Winning combinations

If something seems odd then it probably is. In the five years I've now been working at Weightmans they have informed staff of associate and partner promotions at around the same time. This year there was a delay between the two emailed announcements, which led to choruses of 'I told you something was up' when it was announced, a few weeks back, that the firm is in merger talks.

The new partners email did follow pretty swiftly, advising that there are five more members of that exclusive club. I hope that they had all cracked open the bubbles before reading a rather cruel article doing the rounds which asked whether they would have the shortest-lived partnerships on record as a result of merger fallout. I have rather more faith that such matters would have been tabled and discussed at great length before their names were made public, and indeed perhaps such consideration accounts for the delayed news.

So, here we go again, I have faced and embraced such big changes before. I was working at Hammonds in the summer of 2000 when it became Hammond Suddards Edge '“ an almost impossible name to say which resulted in all staff having to spell it out repeatedly over the phone, and the press hilariously dubbing them 'Ham, Sausage and Eggs'. Undeterred, they spent a cool million pounds on an advertising campaign to display pride in their northern roots, apparently in an attempt to woo the London market which I never quite understood.

I recall mention of expansion being faster than whippets, closing more corporate deals than the reader had eaten pies and communicating via carrier pigeon to list but a few stereotypes (£1m? Really? We're in the wrong business). They are my opposition on one case now, and I was served last month with a notice of change of solicitor as they have merged once more and now operate as Squire Sanders Hammonds following a merger with some bigshot US attorneys. I'm sure a catchy moniker will follow soon.

Bumpy ride

It seems that merging is the legal world's new black as I read just last week that DLA Piper is to formally combine with an already affiliated Australian firm to create the world's largest business law firm by both revenue and staff, with over 4,000 lawyers worldwide. Total world domination must be just around the corner.

Is merging/acquiring then being seen as the law firms' answer to the downturn from which all businesses are struggling to escape? It's a huge strategic decision which throws up all sorts of difficult sub-decisions such as what the new firm will be called, who will manage it and whether the decent staff from each of the original outfits will have the tenacity to hang in there while the inevitably bumpy initial ride settles down.

The politics do not bear thinking about. Just look at the debate which continues to rage over whether the right decision has been made as to whose name should lead on the china for the royal wedding in April, although that decision was in my humble opinion very clear cut '“ you could not precede a C with a W on porcelain without inducing giggles.

Fair game

I have commented before that managing a law firm is a job from which many would run a mile as lawyers are by nature inquisitive, challenging and difficult to handle. My eyes have been further opened to the thorny issues of the task by the presentation which my MBA group is to make to the board later this month on 'Rewarding performance', as mentioned in December's column.

Our preparations have included reviewing the current promotions system and inevitably discussing salary reviews and how they could be conducted differently. There is a large school of thought that the only 'fair' method is to set targets and give decent rises to those who meet them. Simple. However, objections immediately follow such suggestions, such as how difficult it is to measure the performance of non-fee earning staff and the reasons why certain individuals may miss target in a particular year through no fault of their own '“ e.g. multiple fixed fee write-offs or involvement in non-billable tenders.

My firm currently sets aside a pot of money for pay rises nationally which is divided into smaller pots following discussions with practice area heads. It is then further broken up and distributed to business centre managers (BCMs), whose role is described as being 'to run a profitable team by delivering the annual target agreed'¦ and managing resources effectively'. To me this makes sense as BCMs must be best placed to judge each team member's contribution to the targets and general work ethic as they can both review the hard financial evidence and work on a day-to-day basis in the team.

An issue was raised even here, though, as some BCMs may be much more involved and team-aware than others who may struggle to equitably ascertain in whose bank account the money pot fragments eventually emerge. How can you eliminate the subjective element without making the process completely mechanical, when you would have to deal with the above missed target justifications?

In short, it's a vicious circle and a logistical nightmare, and I wish the board luck in formulating a system which will please everyone and silence any 'it's not fair' bleatings. Oh, and with the merger talks too. It's going to be a busy month at the top.

Copyright & permissions