In the early stages of working with Law Firms, one of the things we always do is talk with the existing staff and ask them to list three things they love about working for the firm and three things they dislike.

We do this because most of the gripes tend to be small things that can be fixed quite quickly and cheaply and when staff see that “things are happening” they tend to come forward with other, bigger suggestions and before you know it, a lot of the problems are fixed.

But no matter the size of the Firm or where they are located, the things that staff like or dislike tend to be the same, or very similar things.

The list they create can be anonymous by handing in notes on a bit of paper or made in an open forum, such as a small group. But no matter which way we use, the outcomes are nearly always the same.

The results are that they nearly always like who they work with. They like the social events, such as last year’s Christmas party and they might also like being located in town.

However, when it comes to the “dislike” list they nearly always put down the first dislike as; “underappreciated”.

In a recent Gallup Poll  71% of workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” in their work, meaning that only a third contribute to their work in a positive manner. I would say that from our anecdotal surveys it’s probably higher than that.

But let’s take that one step further and see what it really means for the Firm or business these disgruntled people work in.

By asking the people who listed “underappreciated” exactly what they mean, we discovered that the knock-on effect of this was enormous and had a big impact on the whole business. 

For example, when we hear comments such as “The partners don’t appreciate me and don’t really value the work I do” we ask how that makes them feel and how does it manifest itself on a daily basis.

It means they arrive as late as possible and leave exactly on time. They don’t go the extra mile on anything. They make no real effort to help others. They don’t provide the kind of service they would if they felt appreciated. This ripples through and affects overall productivity, leading to negativity and low morale which inevitably leads to increased staff turnover; all at a time when many firms are struggling to survive.

And yet, the remedy is easy to implement.

Why?  Well, when we ask the partners if they appreciate their staff, guess what? They do. 

They just don’t tell them.

So the simple solution is to tell them.

Telling them can be done in a variety of ways but often the simplest solution is the best one such as saying “Thank you. Your contribution makes a difference” or better still, writing to them, emailing them or by creating some service awards or as many of the staff say…by giving us a pay rise!

The partners do actually want to give a pay rise, but until some things change, that might not be possible. So what else can be done?

Well, the army is not the place you would ordinarily look to in matters of staff appreciation. They also have other names for it such as man-management and its counterparts, motivation and leadership.

You might think that an army has nothing much to do with a law firm, but let me give you some examples of their thinking and see if any of it could apply to a law firm.

Field Marshal The Viscount Montgomery of Alamein defined leadership as “The will to dominate together with the character which inspires confidence.” He went on to say that “…a leader has got to learn to dominate the events which surround him; he must never allow these events to get the better of him; he must always be on top of his job and be prepared to accept responsibility.”

Wouldn’t it be good if a few partners demonstrated these abilities?

General Sir John Hackett said “…when speaking of leadership I do so in the context of a leader in battle; in battle, pressures are high and the problems of leadership stand out. But while battle may be unique but the problems it exposes are not. Leadership is concerned with getting people to do things willingly when it is most keenly needed, when difficulties, doubts and dangers are at their greatest.  Successful leadership is impossible without the leader’s commitment to the group in his care.”

There is no doubt that the Legal Services Act, ABS’s, the recession (it IS actually a depression but won’t be called that for at least 5 years) all combine to make it feel as if we are in a battle.  Difficulties, doubts and dangers are at their greatest.

So are you as “leaders” committed to your group?  You almost certainly appreciate them, but do you tell them?

If not, what’s stopping you?

(Oh, and the other two dislikes on the list?  IT systems and pay…nearly always those two)

Alternative Business Structures (ABS) are not a new creation.  They started life just after the second world war in Germany when lawyers and tax accountants set up in business together. 

Since that time they have become common in other European countries and have migrated to France, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and more recently in India and other parts of Asia.

Also known as Multidisciplinary Practices or MDP's the definition of one is; a partnership, professional corporation, or other association or entity that includes lawyers and nonlawyers and has as one, but not all, of its purposes the delivery of legal services to a client(s) other than the MDP itself or that holds itself out to the public as providing nonlegal, as well as legal, services. It includes an arrangement by which a law firm joins with one or more other professional firms to provide services, and there is a direct or indirect sharing of profits as part of the arrangement.

