Professional Development Staff Who will develop the professional developers? By James P. Hargarten. This article was originally published in the October 2004 edition of The CLE Journal and is here reprinted with their permission. Building and Managing Your Professional Development Team
"Professional Development" is, in a very real sense, a term of art. It is a term of art with a shifting and evolving definition. Law firms are, in increasing numbers, realizing that professional development is far more than simply "training." As firms begin to realize the tremendous "value added" of Professional Development, firm commitments to Professional Development are increasing and, concomitantly, staffs are gradually increasing.
This article will focus on expansion of the internal definition of Professional Development (PD) within firms, the importance of obtaining "buy-in" from leadership of firms to increase the importance of PD within the firm, the use of PD Committees within firms, managing PD staff, and considerations regarding reporting structures for PD staff. Defining the Functions and Potential Functions of PD Within the Firm
Historically, PD staffs began as a vehicle to facilitate either internal or external training of junior associates. In many, if not most, law firms, there were no PD departments until the 1990s. Rather, firms employed Training Coordinators, many of whom were also Recruiting Coordinators in their spare time.
The advent of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) added a new (and not entirely helpful) aspect. Those same Training Coordinators now assumed responsibility to track MCLE credits and were, somewhat derogatorily, referred to as "the MCLE Ladies."
Those firms that have moved successfully beyond this paradigm have redefined the function of PD within their firms. That redefinition considers at least the following categories:
Training. Although training has typically been of junior associates, successful firms have redefined the concept to recognize the unique need to train senior associates and, yes, partners. That training has become internal in its focus and generally involves coordination with Business Development departments and others within the firm. Some firms have asked PD staff to delve into paralegal training and staff training. There is a clear split of opinion on this subject. Many PD Directors welcome the opportunity to expand their spheres of influence into paralegal and staff training. Others believe that involvement in non-attorney training dilutes influence within the firm.
MCLE Tracking. Tracking of MCLE credits, particularly in multiple-jurisdiction firms, is a necessary evil and appreciated administrative benefit to the attorneys. However, those who have increased influence within firms as PD Directors or Managers have found it beneficial to assure that such MCLE tracking is done by administrative staff separate and apart from-but answerable to-the PD staff. Programs abound to do this tracking. It is generally harmful for the professional reputations of PD staff to be associated on a day-to-day basis with MCLE tracking rather than with more policy-related matters having to do with PD.
Mentoring. Increasingly, firms are asking PD staff to become involved with the mentoring activities for junior associates. If properly conceived and implemented, mentoring is an integral part of PD. By effectively controlling and monitoring the mentoring program, PD staff can increase its influence within the firm.
Evaluation. No one within the firm is better suited to design, implement, and staff an attorney evaluation system than the PD staff. Properly done, evaluations result in a "tweaking" of the PD plan for associates in which the PD staff will be intimately involved.
Assignment Monitoring. Each practice group within a firm has its own method of assigning work to associates. In an ideal situation, that assignment method considers the progress of each individual associate within a practice group, as measured by evaluations, training, and previous experience. PD staff should be involved, to the extent that each practice group finds it acceptable, in assisting in assignment control.
Pro Bono Work. Given guidelines by the ABA and various local Bar Associations, firms are increasing pro bono commitments and are using those pro bono commitments as a meaningful way to not only serve society but to increase the value of associates to the firm and the practice of law. PD staff can play an essential and helpful function in assuring that pro bono assignments go to those who are both capable of handling the assignment and who will benefit from the experience.
Budgeting Outside and Online Resources. Law firms are spending an increasing amount of resources on external consultants and online training. We have a long way to go before we match accounting firms in the amount of resources devoted to outside training. However, the dollar amount of such external resource costs increases year by year. PD staff needs to take a leading role in assuring that such costs are husbanded properly.
Practice Group Support. Hildebrandt Associates and other consultants have repeatedly and recently confirmed the importance of the practice group structure in the training and development of associates and junior partners. Frequently, training resources are made available to practice group chairs who, candidly, need significant assistance in determining the best use of those resources to develop senior associates and partners. PD staff needs to take a leading role in assisting practice group chairs.
Ombudsman. An increasing number of firms are using PD staff to fulfill the role of "ombudsman" for associates. The definition of this role is evolving. It has become apparent that, if properly conceived, PD personnel at law firms have a close and understanding relationship with associates and can serve as a clearinghouse for concerns raised by associates.
The goal of PD staff within law firms is to become a key and integral part of the fabric of the firm. Experience has shown that the way in which that is accomplished is by redefining, in the broadest possible way, the definition of PD within the firm. Although it may seem myopic to say so, experience has also shown that redefining the role of PD in the firm will bring with it increased responsibility and, yes, increased staff. The Great Debate: Should You Have a PD Committee?
Let's frame the debate. Depending upon how broadly you have defined the functions of PD within your firm, you have an immense number of projects that need to be completed within the calendar year. You have key partners who can be counted on to assist in implementing the PD objectives of the firm. You have developed a Recruiting Partner. You have a Litigation Training Partner. You have developed those who are interested in running the mentoring program. If you are subject to the usual whims of human nature, you are content with this arrangement. Many PD professionals are institutionally opposed to creation of a PD Committee which would provide policy guidance to PD staff on the various functions assigned to PD.
There is good historic justification for such resistance. In early years, the "Training Committee" was an analog of the "Library Committee," which was staffed by junior or non-equity partners doing their "good citizenship" duties. Likewise, anyone who has tried to run programs "by committee" has been given to strong drink at an early age.
