Your Best Attorney Might Be Your Worst Manager

Your law firm has an exceptional attorney.

They're smart.

Productive.

Clients love them.

They understand the practice area better than almost anyone.

They've been with the firm for years.

Maybe they're a partner.

Maybe they're one of the firm's highest producers.

So naturally, the firm puts people underneath them.

Congratulations.

You're now a manager.

There's just one problem.

Nobody ever established whether they're actually good at managing people.

Law firms do this all the time.

We take someone who is exceptional at practicing law and reward them with an entirely different job.

Then we're surprised when they aren't very good at it.

Being good at the work and being good at managing people who do the work are two completely different competencies.

And the sooner law firms start treating them that way, the better their organizations will perform.

Management Isn't a Reward for Performance

This is where I think firms get the structure wrong.

Someone performs well individually.

They become more senior.

Eventually, people start reporting to them.

It's treated like a natural progression.

Associate.

Senior associate.

Partner.

Manager.

But why?

Why does seniority automatically equal management responsibility?

Why does excellent legal judgment mean someone will know how to give feedback?

Why does a large book of business mean someone knows how to develop junior attorneys?

Why does high production mean someone can handle conflict?

Those skills don't automatically travel together.

Management isn't a reward for performance. Management is a responsibility for other people's performance.

That's a very different job.

Great Lawyers and Great Managers Use Different Skills

Think about what makes someone an exceptional attorney.

Legal knowledge.

Analysis.

Judgment.

Advocacy.

Attention to detail.

Client service.

Writing.

Negotiation.

Strategic thinking.

Now think about what makes someone an exceptional manager.

Setting expectations.

Delegating.

Giving feedback.

Coaching.

Developing people.

Addressing underperformance.

Managing conflict.

Prioritizing.

Communicating.

Holding people accountable.

Building trust.

Some people are excellent at both.

Wonderful.

But there's no reason to assume excellence in the first category automatically produces excellence in the second.

Sometimes You Create Two Problems With One Promotion

Imagine your highest-producing attorney spends most of their time practicing law and they're extremely good at it.

Then you give them six direct reports.

Now they spend hours every week:

reviewing workloads.

answering employee questions.

handling interpersonal issues.

conducting performance conversations.

following up on assignments.

approving requests.

training people.

You just reduced the amount of time one of your strongest producers spends doing the work they're exceptional at.

That's potentially problem number one.

Problem number two?

They hate managing.

Or they're bad at it.

Now six other employees are working for someone who doesn't communicate well, avoids difficult conversations, doesn't delegate effectively, or simply doesn't want to manage them.

That's not necessarily a promotion.

It may be a bad trade for everyone involved.

Not Everyone Is Suited to Do Everything

I've written before about why I don't believe every law firm partner needs to contribute to the business in exactly the same way.

The same philosophy applies here.

One partner may be an exceptional rainmaker.

Another may be phenomenal at servicing complex legal work.

Another may be a natural mentor.

Another may be excellent at building and leading a practice group.

Another may have tremendous strategic instincts.

Another may be particularly strong at managing people.

Those are different strengths.

And they can all create value.

The goal shouldn't be to make every partner equally good at every function.

The goal should be to build a leadership team whose strengths complement one another.

We Already Accept This When We Talk About Partner Compensation

This is why I think the management conversation is closely related to partner compensation.

I've written about different ways partners contribute economic value to a firm.

Origination matters.

Servicing work matters.

Practice leadership matters.

Management and firm leadership matter.

Different firms may weight those contributions differently, but the underlying principle is important:

Not every partner creates value in exactly the same way.

If we accept that premise when designing compensation, why wouldn't we accept it when designing roles?

Your best rainmaker doesn't necessarily need to run a department.

Your strongest technician doesn't necessarily need six direct reports.

Your best manager doesn't necessarily need to have the largest book of business to be valuable.

Position people where their strengths create the greatest return.

Stop Trying to Make Everyone Good at Everything

I see this especially in smaller and mid-sized firms.

