We sometimes encounter surprises as we lead workshops that teach lawyers how to drive more efficiency, cost effectiveness, and better communication and collaboration into their legal work. One axiom we regard as essential in reducing write-downs, repetition of tasks and duplication of effort is "Keep all stakeholders in the loop all of the time." In other words, things go better, smoother and faster if everyone knows what they are supposed to do, where they stand, and how their roles relate to others'. In particular, we have seen that legal project management (LPM) can facilitate the development of associates.

So, imagine our chagrin in a recent workshop when we asked a group of partners the best way to communicate expectations to younger lawyers about how long their tasks should take and to provide effective feedback and guidance on their performance. "Oh, we don't," said one self-assured partner. "That's not the best way to develop good lawyers. If you want to teach them self-reliance and ability to work independently, you can't coddle them."

"Yeah," said another partner. "Around here we call it 'Social Darwinism' or 'case hardening.' We just throw 'em in the deep end, and after four years we come back to see who is still afloat. The strongest survive." "So," I asked, "you don't give them guidelines about how long a particular task should take?" "Nope." "Do you tell them when you're writing off their hours?" "Nope." "Do you tell them why some of their time is being written off?" "Nope. It's up to them to figure it out."

I defy anyone to name any sport or intellectual discipline demanding peak performance where coaching is withheld, standards are not communicated, feedback is denied, and up-and-coming performers must go it alone. Requiring inexperienced lawyers to fly blind not only invites inefficiency, it fails to teach them about client needs and priorities and how best to tailor work to meet expectations.

"What's your associate rate of attrition?" I asked. "About sixty percent after four years," he replied. "Isn't that an expensive waste of money, time and talent at today's compensation levels?" I asked. "We've always done it that way," one partner said. "It's how we groom great lawyers."

In most mid-size to larger firms, associates are not profitable assets of the firm until after their fourth year. Any other business that tolerated a 60% failure rate in any part of its operations would be a candidate either for a shareholder rebellion or bankruptcy. No wonder clients complain that law firms don't manage their costs.  

As firms search for ways to sustain profitability in the New Normal, addressing their failure rate in developing new talent seems a great starting point. In upward evaluations of the lawyers who supervise them, associates' most common complaint is "I don't know where I stand."  

Firms committed to better LPM don't experience this complaint. What they see is better performance, better efficiency, more satisfied clients and greater profitability. When it comes to "Social Darwinism," old Darwin must be spinning in his grave.

The Law Firm Leaders' Retreat. This firm had a sound strategy, but the Managing Partner was frustrated about the inability of many practice group leaders to implement strategic goals. I facilitated their leadership development retreat, and the Managing Partner attended as a resource person more than a central retreat figure. I helped to shape a leadership project for each of the 18 attendees. Each project had to be tied to strategy and "move the needle" on the business unit's objectives over the year ahead. In this case, the Managing Partner got what he wanted － a focus on implementation. But he preserved the capital needed to push implementation later. In a similar leadership project, the chief city attorney of a large U.S. city law department preserved capital by introducing our facilitation, blessing the outcomes, and leaving the event after 15 minutes!

The Non-profit Legal Services Organization. Their Board was being asked to approve a strategic plan after a day of debate. The Executive Director expected minority opposition. The Chair of the Board wanted to support the majority direction. In facilitating, I drew out the opposing views early, then ran a series of "straw votes" on smaller questions. When it came time to approve the overall plan, the weight of the majority was clear. The Executive Director was able to remain neutral and address implementation issues. The Board Chair had few procedural duties during the day, and was able to contribute substantively.

The Law School Strategy Retreat. Every U.S. law school accredited by the A.B.A. is expected to have a strategic plan. Since there is now a declining applicant pool and a public debate over the cost/benefit of law school, strategy is no longer just window dressing. In this case, the school had an interim dean and strategy was being lead by a committee. In addition to facilitating the initial retreat, the outsider was expected to address some of the external threats to law schools. In this case, the committee wanted to deliver a "reality check" to an often-insular faculty, but preserve the credibility they would need to balance the draft strategy statement that they had promised after the retreat. Since "balance" involved many different law faculty priorities such as scholarship, curriculum offerings, bar passing rates and hiring success, the committee was able to participate in the process, but avoid being the "bad news" messenger.

As leaders plan a key meeting or retreat in their organization, they need to consider whether some of their capital is at risk. They should contemplate alternative leadership, whether from outside the firm or an internal deputy, in order to lead with full capital on a controversial issue or the challenging implementation of strategy.