The most prolific academic writing in this area appears to be Professor Mary Daly who collaborated on a voluminous tome on the subject called Multidisciplinary Practice; Staying Competitive and Adapting to Change.  What's of interest to me is that she wrote two complete chapters on the legal profession's opposition to change, citing that this would be the biggest challenge of all. 

Given the recent events with The Law Society of Scotland debates, she's not wrong.  In fact, you don't need to read the whole book as the clue to what to do is in the title.

Also, the 1982 Nobel Prize winning economist George Stigler (whose son David is a lawyer) wrote about the regulation of law in a 1971 article called The Theory of Economic Regulation where he stated that "...as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefit.  The actual purpose of regulations is to provide special privileges for the powerful interest groups that want to restrict competition and raise prices; so regulations hurt the public."

Interesting stuff considering that the main thrust of the opposition is that the lawyers who are against ABS have a perception that they prevent a non-lawyer from exercising undue influence over the independence of a lawyer who is representing a client and that this somehow unduly affects the protection of the client for the pursuit of profit.

In the same year Stigler won his Nobel Prize, the American Bar Association (ABA) formed the Kutak Commission to try to relax these prohibitions, but the ABA's own committee then rejected the proposals of that commission:  Here are the objections they raised:

1. The Commission proposal would permit accounting firms and others to open law firms in direct competition with traditional law firms.

2. Non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the lawyers' professional independence.

3. Non-lawyer ownership would destroy the lawyer's ability to be a professional regardless of the economic cost; and

4. The proposed change would have a fundamental but unknown effect on the legal profession.

Not dissimilar to the recent objections that we have seen from those in the anti-ABS camp in Scotland

The common denominator of these objections is that they clearly indicate the mind-set of a protected guild and not that of professionals operating in a free and competitive marketplace.  The protection of customers and the pursuit of profits are not something that are or should be at odds with one another.  You could argue that they are in fact a perfect alignment of business interest; and if not, then they most certainly should be.

But let's look at each of the objections in turn:

1. The Commission proposal would permit accounting firms and others to open law firms in direct competition with traditional law firms - Why is competition objected to?  We know that consumers benefit from competition, that is surely not in doubt and any action that restricts competition is therefore a net harm to the very consumers that the legal profession purports to protect.

2. Non-lawyer ownership of law firms would interfere with the lawyers' professional independence - Also strange since prospective non lawyer owners could be subject to rules of independence.

3. Non lawyer ownership would destroy the lawyer's ability to be a professional regardless of the economic cost - pure exaggeration as there should be no correlation between ownership rules and conducting oneself as a professional subjected to a code of ethics and principles.

4. The proposed change would have a fundamental but unknown effect on the legal profession -  Surely the strangest objection of all as it effectively states "We don't know what the effects are going to be but we oppose them anyway!" 

I work in Intellectual property and almost every new business idea is a model or an experiment.  As long as no laws are broken, private individuals and companies must be allowed to test their ideas in a free marketplace.

Imagine the argument against BT and a flotation because it would open up The Post Office to competition for their telephone services and it's effects would be unknown! A ludicrous suggestion and an unworthy argument coming from professionals who allegedly act in the interests of consumers.

ADP's should be allowed and we should leave the consumers to decide their fate. 

If they turn out to be unviable then traditional law firms will have nothing to fear. 
If on the other hand they do turn out to be a success, then it will have proved that they work and are therefore in the consumers' best interests; which is exactly why Stigler won a Nobel Prize nearly 30 years ago.

The Co-operative Group is planning a new campaign to promote its legal services to food shoppers in its 3,000 supermarkets nationwide.

The news came as the group, which aims to be one of the first alternative business structures, told the Lawyers Gazette that it believes ‘the die is cast’ for legal services reform, no matter which party is in government after the election.

The advertising campaign will see the Co-op’s legal services division promoted for nine weeks in an initiative that will include the use of in-store radio and animated till screen displays.

The group aims to increase awareness of Co-op Legal Services by 5%, matching the success of a similar campaign run last year.

Co-operative Legal Services managing director Eddie Ryan said the division had increased the number of solicitors and Institute of Legal Executives staff it employs by a third over the past 12 months, and is continuing to recruit. It currently employs 37 solicitors.