Partners are expected to:

practice law.

originate business.

manage people.

mentor associates.

participate in firm leadership.

manage client relationships.

understand the financials.

develop strategy.

improve processes.

help recruit.

sometimes manage vendors.

And occasionally troubleshoot the printer.

Then everyone wonders why something isn't getting done particularly well.

These are different functions.

As firms grow, specialization shouldn't apply only to legal work.

It should apply to leadership too.

Your Best Lawyer Does Not Automatically Belong at the Top of Your Org Chart

This can be uncomfortable because law firms often equate legal stature with organizational authority.

The attorney with the largest book.

The founding partner.

The most senior lawyer.

The strongest litigator.

Those people naturally carry influence.

But influence and management ability aren't the same thing.

Someone can be enormously valuable to the firm without being the right person to manage its employees.

That's not an insult.

It's good organizational design.

Seniority Is Not a Management Qualification

Neither is partnership.

Neither is revenue.

Neither is tenure.

Neither is being really, really good at practicing law.

If I'm deciding who should manage people, I want to know things like:

Can this person communicate expectations clearly?

Can they give difficult feedback?

Will they address underperformance?

Can they delegate without micromanaging?

Can they develop other people?

Can they make decisions?

Can they handle conflict?

Do employees trust them?

Can they separate personal relationships from management responsibilities?

Will they actually make time to manage?

Those questions tell me far more than how long someone has practiced law.

The Rainmaker Problem

This gets particularly difficult when the person who's bad at management is economically important to the firm.

Maybe they're a major rainmaker.

They bring in millions of dollars.

Leadership knows they're difficult to work for.

Associates don't stay.

Staff complain.

They don't give feedback until they're furious.

They delegate poorly.

They create chaos.

But nobody wants to tell them they shouldn't manage people because:

"Look how much business they bring in."

Those are separate issues.

Their origination may be tremendously valuable.

Compensate them for it.

Celebrate it.

Support it.

Give them resources that allow them to do even more of it.

But bringing in a lot of revenue does not create an entitlement to manage other human beings.

A High Producer Can Still Be an Expensive Manager

This is another place where firms need to look beyond the obvious economics.

Suppose a partner originates $2 million annually.

Fantastic.

But their management style causes:

high associate turnover.

poor morale.

weak delegation.

excessive write-offs.

constant rework.

underdeveloped junior attorneys.

partner time spent resolving employee problems.

What does that cost?

It may be difficult to calculate perfectly.

But it isn't zero.

Revenue production shouldn't make us blind to the economic consequences happening elsewhere in the organization.

Your Employees Know Who the Bad Managers Are

Usually long before leadership admits it.

Employees know which partner:

never gives clear instructions.

changes expectations halfway through an assignment.

doesn't respond for three days and then creates an emergency.

hoards work.

micromanages everything.

avoids feedback.

explodes instead of coaching.

plays favorites.

won't address underperformance.

They know.

And if leadership continues placing people under that partner because "that's just how law firms work," employees learn something else:

Management quality isn't a priority here.

That has consequences for retention.

Sometimes Your "Retention Problem" Is a Manager Problem

When several employees leave the same team, I want to look at the manager.

Not automatically blame them.

But look.

When the firm has turnover, leadership often starts with:

Compensation.

Benefits.

Work-from-home policies.

Recruiting.

Those things absolutely matter.

But people also leave managers.

If one department consistently loses strong employees while another retains them, the difference may not be the firm.

It may be the person leading the team.

And Sometimes Your "Employee Problem" Is a Manager Problem Too

This works in the other direction.

Leadership tells me:

"This team just isn't performing."

Okay.

What expectations has the manager set?

How frequently do they review performance?

What feedback has been given?

How is work assigned?

What happens when someone misses expectations?

What coaching has occurred?

Sometimes employees absolutely are the problem.

But sometimes the team is operating exactly as you'd expect under weak management.

Before replacing the entire team, I'd like to understand how they're being led.

