So you’re an equity partner – big deal!

22 06 2011

Last week I was given a business card by a lawyer I was talking to. On the card, underneath their name, was written “Equity Partner” in a fairly bold, not-to-be-missed font.

Tony showed the proof of his "Legal Jedi Master" card to the managing partner more in hope than expectation

It struck me, that were I ever to hit those heights in a law firm (I bailed out of private practice before putting those magic words in my email signature) I’d probably be pretty pleased with myself. And rightly so. It’s a position many people strive for and certainly for those in the upper tiers of the legal world, can be very lucrative and rewarding.

The title marks you out as an owner of the business and as a result conveys a certain status within the firm which undoubtedly provides very practical assistance in getting things done quickly through the firm’s support infrastructure.

But, the question that troubled me was the message that the title communicates to someone outside the firm.
I posed the question on Twitter, and got some fascinating comments back.

adds pomposity and confuses clients

I think it’s wrong. Many clients don’t know what it means, in the real world.”

It’s a badge of seniority but non-lawyer clients might not know what it means. Also = unlikely to do much of your actual work.”

” It would make me think, “Ah, so you’re the reason for my large bill”

The theme that stood out strongly for me was the internally-focused nature of the title.

Of course for fellow lawyers in private practice, and for in-house lawyers, the title and connotations will be understood. However, aside from the fact that there a huge number of purchasers and influencers who may not know what it really means, I wonder if there is an opportunity lost in not using a job title that is more aligned with the lawyer’s actual role.

There are a number of ways that could be approached. For a start, as I’ve discussed before, a market strategy that is structured around a client’s vertical industry sector is quite common. Would reference to specialism in a vertical sector as well as a practice area (or even instead of…) make sense? What about an alternative based on a description of the relationship with the client, so for example separating out relationship managers (I know the “s” word is maybe a step too far), technical specialists, project leads etc. For large scale project work this delineation of responsibility could also add credibility to the project management ethos espoused by many of the top firms.

Another driver that could force to revisit job titles is the changing career structures that have been emerging over the past five years or so. Many firms now have a senior designation for those lawyers who want to stay with the firm long term, but do not want the additional commitments (time, financial or management) that go with partnership. As the next generation of lawyers move through the ranks with their different cultural approach to work, life and career, will the old hierarchical, largely tenure-based titles still prove effective?

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for fresh thinking in this area (at least here in the UK) comes from the influx of new competitors into the market when the winds of deregulation blow through the profession over the coming months. Much has been written about the potential impact on law firms serving consumers, but make no mistake change is afoot in the world of commercial law too.

Aside from further consolidation, which I believe will be driven globally as well as in response to our own market conditions, the emergence of the LPO model and flexible resourcing models such as those from Axiom or BLP‘s lawyers on demand, will challenge incumbent firms to revisit their business models. This will invariably have implications for resources and career paths, and presents the perfect opportunity to revisit job titles.

While it may seem trivial, job titles do usually matter both to the holder, and in some contexts, to clients and prospects. A new entry to the law firm market will have the chance to think about this afresh, not restricted by history or tradition.
My sense is that these organisations will not default to titles like “Assistant”, “Associate” or “Equity Partner” and in using something a bit bolder and more relevant, will be able to send a signal to the market, both to potential clients and potential employees!


Actions

Information

14 responses

22 06 2011
Julian Summerhayes

Mark

Thoughtful post.

I perhaps come at things from a different perspective – your legacy. Will it matter in years to come if you are called by a title?

If there is a point of differentiation to be had then perhaps the partner label will still carry weight with a lot of people just like the term Consultant does in a hospital. Most people would prefer to be treated by the most experienced person than a junior but of course they are not paying for the privilege.

I don’t think it helps the buyer to over-complicate things with a plethora of titles. I would keep it simple and just call everyone a trainee, lawyer and senior lawyer.

Julian

30 06 2011
Intelligent Challenge

Nice comments as ever Julian – the issue of leaving a legacy is a good one and one I may return to at a later date. Reminds me of the 8th Habit by Covey.

23 06 2011
Barefootlegal

The bar for equity partnership has risen sharply in recent years. Most equity partners would need a deck of cards – project manager, technical specialist, shareholder, ambassador, coach, salesman, investor, strategist……in most cases its just your name they want. Personal service, trusted advice and investment in working relationhsips will make a comeback!

30 06 2011
Intelligent Challenge

Insightful comments, particularly around the skill set required. The few partners that tick all those boxes and perform those roles well are undoubtedly worth their weight!

23 06 2011
Mike Ames

Humans are designed to pigeon-hole those they meet. This is a subconscious activity but necessary because we cannot continually reassess everybody we meet. We might like this but I’m afraid we’re stuck with it.

To this end we appreciate anything that helps us to do this and titles certainly will. Like it or not if somebody can see a title which they can associate with you it saves their subconscious the bother of having to do it and saves you the risk of them coming up with a label that is not the one you would choose yourself.

I say have a title but choose it with care because it may stay with other people for a long time.

30 06 2011
Intelligent Challenge

Too true Mike, and arguably another reason why the job title in question doesn’t work outside the legal fraternity.

I shall make sure I get a card from you next time we meet to see what you’ve chosen!

30 06 2011
Fighting Irish

Putting EP on a card is awful. I was at a firm of patent attorneys the other day for a drinks event to launch their new offices. Nice but formulaic design. The senior partner got up and spoke, and explained how he naturally had the biggest office. Mmmmmmm.

Anyway, I like the US “Shareholder” or “Stakeholder” badge to denote ownership which is a bit less pompous than EP. However, as you say titles should point to the client, not to the internal machinations of a given firm.

30 06 2011
Intelligent Challenge

The office launch sounds like a bit of a tumbleweed moment! Intrigued by the idea of stakeholder as a job title – I’ve not seen that before. Thanks for sharing.

30 06 2011
A shiny new law firm « The Intelligent Challenge

[…] So you’re an equity partner – big deal! (intelligentchallenge.wordpress.com) […]

8 07 2011
The five skills of highly effective in-house lawyers « The Intelligent Challenge

[…] So you’re an equity partner – big deal! (intelligentchallenge.wordpress.com) […]

20 07 2011
Craig Pollard

I worked an IT consulting firm and this status-play on business cards and e-mail signatures was also prevalent. It emerged in the form of competitively adding more letters after your name, and rather pathetically, some were akin to the IT equivalent of your 10m swimming badge. This was at all levels from consultant, senior, principal and managing.

A bit like a hospital consultant reverts to simply “Mr” I refrained from the nonesense and kept with just my name and focussed on what really matters: creating and delivering value to customers.

A related aside: perhaps borne out of a lack of pay rises the company also entered a “title race” as people were promoted with more grandiose titles to keep them happy, often irrespective of the individuals ability. One day clients were paying x and the next x+20%, for the same (often lousy) person….

2 08 2011
12 08 2011
Why law firms need a CLO (chief listening officer) « The Intelligent Challenge

[…] it actually throws up some interesting trends (and I’m not repeating my rant about putting the words “equity partner” on your business card). In some firms, the adoption of the CEO and CFO titles genuinely represents a shift to a more […]

12 08 2011
Why law firms need a CLO (chief listening officer)

[…] simplistic, it actually throws up some interesting trends (and I'm not repeating my rant about putting the words "equity partner" on your business card). In some firms, the adoption of the CEO and CFO titles genuinely represents a shift to a more […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,787 other followers

%d bloggers like this: