Fewer things affect the quality of legal service delivery more positively or immediately than skilled delegation -- making sure that superiors delegate assignments to the most appropriate level of subordinate (lowest hourly rate is not automatically the most cost-effective, for example), checking to see that the "delegatee" has both the competency and time to take on the work, thinking through how much supervision will be required. And, of course, giving lucid instructions.

Poor Marks at an Essential Skill

In our experience, most partners believe that their delegation skills are good to excellent (we've asked them). They honestly think that they are good communicators: clear, succinct, focused, constructive, thorough, patient. Objective evidence points to a different conclusion. Frankly, a lot of partners' delegation skills are abysmal; vague, confusing, rushed and lacking either performance criteria or follow-up.

We once were shown the transcription of instructions that one associate, eager to assure that she "got it right," recorded on a pocket recorder. It sounded like an FBI wiretap of the mafia: "Get me, you know, that thing we talked about, and, you know, talk to that guy, and write up something I can, you know, show to the people, so we can move ahead with the other thing, you know, the one about that new standard. And you know I need this ASAP."

Vague, incomplete or misunderstood instructions from partner to associates (or between law firm and client) result in a lot of reinventing of the wheel, a lot of do-overs, huge amounts of time written down or eventually written off, and generally sketchy collaboration. It is a major area of lawyer inefficiency and a frequent budget-buster.

Yet until recent client pressures for greater efficiency and budget management changed the rules of the game, the legal profession tolerated a lot of delegation-related inefficiencies: they were, it was thought, a necessary part of a lawyer's maturing and professional development. As one partner so compassionately expressed it, "We throw baby lawyers in the deep end of the pool and after four years come back to see who's still swimming."

In today's legal environment, this attitude, beyond being callous, is economically suicidal. Clients increasingly are declining to underwrite the costs of associates' learning curves (many, for example, now decline to pay for any billings by first-year or even second-year associates). The message should be clear: quality lawyering and efficient service are best supported by superior delegation and instruction, and not by some strange variation of the Socratic method.

The Trick Anyone Can Master

We've long known that an amazingly simple delegation technique can reduce write-downs of lawyer time by up to 18%. What is the marvelous magic trick? At the time an instruction is given, partners should simply ask the associates to immediately play back their understanding of what they are being asked to do: task content, task priority, starting points or resources, client budget, level of accountability, time frame, questions.

This "in the moment" playback doesn't have to be a hostile cross-examination or test; a friendly reality-check to assure alignment of both parties' understanding and expectations works just fine: "Jack, just to make sure I didn't miss anything, take a moment to play back to me your understanding of the assignment we just discussed."

This approach is simple, it's constructive, it's collaborative, and, it turns out, it's very, very effective.

"I Would Never Do That!"

At a recent Legal Project Management training workshop, however, several partners expressed adamant disdain for this basic suggestion for materially improving delegation.

"It will just use up a lot of extra time!" said one. "It's not my job to mollycoddle associates," said another. "The best learning comes through trial-and-error. That's how I learned!" The most adamant protest came from one partner who said: "This is just incredibly demeaning to associates. Asking them to parrot back instructions is patronizing. It treats our younger lawyers like they're stupid, like they can't follow simple directions."

What Do the Associates Think?

A few of the associates participating in the LPM workshop (please note that we said "participating" and not "attending;" all too often associates are left out of LPM training or consigned to the back benches) were shifting uncomfortably in their seats, so I turned to them. "How would you feel if a feedback loop like this were included every time you were assigned work?"

"I'd love it!" exclaimed one. "A lot of our partners think associates are all the same -- that they have the same background information on the matter, have the same levels of expertise. So the partners' instructions come in a kind of verbal shorthand, and frankly, I often struggle to figure out just what they really want. I often have to ask other associates what they guy was saying."

"I don't think it's insulting at all," said another associate. "Many associates don't want to ask questions because they are afraid it will make them look dumb. If double-checking our understanding was a routine step in delegation, it would take a lot of that fear away. Rather than being demeaning, I think it is respectful of us and reinforces our desire to get it right."

An experienced senior associate put in the final word: "I work with several partners, all doing the same kind of matters. And they all have their own unique way of doing things, but they all think everybody does it their way. I hate it when I get chewed out or my work gets written down not because it's lousy, but because it wasn't done the way a particular partner prefers. Anything that would help assure that I understand how each partner wants things done will go a long way in improving both the quality and efficiency of our work."

Well said. And, by the way, what firm would refuse a simple way to reduce write-downs of associate time by 18%?

In any review of a law firm's strategy and objectives, one of the most important tasks is to ensure that the firm doesn't just pay lip service to succession planning, but reviews its "people" strategies at a cognitive level.

This has not always been the case. In the past, law firms tended to focus their talent strategies with a very short-term view, and rarely thought too far ahead about the problems and investments of the future.

In planning for the next generation of lawyers, there are two very contradictory issues that need to be resolved, or at least balanced. The first is that people costs and premises overheads - in that order - form the two highest components of a law firm's fixed cost base, and are steadily increasing. Against this background, many law firms are examining the possibility of a greater element of variability in these fixed costs by seeking more freelance and contract lawyers. These people are at an experience or expertise level comparable to partners, and are happy to work as and when required and to be paid on the basis of work done. This model offers the additional possible benefit that less office space will eventually be required, as freelance lawyers tend to do at least some of their work at home or in client offices.

The second and contradictory issue is that in the next few years, many firms will face the retirement from the firm of a large number of lawyers - the baby boomer generation. It is therefore critical to have succession plans in place so the next generation of lawyers is groomed and ready to handle key client relationships and to ensure continuity of service. In other words, firms need to continue to identify and develop future partners, and to tie them into the firm to a far greater extent than the freelancer would want or permit.

So, here is the dilemma. If a firm goes too far down the path of staffing the firm with freelance and contract lawyers, it risks ending up with too few partners and leaders. However, if a firm decides to invest heavily in young lawyers with leadership potential, the fixed and development cost is likely to be eye-wateringly high, especially during the early years when the younger lawyers duplicate effort by shadowing soon-to-retire partners.

A further complexity is that the future is increasingly difficult to predict and many law firms are struggling to decide what changes in their future business models are going to be necessary in an increasingly price-sensitive and cost-conscious age - high versus low leverage, innovation versus exploitation, commoditisation versus bespoke, generalist versus niche and so on.

I fear that the favoured default action may continue to resist thinking about the future, and to do absolutely nothing either to alter the cost structure or to invest in future succession planning. Changing the short-term mind-set is never easy but requires someone in the firm to make a good stab at visualising the future and painting a graphic picture for the partners that moves them to look at things differently.