Law Firms Rarely Teach Attorneys How to Manage

This part has always struck me as strange.

We wouldn't hire someone with no legal experience, hand them a complex matter, and say:

"You're smart. Figure it out."

There's training.

Supervision.

Development.

Feedback.

Yet we routinely take attorneys who have never managed anyone and say:

"These five people report to you now."

Then we provide little or no management training.

Six months later:

"They're not managing."

What exactly did we teach them?

Management is a discipline.

If you want people to be good at it, develop them.

New Managers Need Actual Tools

Telling someone to "be a better manager" isn't particularly useful.

Teach them how to:

set clear expectations.

conduct one-on-ones.

delegate.

give feedback.

document performance issues.

coach employees.

manage workload.

handle conflict.

run effective meetings.

make decisions within their authority.

escalate appropriately.

Those are learnable skills.

Some attorneys will become excellent managers with the right development.

Others won't.

And that's okay too.

Not Everyone Wants to Manage

This is another thing firms need to acknowledge.

Some people don't want direct reports.

They like practicing law.

They like clients.

They like complex work.

They don't want to spend Tuesday afternoon discussing why two employees aren't getting along.

Believe them.

Don't force someone into management because you've decided that's what career progression looks like.

A reluctant manager usually isn't a great manager.

And people shouldn't have to accept management responsibility simply to demonstrate that they're senior or valuable.

Create Ways to Advance Without Managing People

This is where organizational design and compensation need to work together.

If the only path to greater status, influence, or compensation requires managing people, employees who aren't suited to management will pursue management roles anyway.

Create alternatives.

An attorney might advance because of:

legal expertise.

production.

origination.

client relationship management.

mentorship.

practice development.

strategic contribution.

firm leadership.

Not all of those require direct reports.

The organization should be sophisticated enough to recognize different kinds of value.

Position People for Success Based on Their Strengths

This is the philosophy underneath all of it.

I don't want to spend enormous amounts of energy trying to turn every person into something they're naturally terrible at.

I want to know:

What is this person exceptional at?

Where does that strength create the most value?

What weaknesses actually need to improve for them to succeed in that role?

And what responsibilities should sit somewhere else?

That's not avoiding development.

Everyone has things they need to improve.

But there's a difference between developing someone and designing their entire role around their weakest competency.

Sometimes the Answer Is to Let Your Superstar Keep Being a Superstar

Let's go back to the exceptional attorney who isn't a good manager.

Maybe we provide management training.

Maybe they improve.

Great.

But maybe after honest evaluation, the answer is:

Stop making them manage people.

Let them practice law.

Let them originate.

Let them manage sophisticated client relationships.

Let them do the thing they're exceptional at.

Then put someone with actual management ability in charge of the team.

The firm's goal isn't to prove that the attorney can eventually become an adequate manager.

The goal is to build the strongest organization possible.

This Can Be Difficult for Egos

Law firms are status-conscious organizations.

Taking management responsibility away from a partner can feel like a demotion.

That's why leadership needs to stop treating management as inherently more prestigious than other contributions.

If you tell everyone that "important people manage people," don't be surprised when everyone wants direct reports.

Instead, recognize multiple forms of leadership.

A partner can have enormous influence without being someone's boss.

A technical expert can mentor without managing.

A rainmaker can drive growth without running operations.

Status and management responsibility don't have to be synonymous.

Management Should Be Evaluated Like Any Other Job

If someone is responsible for managing people, how are they doing?

We evaluate attorney production.

We evaluate collections.

We evaluate origination.

We evaluate utilization.

Why wouldn't we evaluate management?

Look at:

team performance.

turnover.

employee development.

delegation.

accountability.

communication.

workload management.

achievement of department goals.

Again, not everything needs a perfect numeric score.

But "they're a partner" isn't a performance evaluation.

Don't Let Compensation Accidentally Reward Bad Organizational Design

This is where the connection to partner compensation becomes particularly important.

If your compensation model heavily rewards individual production while ignoring management contribution, what behavior should you expect?

