Beyond Biglaw: 3 Quality Control Tips For Firms

With competition for clients fierce, and enhanced by the expressed the desire of many corporate clients to keep as much work as possible in-house, a focus on quality control is a must for firms at every level of the legal profession.

Beyond BiglawEvery lawyer, and by extension, every law firm, aspires to do quality work. Clients demand it, the legal system demands it, and most of us have an ego that demands it as well. At the same time, lawyers are fallible, and firms always struggle to maintain quality standards — especially when firms are growing or contracting, which seems to be the norm in this more fluid era of legal practice. Add in the challenging atmosphere regarding the recruitment and training of new lawyers, and it is no surprise that quality control is an important topic for firms to address.

With competition for clients fierce, and enhanced by the expressed the desire of many corporate clients to keep as much work as possible in-house, a focus on quality control is a must for firms at every level of the legal profession. Large firms need to demonstrate that their premium pricing is justified, while smaller firms are challenged to show that their work is on the same level as the “less risky to hire” Biglaw firms. Older lawyers need to demonstrate that their skills have not eroded, and that they are capable of flourishing in a legal world driven by technology. Younger lawyers, in contrast, need to erase the perception that they lack the attention to detail and work ethic that was the hallmark of the previous eras of legal practice. Everyone has something to prove — constantly.

Most of what we consider quality control in the legal world is really a reference to a careful attention to detail. Avoiding typos, accurate research, complying with court orders – these and other tasks require the investment of both time and care. Careful lawyers develop good habits early in their careers, and maintain those habits as their careers progress. Lawyers who are too sloppy typically wash out of quality practices, and get shunted down the prestige chute to practices that are more tolerant of mediocre lawyering. But maintaining this level of quality control is something many firms are able to accomplish without much struggle. Most firms are able to create a culture where lawyers, both as a means of self-preservation and due to peer pressure, strive to avoid “silly mistakes” as much as possible. Any lawyers who falter are expendable, and usually sent packing.

But what of the major mistakes? The ones that cost firms clients, or see them lambasted on these pages? Avoiding these kinds of mistakes is an essential task for firms of all sizes, since not many firms have the wherewithal to survive the loss of credibility that ensues when a major mistake happens. Every firm will take a different approach to avoiding such disaster, but there are three elements that I think are essential if a firm hopes to make their approach a successful one.

It is important to remember that major mistakes are never made in a vacuum; they are usually the result of loosening standards. Standards within any organization can slacken for a variety of reasons. One of the big challenges, particularly for successful firms, is avoiding complacency. “We have always done it this way, and look it works” may be a comforting approach to legal practice, but it can also be an unsafe one. Every firm needs at least an occasional quality control audit – group by group in large firms, and top to bottom in smaller firms – to make sure that the firm’s “processes” are still professional standard. Big problems can arise when lawyers get complacent, and “trust the system” without occasionally checking to make sure that the firm’s systems are properly calibrated.

If avoiding complacency is the first element of major mistake avoidance for firms, the second one has to be avoiding the tendency to overpromise results. Whether it is in communicating with clients, or lawyers communicating with colleagues, problems can quickly spiral out of control when lawyers overpromise results. Mistakes happen when people are under stress and desperate, and overpromising creates conditions that cause people to be under stress and desperate. Better to be unpopular but realistic than to use “ambitious” promises to impress clients and colleagues. It usually does not end well, no matter how well-received the gung-ho attitude is at the start of the matter.

Third, it is absolutely critical to create an environment where everyone in the firm can pull an “emergency brake” if they see something going wrong. The firm must make clear that senior attorneys need to pay attention when more junior attorneys and staff highlight potential concerns. Likewise, junior lawyers and staff need to internalize that the firm demands prompt reporting of problems, and will not tolerate “looking the other way.” Yes, it can be difficult to ingrain in junior attorneys and staff that they need to report problems in the first place, much less make sure they escalate if their first contact ignores them. It can be even more difficult to inculcate the same attitude within the firm’s partnership. But it is essential for the firm’s future.

Sponsored

Major failures of quality control are not limited to the legal world, of course. Mistakes in other industries can be much more serious, even deadly. For example, one of the most notorious “product failures” was the Ford Pinto, a small car with the unfortunate tendency to burst into flames when rear-ended – with tragic results. There is no doubt that Ford’s engineers were all capable people, and could have designed the car’s faulty fuel tank better. At the same time, executives placed unreasonable expectations on the engineering team to develop a cheap vehicle, as they had made unattainable promises to investors. Compounding the problem was that Ford’s culture at the time suffered from a tendency to ignore junior staff. Only when a senior engineer literally saw the charred hulk of a Pinto and reported it did Ford address the quality control failure. Law firm mistakes may not be as deadly as Ford’s, but the consequences for those firms that ignore their quality control responsibilities could be deadly serious for the firm and its clients. Best to drive safely.


Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Sponsored