The Blickstein COO Study Reflects Continued Lawyer Hubris, Arrogance, Independence — And Dread

The new Blickstein Group COO Study demonstrates continued lawyer hubris, arrogance, and independence that impairs job satisfaction — and profitability.

The July Law Firm COO Survey gathered responses from COOs about law firm operations, AI adoption, compensation, and business challenges. The Blickstein Group is a legal industry research and consulting firm.

Two Key and Related Points

Two points among many stood out to me as a former partner in a large law firm. Both points reflect law firm culture and are related.

Point 1: COOs see law firm partners as the biggest obstacle to implementing change. In other words, law firm partners are ignoring change recommendations by their COOs.

Point 2: COOs, who if given the opportunity, can be extremely valuable to a law firm since they are business people, not lawyers, and understand business issues like finance, talent, marketing, and operations. But many firms don’t value their COOs, don’t include them in strategic discussions, don’t provide clear lines of authority, and undercut them. COOs at these firms are often dissatisfied and prone to leave.

Given their understanding of business and particularly the business of law firms, talented COOs can bring significant value to law firms (translated, help them make more money). So, you would think law firms would value their judgment, compensate them well, and treat them as C-suite partners.

Indeed, COOs who work at firms where they manage most if not all of the administrative functions, where they report to the managing partner, and have a meaningful seat at the executive committee are the happiest and most likely to stay. Firms that don’t include these things are missing out and are at an obvious competitive disadvantage.

Bottom line, law firms that resist change recommendations of their COOs and who treat COOs as second-class citizens fail to capture the advantages of keen business insight. And in today’s competitive legal market, it stands to reason that failure places them at a short- and long-term competitive disadvantage.

But Why?

The most important question is why. Why do firms not value the COOs and resist what they say?

The easy answer is that most law firms are still run under a consensus model that affords partners, particularly those with big books of business, considerable independence. To say that managing lawyers is like herding cats is an insult to the cats.

Adoption of change in law firms frequently means not only convincing the managing partner or executive committee, it means convincing most every partner to adopt the change. Many of these partners are incredibly busy and have neither the time, experience, nor expertise to correctly evaluate business-related recommendations (which is why they should of course rely on their COO and administrative staff.) So, they fall back and keep doing what they have always done. Change is hard and if they don’t personally believe it’s needed, they don’t do it.

But There is More

But there is something else which leads into why law firms don’t treat COOs as full partners in business-related decision making. Most smart people (and partners in law firms for the most part are smart people), when faced with decisions for which they have neither the time nor expertise to make a valid judgment, rely on those who do have the time and expertise to make sound recommendations.

We all do it every day. When we are sick, we go to the doctor. Why? Because they do have the time and knowledge to make a recommendation what to do. The same is true for virtually any field.

Lawyers? Particularly when it comes to business-related decisions, many aren’t so ready to adopt and rely on the business acumen of their COOs. Why? Three words: hubris, arrogance, and independence.

Lawyers think they know everything to begin with. And when it comes to their business, their law firms in which they are owners, they believe that only they can make valid financial decisions. Those “non-lawyers” who aren’t owners should butt out, as I have previously discussed. As one of my partners used to say to the administrative staff: “You work for me. Don’t tell me what to do.” And as I said before, the ability of partners to retain their independence enhances this hubris and arrogance.

One More Thing…

There may be another factor at play as well: the innate stubborness and resistance to change many lawyers have. Brad Blickstein, CEO the Blickstein Group, calls this dread. Blickstein says, “I believe a lot of time it’s not so much that the partners don’t respect what their COOs bring to the table, but rather that they don’t want to adopt the practices they suggest. For many partners, the way they deliver legal services and the way they bill for them is deeply embedded, and while they may agree with their experts on an intellectual level, they don’t have it in them to make the changes.”

As a result, COOs feel like second-class citizens and get tired of beating their heads against the wall.

Blickstein offers a doctor analogy: “I don’t ignore my doctor’s advice to eat better because I don’t respect her. It’s not that I think I know better, I just don’t bring myself to act on her advice.”

Blickstein does agree about lawyer arrogance, though. There are certainly a lot of “arrogant partners who think only they know how to run a firm.”

The Result?

This lack of respect for COOs shows up in those firms who do not bring COOs into the internal management circle. The firms who don’t even bother to conduct regular performance reviews or realign the position based on evolving and competitive needs. The Blickstein conclusion that these firms don’t change until the COO leaves may be correct, although I tend to think that these kinds of firms aren’t prone to change how they treat those in the firm who aren’t lawyers.

And for the firms who do change, the disruption of making the change and finding a new COO is significant. As I have mentioned before, it’s much better to work to retain present staff and embrace change in their role than to bring in somebody new who has no understanding of the firm and the firm culture.

In short, the reasons partners don’t embrace changes suggested by their COOs and their minimization of the COO role are related. It’s the same old lack of respect for those who aren’t lawyers that we have seen over and over.

Hubris, arrogance, independence, and a reluctance to change. It’s a perfect storm for poor business decisions. Firms that tolerate and encourage these things will be left behind in today’s legal world where change, being nimble, and adapting to new trends are critical. Law firms can’t ignore this reality.

---

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.