.
  3. Add new practice areas.
  4. Increase or decrease client base.
  5. Improve and/or solidify client relationships.

Reasons for wanting to merge and your objectives. Ask yourself the following questions?

  1. Do you want to practice in a large firm? If not, what is the largest firm that you would want to practice in?
  2. What is driving the desire to merge?
  3. If the desire to merge is being driven by a desire to retreat from internal problems – what have you done to address these issues internally?
  4. Is your name being part of the firm name important to you?
  5. What are your expectations and objectives for a merger?
  6. What are you looking from a merger partner?
  7. Make sure that you look for a complimentary fit. If you are weak in firm leadership, management and administration – look for a partner that is strong in these areas. Strong leadership, management, and administration may be hard to find in a firm under 25 attorneys.

Partnering up with others can be a great move for you if you make the right people partners for the right reasons or merge with the right people for the right reasons. Due your due diligence and your homework.

Click her for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for our blog on mergers

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Oct 11, 2017

Law Firm Capitalization – Should There Be a Buy-In?

Question: 

I am a partner in a firm in Los Angeles. We have nine attorneys – four partners and five associates. We are a young firm in that we have only been in business for four years. The four partners started the firm together, we are equal partners, and we split the profits equally. When we started the firm we each made equal capital contributions. We do not have a partnership agreement. We are thinking about bringing in two associates as equity partners and are trying to think through the mechanics and one of our questions is whether there should be a buy-in and if so how should we determine it. We would appreciate your thoughts.

Response:

Law firms have different viewpoints on this subject. I have worked with some larger firms that are in second generation or later that do not require a capital contribution at all. They use end of the year distribution hold backs and credit lines to fund their working capital requirements. Other firms do require capital contributions upon being admitted as a partner and additional contributions over time when additional capital is needed or when partners acquire additional capital interests.

Smaller firms tend to require new partners/shareholders to pay for their interest in the firm. The buy-in can provide additional capital for the firm or can be used to compensate the existing partners/shareholders for their investment and sweat equity in creating the law firm or in growing it to its present size. One approach that some firms use it to include in the partnership/shareholder agreement the formula for determining the value of the firm, to which the new partner’s/shareholder’s percentage interest can be applied. This could include non cash-based assets such as accounts receivable, unbilled work in process, and goodwill. Another approach is to base the buy-in or capital contribution upon a the cash-based capital based upon the number of ownership shares a partner receives. Most firms allow for a buy-in over several years. Firms that do have a buy-in provision also typically provide for a payment to partners/shareholders upon departure for the value of their capital account. In recent years, an increasing number of large firms have adopted a free buy-in. Under that approach, there are no payments to departing partners/shareholders.

I believe that you should require at least a capital buy-in based upon the cash-based capital on the books and the number of ownership offered. This assumes that the partners still have capital accounts on the books. I also think you might consider them buying into the accounts receivable and unbilled work in process as well or be excluded from participating in compensation from those receipts. You should also get a partnership agreement in place as well.

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for our blog on financial management

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

Feb 21, 2017

Law Firm Equity Partnership/Admission Requirements

Question: 

Our firm is a sixteen-attorney business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio – six equity partners and ten associates. We the equity partners have been discussing putting in place an associate attorney career advancement program and outlining equity partner admission requirements. Can you share your thoughts on what we should be considering and how we should get started.

Response: 

You might want to consider developing a competency model. Rather than using a timeline – how long an associate has been with the firm – base career advancement to senior associate, non-equity partner, and equity partner upon achievement of competencies at various levels. These include:

Examples of core competencies might be legal excellence, client orientation, leadership, career commitment, etc.

In addition to competencies typically required to be  a Level Three attorney equity membership has additional requirements and obligations. For example:

  1. Equity owners will be sharing in the risk and reward of ownership and will invest their time and capital in the firm. They will have a firm-first orientation and they will share the vision and core values of other equity owners in the firm.
  2. Equity owners must add value to the firm. They must not just be good worker bees – they must pay for themselves, cover their cost and their share of the firm overhead, and generate enough work to keep other attorneys busy.
  3. Equity owners must be client finder, minders, and grinders.
  4. Equity owners must act like owners of small businesses.
  5. Equity owners must contribute to management and marketing of the firm.
  6. Equity owners must mentor younger attorneys.
  7. Equity owners must follow firm policies, system, and procedures – no lone rangers.
  8. Equity owners should contribute capital and sign for the office lease, firm credit line, and share in other financial obligations of the firm.
  9. Finally, future equity owners must be good marriage partners considering the other equity partners in the firm.

