Best Practice Tips

...there is still a way, because the Illinois Probate Act applies to "unionized" couples, Joanna M. Lekkas explains in the latest ISBA Trusts and Estates newsletter.

"Some of the most important rights afforded spouses under the Illinois Probate Act include the right to receive a spousal award, primary preference in nomination as representative of the deceased spouse’s estate, and the right to either half or the entire estate of the deceased spouse, depending on if the deceased spouse has children," Lekkas writes.

Of course, Probate Act protection is no substitute for a professionally drafted will and other good estate planning, she continues. "[I]t is important to keep in mind that only six states recognize these unions. Therefore, estate planning for disability and death remain important tools for same-sex couples." Read her article and find out more.

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. Our firm has 25 attorneys. We are located in the greater Washington D.C. area. I am one of three members on the Executive Committee. While we try hard to effectively manage the firm too many people are trying to make decisions on behalf of the firm, therefore nothing is getting done. All of the partners continually second guess everything that our committee tries to do. I have been told that we need a governance plan. What is a governance plan?

A. Sounds like your practicing attorneys are spending too much time on administrivia and there is not a definitive outline of roles and responsibilities in the firm. Everyone is dabbling in the day-to-day maintenance and administration of the office, leading to decreased profitability and billable hours. Not only are each of you practicing law, you are also involved in the everyday management of the firm as it relates to finance, staff and systems. Clearly these are roles within the office that could be delegated to a trained and professional administrator. It just takes a little push of encouragement and trust on behalf of the partners to let go of the day to day details of running the firm.

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. We are a 15 attorney estate planning firm just outside of New York City. Ten years ago we had 37 lawyers in the firm. We have had several defections due to internal management problems pertaining to structure and compensation. We have operated more as a group of solo practitioners than as a true law firm. Recently we have considered the option of merging with a larger firm. What are your thought regarding the pros and cons of doing this?

A. Research indicates that 1/3 to 1/2 of all mergers fail to meet expectations due to cultural misalignment and personnel problems. Don't try to use a merger or acquisition as a life raft, for the wrong reasons and as your sole strategy. Successful mergers are based upon a sound integrated business strategy that creates synergy and a combined firm that produces greater client value than either firm can produced alone. Right reasons for merging might include:

1. Improve the firm's competitive position. Increase specialization - obtain additional expertise.
2. Expand into other geographic regions.
3. Add new practice areas.
4. Increase or decrease client base.
5. Improve and/or solidify client relationships.

I would start by thinking about your reasons for wanting to merge and your objectives. Ask yourself the following questions?

Asked and Answered

By John W. Olmstead, MBA, Ph.D, CMC

Q. Our firm is a personal injury plaintiff law firm located in Austin, Texas. We have 4 attorneys in the firm and all are partners who have been practicing for over 25 years. One hundred percent of our practice is PI plaintiff. We have been extremely successful over the years and handled some very large cases, have had some big wins, and handled several class action cases. Our current challenge is cash flow. The cases we are involved with seem to be bigger and more complex with fewer smaller cases that can be resolved quickly and contribute to cash flow. We are getting in deeper to our line of credit. Of late we have been discussing pros and cons of diversifying the practice and adding a non-PI practice area to our practice. What are your thoughts? Have you seen PI plaintiff firms do this successfully?

A. More and more of our PI plaintiff law firm clients have been raising this question during the past year. While a lot can be said about specialization - a firm can also sometimes be too specialized. I have seen many hybrid firms over the past 20+ years that have successfully combined a plaintiff personal injury practice with a transactional practice.

As one firm told me "we transactional folks bill the hours and pay the bills while we turn the PI folks loose to go after the big hits." Firms that operate the firm as a "firm-first" firm tend to be more successful with such a practice mix than do firms that are "lone ranger" firms operating as a collection of individual practitioners.