40 ASIAN LEGAL BUSINESS – MAY 2024 WWW.LEGALBUSINESSONLINE.COM THE BACK PAGE HOW TO BE SMARTER ABOUT COLLABORATION BY JEN DEZSO For all the talk around increasing collaboration and institutionalising client relationships, many law firms largely miss the mark in building effective crossfunctional teams. Collaboration is the most powerful driver of client institutionalisation or the degree to which a client is integrated into a law firm’s services, culture, and network. Client institutionalisation matters because it leads to higher client loyalty, retention, and satisfaction. Most importantly, it increases the share of wallet that a client spends with a specific firm. According to Thomson Reuters’ research, clients who identify collaborative teams within an outside law firm spend an average of 56 percent of their wallet at that firm — more than twice the average share of spend received by the firms that clients use the most. Inherently, most law firm leaders — and lawyers themselves — understand that working together across the firm to meet client needs better will also build stronger and more lasting relationships. However, because the benefits of collaboration are intuitive and there’s a built-in desire to leverage collaboration, firms tend to neglect addressing exactly how they plan to collaborate. However, collaboration is an intentional effort that law firms need to make. Without an intentional approach to collaboration, most firms end up with social collaboration — or an environment of collegiality in which lawyers enjoy working with other people in the firm, but don’t do so in a manner that seeks to grow client relationships. So, why don’t lawyers collaborate organically? There are two main barriers: Structural barriers: Structural barriers relate to the physical or organisational aspects of the firm that hinder collaboration, such as geographical or technological challenges that could impede working together. For example, lawyers who work in different offices or regions may have less opportunities to interact and build relationships with each other and may face challenges in coordinating and communicating across time zones. Further, lawyers who lack the tech tools or platforms to facilitate collaboration — such as knowledge management systems, project management software, or video conferencing — may find it harder to share information, expertise, and feedback with their colleagues. To overcome these structural barriers, law firms need to invest in the infrastructure and technology resources that enable collaboration. Indeed, many law firms that have stronger levels of collaboration have invested in technology that supports collaboration, such as client relationship management software, internal knowledge management systems, and well-organised intranets. Cultural barriers: Cultural barriers are those challenges that relate to the attitudes or behaviours of lawyers towards collaboration, including selfishness or individualism and a lack of trust in the process. Many lawyers may prioritise their interests or goals over those of the firm, especially in situations in which they may perceive that a shared approach may threaten their autonomy or compensation. Further, a lawyer’s reputation is of utmost importance and handing a client over to another lawyer with whom they are unfamiliar can be daunting. Fear of another lawyer delivering inconsistent quality or service is one of the most common barriers preventing collaboration. Overcoming these sensitive cultural barriers, especially if they’ve unfortunately become the default attitude in a firm, is likely to be met with resistance by some of the firm’s lawyers and staff. However, there are solutions to this problem, such as financial incentivisation, which aligns compensation and reward systems with collaborative activities, such as cross-selling, referrals, or teamwork. Even when firms build better mechanisms to support collaboration, the reality is some individuals are less inclined to collaborate than others. Only about one-third of lawyers are high collaborators — those who are substantively more inclined to work with other lawyers across their practice and with lawyers in other practices, according to Thomson Reuters Institute’s research. Those who don’t enjoy collaboration often can’t easily be forced to do it well. Leaning into those who are naturally inclined can both support efforts at client institutionalisation while ultimately laying the groundwork for more satisfied lawyers. Firms should assess their lawyers to help identify which are more naturally inclined to collaborate and find out what they like about working in this way. Then, firms should identify those lawyers who enjoy the level of freedom and independence the firm provides, because they are likely not best suited to lead client teams and are less likely to enjoy collaboration. Instead, firms should place those who share a positive view of collaborative or cooperative work within the firm in that role. Jen Dezso is the Director of Client Relations at Thomson Reuters and is charged with taking the lead in driving forward Marketing Insights, as part of its global client services team. A version of this piece was originally published by the Thomson Reuters Institute. Reprinted with permission. Asian Legal Business is seeking thought-provoking opinion pieces from readers on subjects ranging from Asia’s legal industry to law firm management, technology and others. Email ranajit.dam@tr.com for submission guidelines.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjA0NzE4Mw==