Click her for our blog on partnership matters

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

 

Jan 17, 2017

Law Firm Structure – Sole Owner vs Having Partners

Question:

I am the owner of an eight attorney insurance defense firm in San Antonio, Texas. I have been practicing fifteen years. I am forty-five years old. Many of my peers in firms my size are in partnerships. Is my situation unusual? Should I consider having partners?

Response:

Years ago I would have said that a firm such as yours would be a partnership or other organizational form with multiple equity owners. This has changed. I am working with more firms your size and larger with sole owners and no other equity owners. One such firm has twenty-five lawyers and seventy-five support staff.

I am assuming that this has worked well for you. You have the benefit of financial leverage and not having to share the pie with other equity owners. You call the shots and don’t have to share decision making with others. You probably are earning a nice income.

At your present age there is nothing wrong with continuing this for awhile. However, eventually you will have to consider your succession strategy, how you will exit the practice, and to whom you will pass the baton. The other issue is a career advancement strategy for your existing associates. Some may expect to eventually have an ownership stake in the firm. Your associates need to progress in their careers – not just as technicians – but also as business men and women and managers.

Don’t wait to long to begin this process. However, resist the temptation to make everyone an equity owner. In a insurance defense firm with eight attorneys I would try to maintain a ratio of four associates to each equity owner – thus no more than two – maybe three equity owners.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

May 17, 2016

Law Firm Equity Partner Capital Contribution

Question:

I am the sole owner of a twenty-five attorney litigation boutique firm in Los Angeles. I am the only equity partner with nine non-equity partners and fifteen associates. I am concerned that if I don't provide a path to equity partnership some of my senior talent many gradually defect to other firms or split off to create their own law firms. I also believe that providing a path to equity partner for deserving non-equity partners is the right thing to do. Therefore, I am planning on admitting two non- equity members this year. Should I require capital contributions?

Response:

I believe that all new partners should be expected to contribute capital and have some "skin in the game." Whenever a firm admits a new partner, the firm should require the new partner to contribute capital. Increasingly, a partner's capital requirement should bear a relationship to the partner's share of profits. You may want to allow new partners a reasonable period of time to fund their capital accounts – say one or two years via a capital note or help them arrange favorable terms at your bank to finance their capital accounts. Usually capital accounts are tied to working capital needed to operate the firm and the percentage of ownership/income that each partner will have.

While capital contributions are all over the board ranging from zero to $100,000 in firm's your size I often see capital contributions ranging from $25,000 to $50,000. 

There are only three ways to increase a firm's working capital to cover cash flow requirements and fund growth:

1. Have partners put more money in
2. Have partners take less money out
3. Borrow

Click here for our blog on partnership

Click here for our blog on financial management

Click here for articles on other topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

 

 

Mar 22, 2016

Law Firm Partner Retirement Buyouts – How to Keep from Breaking the Bank

Question:

Our firm is a 14 lawyer firm in the Boston suburbs with 4 founding partners and 10 associates. Two of the partners are in their 50s and two are in their 60s. Several years ago we adopted a retirement buyout plan for the founding partners where each partner upon retirement is paid the balance of his cash-based capital account and a multiple of one times an average of his last three years earnings paid out over a five year period. I am concerned that when partners begin to retire the retirement payouts will place undue stress on operating funds and the firm's ability to continue to be successful. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Response:

If nothing else you should consider a cap that places a limit on how much can be paid out in a single year where aggregate payments to all retired partners in any one year are capped at 10 percent or less of distributable net income. Any obligations that cannot be paid in one year as a result of the cap would be rolled forward to the next year also subject to the same cap.

Unfunded plans can present problems down the road if they become unaffordable for the next generation of attorneys as they have to be funded out of future earnings. You should look into ways to fund your partner's retirements as much as possible through 401k and other retirements plans, life insurance policies (on each of the partners that can fund the buyout in the event of death or where paid up cash values can be used upon retirement to apply toward buyouts, and sinking funds (Rabbi Trusts, etc.) where funds have been set aside out of current earnings.

We all have been witnessing what is happening with governmental unfunded pension programs. The same thing is happening with law firms that have unfunded retirement programs as baby boomers are retiring in record numbers.

Click here for our blog on succession

Click here for out articles on various management topics

John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Archives

Categories

    Subscribe to our Blog