Increasingly, however, Firms have been drawn to creation and use of PD Committees. Those committees work so long as:
They consist of a broad range of firm leaders who can provide valuable "buy-in" from the firm leadership;
They are willing to give general guidance to PD staff and provide PD staff with the authority to implement that guidance without micromanagement; and
They do not stand in the way of those partners who are naturally drawn to leadership in the various sub-aspects of PD. If managed properly, PD Committees can be an effective way to achieve broad-based support and buy-in from the firm.
Getting Firm Leadership "Buy-In" to Increase PD Functions, Staff and Budget
Those of us who have been kicking around PD for decades have seen a series of cycles occur. The clear need for associate training and the emergence of organizations such as AILTO, NITA, and similar entities began in full force in the 1980s. The success of outside and inside training and the beginning of other development activities continued until the very early 1990s, when one cyclical crash occurred. That early 90s crash resulted in a huge setback for PD activities and resulted in retrenchments and layoffs.
Firms experienced a gradual rebuilding and, indeed, redefinition of PD through the late 1990s until the retrenchment suffered by everyone in 2000. Today, we are seeing a gradual rebuilding. It is that rebuilding that is separating firms that are truly committed to PD from those that are taking a much shorter term view.
It is instructive to look at those firms that, even during the period of retrenchment in the early 1990s and the early part of this decade, distinguished themselves as committed to PD. There are several hallmarks that define those successful firms:
PD staff have built key alliances with influential equity partners who are committed to PD;
Those firms have increasingly expanded the function of PD to include, at a minimum, evaluations and mentoring;
Those firms are among the lowest in acceptable turnover rates for mid-level associates; and
Those firms have consistently high ratings from mid-level associates in American Lawyer surveys, not only for training but in other key categories such as work assignments.
There is a certain "chicken and egg" aspect regarding firm buy-in. PD members must constantly try to make a business case for the value of PD. Methods exist to try to measure the Return On Investment (ROI) of PD activities. In my view, those are artificial mechanisms. PD staff have got to consistently remind equity partner allies of the costs of turnover and the recruiting advantage of an effective PD program.
Interestingly, once PD directors or managers convince the firm to permit the PD Department to expand its functions into allied areas such as assignment control, pro bono, practice group support, evaluations, and mentoring, the "ROI" of those activities becomes more readily apparent.
Over the years I have discovered that one of the most compelling arguments that can be made to the management of any law firm is that "other firms are doing it." I know that argument doesn't (and shouldn't) work with your children. But it does work with law firms. I cannot underestimate the advantage and importance of continuing dialogue and information flow between firms of your size and in your city to assure that you can make this most compelling of arguments. Managing Your Growing Staff
Here is a true conundrum. To increase your influence within the firm, you need to increase the number of functions that PD is responsible for. Increasing those functions will, experience dictates, increase the function of PD within the firm. But initially, as you take on those increased functions, you will not have the staff to perform all those functions in a way which you find satisfactory.
If you are persuasive, or even Machiavellian, it will not be long before you will convince firm management to increase your staff. Until that time, you must co-opt others who are willing to work under your guidance to do functions which have previously been undirected.
If there is one thing that must be done promptly, it is to separate the ministerial functions of your job as soon as possible. The absolute death knell of an emerging PD staff is to be known as the people who are responsible, primarily, for maintaining MCLE credits.
One mistake that I have seen repeated an alarming number of times in multi-office law firms is what I refer to as the "colonization" of PD staff. Various offices, by definition, bring various cultures to a law firm (though that is frequently denied). It is far too easy to have one PD professional in each office who views himself or herself as accountable to the PD Director but otherwise responsible for PD functions within an office. This misses a huge opportunity. PD staff should be arranged by firmwide function rather than by geography. If you are blessed with a PD staff, do not have one PD staff member responsible for mentoring, training, and evaluations in Chicago and another person responsible for those same functions in New York. Rather, cultivate cross-firm functional responsibilities. The results will be stunning. Reporting Structures
As PD functions grow, the inevitable question becomes one of to whom the PD professional should report. Actually, within the PD community, I believe that there is very little debate on the subject. The ideal situation is for a PD professional to operate at a Director level and to report directly to the Chairman of the firm or the Managing Partner.
Although that situation is ideal, for reasons which are almost too obvious to delve into, that situation represents less than 30 percent of the reality of all mid to large-size firms in the United States. The majority of firms within the United States have PD senior staff operating at the managerial level and reporting to one layer of administration below the Chairman level. That is not an ideal situation but it can work as long as you assure that the following conditions are met:
You must have an assurance of direct and unimpeded access to management of the firm on key budgetary and policy matters;
You must have key equity partner support for those projects which are key to PD success; and
The partnership must, either by compensation decisions or clear guideline to the partners, make it clear that the task that you are accomplishing is critical to the success of the firm.
A Reality Check
Law firms reward, monetarily, what they value. That is an uncomfortable reality of law firm life and it is one which must be appreciated by the PD community. Over the first two years that you are with a firm in a PD capacity, you will come to understand whether or not your firm is committed, as a matter of policy (and compensation) to PD. I speak not simply of your compensation but of whether or not the firm partner compensation system rewards participation by partners in PD functions. If that view permeates the partnership reward structure, changes that you wish to make to your staff, to your functions, and to your role will be far easier than you think.
However, if after two years you conclude that your firm is unwilling to make that kind of a commitment, then you must consider frankly whether or not you are satisfied with a mediocre commitment or whether you are willing or able to move on to firms that are willing to make that commitment.
For more information, please contact the author: James P. Hargarten, 415.369.7170, jphargarten@thelenreid.com.
This article is presented as an information service to clients and friends. Please recognize that the information is general in nature and must not be relied upon as legal advice. The author, listed above, or your Thelen Reid attorney contact would be happy to discuss with you the information in this article and its application to your specific situation. We welcome your comments and suggestions.
