The Forgotten Art Of Brainstorming: How To 10x Creativity In Group Settings

Many lawyers have a lone wolf approach to their cases. Even when they lead a team, they often make decisions with little to no input from the team. Senior lawyers typically view their role as defining and determining the case strategy, leaving the rest of the team to implement their plan and ideas. They’re the ones defining a win and concocting the roadmap to achieve it. The rest of the team takes that blueprint and constructs the case. This process is the default of many hierarchical firms – senior partners create the plan, junior partners manage the plan, associates and paralegals implement the plan. It often works, and the desired outcomes are generally achieved.  I would suggest, however, that a better approach exists, which yields better outcomes.

This top-to-bottom approach, almost a military perspective, where generals decide on the war plans and foot soldiers take the hill, has the potential for poor results when those at the top create a flawed strategy, resulting in the execution of a flawed approach that produces poor results.

There is value in having the entire team contribute input, ideas, creativity, and imagination to a plan before finalizing and implementing it. This strikes me as a truism.  Yet, why don’t more lawyers take this approach? The obstacles are myriad.

For those of us who bill by the hour, some clients are hesitant to pay for brainstorming sessions. You’ve been doing this for X years – why is collaboration needed? Don’t you already know how to handle this case? Clients have historically viewed team sessions as billing blackholes, fueling senior partners to create a plan themselves and have their teams implement it, with little to no input from them. It looks cleaner and creates fewer line items on the firm invoice.

Some senior partners, due to tradition, customs, or their egos, prefer this top-down approach.  They can define a case, set it in motion, and proceed to the following case. They say jump, and the troops ask how high. It’s hard to change how things have always been done.

Some junior partners and associates may be hesitant to be seen as contrarian or argumentative, and therefore feel uncomfortable voicing their views and opinions, especially if they contradict the senior partner’s plan of attack. Better to stay quiet and implement a flawed plan than risk a poor performance review for being perceived as not getting along with others.

And collaboration needs to be intentional and well-directed.  Experienced lawyers may not possess the necessary skill set or emotional intelligence to encourage the team to freely and openly participate and share their views and experiences.

All of these inhibit team brainstorming sessions. Intentionality is key to overcoming these obstacles and breaking down these barriers to facilitate more group discussions and thoughtful dialogue.

For group brainstorming to work, the firm must appreciate its importance and significance, and take steps to implement it firm-wide, including addressing billing issues with clients, creating safe spaces where the team can speak freely (so long as they do so professionally and politely), and training everyone on how to lead and participate in these sessions. Simply encouraging your team to think collectively is insufficient.  You must empower them to do so and teach them the necessary skills.

When a case first comes in and a team is assembled to handle it, an in-person or virtual meeting should be held to set the stage for the case and discuss: (1) how to define a win; (2) how to achieve that win; (3) a plan with action steps to achieve that win. Everyone should be encouraged to participate, share their thoughts, and discuss the subject. About once a month (sometimes less, sometimes more, depending on the case’s complexity, activity level, and stakes involved), the group should schedule another meeting to discuss the case’s status and identify any necessary adjustments or changes to the plan to achieve the desired outcomes.  This ensures that the plan is modified as needed and also serves as a check-in for everyone to report on their progress and any roadblocks or issues they encounter.

In-house legal departments are generally much better at this approach than law firms (possibly because they don’t encounter billable hour issues and view their work as inherently more collaborative). Taking their lead, trying this approach should yield more effective strategies with better results.

---

Frank Ramos is a partner at Goldberg Segalla in Miami, where he practices commercial litigation, products, and catastrophic personal injury. You can follow him on LinkedIn, where he has about 80,000 followers.