July 15, 2008 |
Posted By Patrick J. Lamb |
0 Comments |
Should We Value Collaboration?
Are two heads better than one? Four better than two? I am sure there are exceptions, but frequently the answer is yes.
But let's sharpen the question, shall we? If your client has a tough problem that she wants your help to solve, will you come up with the best ideas by yourself or working with someone else? If the latter, will your ideas be better if the person is a young associate or your most experienced partners? When dealing with issues of strategy and tactics for pursuing complex business litigation, I think it is evident that the best ideas happen when the smartest and most experienced people brainstorm together. An idea that survives review by that kind of group is likely to be stronger than one that is not debated or debated by younger lawyers.
If these things are true, why does such true collaboration happen so rarely? Well, it is routine on the so-called plaintiffs side of the bar. My partner Nicole Auerbach and I had lunch with a lawyer who is transitioning his practice from a plaintiff's antitrust practice to a corporate litigation practice. He regaled us with story after story of how the upper echelon of plaintiff's lawyers collaborate on cases. It happens because there is an enormous financial incentive for it--win and everyone makes money; lose and no one does.
But we still must confront the question, why does this kind of collaboration not happen on the "defense side" (in reality, the side representing corporate interests, whether defense or plaintiff). Here are the reasons I've come up with. First, clients don't trust their firms to brainstorm efficiently and not use it as an excuse to over-bill. Too many memories of three or four lawyers attending a deposition and not adding any value. The plaintiff's firms avoid this because they only get paid if they are successful. Second, lack of desire to participate. The smartest people have to worry about "their" clients and "their" matters and don't have time for "your" clients. The plaintiff's firms avoid this problem because everybody has skin in the game for every client. So, we're left with clients not demanding it and "partners" acting like competitors (which given the way most compensations systems work is a fairly apt description).
For what its worth, we at Valorem insist on collaboration. We've observed that it makes our work significantly better. We have areas set aside for people to brainstorm. And we do it frequently. We avoid the problems because we don't bill for it--we do it because we have skin in the game and want the best possible result. And we don't differentiate from a compensation standpoint--a rising tide raises all boats. This is an important aspect of how we provide (we think) greater value for our clients.
But let's sharpen the question, shall we? If your client has a tough problem that she wants your help to solve, will you come up with the best ideas by yourself or working with someone else? If the latter, will your ideas be better if the person is a young associate or your most experienced partners? When dealing with issues of strategy and tactics for pursuing complex business litigation, I think it is evident that the best ideas happen when the smartest and most experienced people brainstorm together. An idea that survives review by that kind of group is likely to be stronger than one that is not debated or debated by younger lawyers.
If these things are true, why does such true collaboration happen so rarely? Well, it is routine on the so-called plaintiffs side of the bar. My partner Nicole Auerbach and I had lunch with a lawyer who is transitioning his practice from a plaintiff's antitrust practice to a corporate litigation practice. He regaled us with story after story of how the upper echelon of plaintiff's lawyers collaborate on cases. It happens because there is an enormous financial incentive for it--win and everyone makes money; lose and no one does.
But we still must confront the question, why does this kind of collaboration not happen on the "defense side" (in reality, the side representing corporate interests, whether defense or plaintiff). Here are the reasons I've come up with. First, clients don't trust their firms to brainstorm efficiently and not use it as an excuse to over-bill. Too many memories of three or four lawyers attending a deposition and not adding any value. The plaintiff's firms avoid this because they only get paid if they are successful. Second, lack of desire to participate. The smartest people have to worry about "their" clients and "their" matters and don't have time for "your" clients. The plaintiff's firms avoid this problem because everybody has skin in the game for every client. So, we're left with clients not demanding it and "partners" acting like competitors (which given the way most compensations systems work is a fairly apt description).
For what its worth, we at Valorem insist on collaboration. We've observed that it makes our work significantly better. We have areas set aside for people to brainstorm. And we do it frequently. We avoid the problems because we don't bill for it--we do it because we have skin in the game and want the best possible result. And we don't differentiate from a compensation standpoint--a rising tide raises all boats. This is an important aspect of how we provide (we think) greater value for our clients.
Post A Comment / Question