Reduce Conflicts in Law Practice Archives

Reducing Culture Clashes in a Small Firm Merger

2019-03-19T21:32:16+00:00By Debra L. Bruce, JD, PCC.|Comments Off on Reducing Culture Clashes in a Small Firm Merger

“We’re thinking about combining our firm of three lawyers with another small law firm. Do you have any guidance for us on what to consider in making our decision?” Clients ask me questions like this more frequently these days.

In some cases, a booming law practice has rainmakers looking for experienced help. Some senior lawyers in solo and small firms consider mergers as they begin thinking about succession planning. Sometimes young lawyers with developing practices seek to cut per capita overhead by spreading fixed costs across more fee earners. For some small firms, the merger mania in BigLaw has stimulated them to consider their options.

When contemplating a merger, many risks and rewards must be considered and due diligence investigations should be conducted. Culture clashes undermine mergers more frequently than any other factor, however.

When there are only 5 lawyers in the whole office, common values become even more critical. There is nowhere to hide. Variances in strongly held beliefs and values tend to grow from cracks to chasms. They can threaten the productivity, health and work satisfaction of everyone in the office, as well as the success of the firm as a whole.

Fortunately, with fewer people involved in a small firm, it can be a little easier to identify and discuss issues that may develop into rifts in a law firm partnership. Here are a few subjects to discuss.

1. What is your attitude toward money and the firm’s fiscal policy? Do you advocate leveraging debt to help the firm advance quickly and to weather dry spells? Or do you prefer a more conservative pay-as-you-go approach, relying on partners for any bridge loans required during slower periods? […]

Does Lawyer-Speak Create Workplace Dysfunction?

2008-04-10T16:15:22+00:00By Debra L. Bruce, JD, PCC.|Comments Off

Dan told the group what he thought was the appropriate course of action to take. No one voiced any opposition, so he took steps to set the plan into motion. Later he was surprised to get feedback that Karen thought he was controlling and railroaded the group into doing things his way. Dan felt dumbfounded and frustrated. If Karen had another idea, why didn’t she speak up in the first place?

Have you ever been in Dan’s shoes? Or do you identify with Karen’s perspective, acquiescing to someone else’s way of doing things when you don’t really want to? The problem may be as much a matter of conversational styles as substantive disagreement, according to Deborah Tannen, Ph.D., bestselling author and linguistics professor at Georgetown University.

In her book Talking from 9 to 5: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit, and What Gets Done at Work, Tannen points out that many people expect ideas to be explored through verbal opposition. “When presenting their own ideas, they state them in the most certain and absolute form they can and wait to see if they are challenged,” says Tannen. “Their thinking is that if there are weaknesses, someone will point them out, and by trying to argue against those objections they will find out how their ideas hold up.”

[…]

Make an Appointment

Setting goals for
your life and career?

Reduce Conflicts in Law Practice

Reducing Culture Clashes in a Small Firm Merger

Does Lawyer-Speak Create Workplace Dysfunction?

Make an Appointment

Setting goals for your life and career?

Setting goals for
your life and career?