Part 2 – Thoughts on Why you should never try to "Persuade" your lawyers

This is a 3-part supporting analysis and experience of this article by Dr Larry Richard.

In Part 1, I provide an acronym for the underlying lawyer traits from Dr Larry's research in decreasing order of desirability.

In this Part 2, I describe the dominant prevailing model (NOT herding cats) for us to consider whether we lead lawyers consistent with the science (herding cats).

If it is not "herding cats" what is it?

As Dr Larry Richard points out, the science and popular wisdom tell us managing lawyers is like “Herding Cats.” Before we come to his thoughts around how that is possible and how best to do it, let us look hard at prevailing practice. I trust we agree there is a widespread sense that something is broken. If it is not herding cats, what is it? How should we describe it?

I submit the contrasting, and by far I fear, predominant model, involves sheep and dogs. There are dangers in stretching metaphors too far, but here are features of the model.

1)     Class-distinction: There is a noticeably clear class-distinction between sheep and dogs.

2)     Sheep-work: Sheep do what I will call sheep-work, (acknowledging the inimitable Alex Su’s exposition on the subject). A team can do sheep-work in varied ways but though it is vital, and often ultimately the basis of profit, it is often simpler and monotonous.

3)     Dog-speak: Dogs manage the sheep, win the competitions, and get the credit. Guarding the sheep is in the job description, but seldom with the sheep’s interest at heart and usually not in a congenial manner. Core messages include “Keep things moving;” “Do not dare innovate;” “We are in a hurry;” and “You are merely sheep after all.”

4)     Us and them: Sheep commonly include allied professionals without attorney qualifications sometimes called “non-lawyers” besides junior attorneys. In my experience, it can easily extend to attorneys not qualified to practice law in any specific jurisdiction. Dogs are territorial.

5)     Battles: Dogs unite and coordinate when it comes to the sheep to keep them in their place. However, as you gain greater visibility, it is often a dog-eat-dog world up the ranks.

6)     Tricky transitions: Graduating from a sheep to a dog is the tricky part. It may variously involve being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “sheep in wolf’s clothing” based on whether you are facing the lower or the upper end of the hierarchy.

7)     A Continuum: ‘Sheepness’ and ‘Dognacity’ are not binary, i.e., you do not entirely switch from one to another. They form a continuum relative to who you are dealing with. Dogs continue to do smaller amounts of sheep-work as they move up.

8)     Status quo: Between dogs, they resolve issues based on relative power. There are occasional dogfights but more commonly, issues that are not fundamental to joint functioning simmer under the surface. The status quo, whatever that is, prevails. It is hard to get lawyers to do or not do things they have not done before.

Why the model prevails in legal services

All this is not unique to lawyers. However, I believe the culture, hierarchical distinctions, and widespread misery I describe, are far more intense in the world of legal services because:

1)     Most people believe the (painful) model and culture is the only feasible model though (or because)...,

2)     It militates against natural lawyer traits. How else, do you herd cats, without pretending they are (and/or eventually converting them into) another animal?

3)     Since it is so hard to sustain, a smaller pool survives and thrives. The profession sees a high percentage dropout and burnout rate. On the other hand, the burgeoning volumes and complexity and the economics of supply and demand mean the business makes money. Lawyers operating at scale, routinely learn to sacrifice time for money, and force fit within the model, becoming less of who they were meant to be.

The unhappy results

The legal world does not widely recognize happiness as a worthwhile goal in improving its services. Meanwhile, the burgeoning demand for good lawyers remains. Coupled with the general inaccessibility of good lawyers (especially teams of good lawyers and allied professionals combining to make the right things happen) that results in:

1)     Lawyers being expensive (and even more inaccessible),

2)     A tolerance for bad legal work, certainly in terms of poorly combining abilities (perpetuating the model),

3)     A dogged, though sometimes sheepish defence of the dog vs. sheep divide and the entire dominant model. It has worked for years, and the big dogs make money, do they not?

Is there an alternative that is compatible with the science which could contribute to making the legal services world a happier place? May we let the cat(s) out of the bag? I believe a happier model survives, maybe flourishes, in pockets (some evidence here) and that alternative should increasingly take over. In Part 3, I discuss why.