Partners will prioritize production.

That's rational.

Then the firm asks them to spend substantial non-billable time developing people, managing departments, improving processes, and contributing to firm leadership.

Those activities may create enormous value for the organization.

But if they reduce the partner's compensation, you've created conflicting incentives.

A thoughtful compensation model should reflect the different ways partners are expected to contribute.

Otherwise, the firm says it values leadership while financially rewarding something else.

The Reverse Is Also True

Don't create management responsibilities simply to justify someone's status or compensation.

If a partner is being highly compensated because of their origination or legal production, that's fine.

They don't also need a management title to prove they're important.

Separate the contributions.

Compensate appropriately.

Design roles appropriately.

Then let people excel.

Build a Leadership Team, Not a Collection of Identical Partners

The strongest leadership teams aren't made up of five people with identical strengths.

They're complementary.

One person may be excellent at vision.

Another at execution.

Another at people.

Another at financial discipline.

Another at business development.

That's useful.

The danger comes when firms try to force every partner into the same mold.

Everyone originates.

Everyone manages.

Everyone leads a practice area.

Everyone participates equally in operations.

Everyone does everything.

Usually, everyone doesn't do everything particularly well.

A leadership team should function like a team.

Different strengths.

Clear roles.

Shared objectives.

You Still Need Baseline Leadership Standards

None of this gives partners permission to behave badly because "people aren't their strength."

Every partner should still be capable of:

communicating professionally.

treating employees respectfully.

giving reasonable direction.

participating constructively in leadership.

following firm processes.

being accountable for their behavior.

You don't get to be abusive, chaotic, or impossible to work with because you're a great rainmaker.

Strength-based organizational design isn't an excuse for bad behavior.

It's about putting formal responsibilities where they have the best chance of succeeding.

Ask Whether Your Managers Actually Chose Management

Take a look at the people currently managing teams in your firm.

Why are they managers?

Because they're good at it?

Because they wanted to be?

Because leadership identified management potential?

Because they were trained?

Or because they're the most senior attorney in the department?

Those are very different answers.

If the primary qualification was tenure, I'd take another look.

Then Ask Whether Your Best Potential Managers Have Authority

There's another side to this.

Sometimes the person with the strongest management ability isn't the most senior attorney.

Maybe it's a younger partner.

Maybe it's an associate.

Maybe it's a professional manager.

Maybe it's an operations leader.

But firms don't give that person meaningful authority because they don't have enough status.

That's a mistake too.

If someone has the skills to lead people effectively, organizational design should allow those skills to be used.

Titles should support the business.

The business shouldn't be held hostage by titles.

Management Is Too Important to Assign by Default

A manager affects more than their own performance.

They affect everyone underneath them.

Their ability to delegate affects capacity.

Their feedback affects development.

Their accountability affects productivity.

Their communication affects morale.

Their judgment affects retention.

Their leadership affects culture.

That's too much organizational impact to assign the role simply because:

"Well, she's the partner."

Be more intentional than that.

Your Best Attorney Might Be Your Worst Manager

And that's okay.

Really.

It doesn't diminish what they bring to the firm.

The mistake isn't having an exceptional attorney who's bad at managing people.

The mistake is knowing that and continuing to put people underneath them because you think every successful attorney is supposed to manage.

Figure out what your people are great at.

Recognize the different ways they create value.

Design compensation accordingly.

Design roles accordingly.

Develop the skills that matter for those roles.

And build a leadership team whose strengths complement one another.

Because the goal isn't to make every partner good at everything.

It's to put the right people in the right seats so they—and the firm—have the best chance to succeed.

If your law firm's management structure developed primarily around seniority, partnership status, or individual production, it may be worth asking whether the people managing your teams are actually the people best suited to lead them.

I help law firms evaluate organizational structure, management roles, partner responsibilities, compensation incentives, and accountability so people can contribute where their strengths create the greatest value.

Because your best attorney may be an incredible asset to the firm.

They just may not need direct reports to prove it.