Making the Most of Management: Lessons for Law Firms Across the World
Drawing on more than three decades of experience in law firm leadership, this article explores how professional management, clear governance and modern leadership capabilities can transform law firms of every size, anywhere in the world.
Why management matters more than ever
Law firms have travelled a long way from the days when a loose partnership of autonomous professionals could thrive with minimal management. Today, cross‑border clients, relentless pricing scrutiny, digital disruption and intense competition for talent mean that leadership, governance and management are no longer optional extras but core drivers of performance. Larger law firms have been persuaded over many years to professionalise their management structures, and the lessons they have learned are increasingly relevant to law firms of all sizes across the world. It is a long time since I was a Managing Partner and I think I was one of the first in the United Kingdom to become a full-time leader, stepping away from client work entirely to focus on leading the firm. It was no coincidence that the firm grew strongly in size, profitability and substance in that time. More recently I have been advising firms of all sizes across the world from five partner firms to ones with hundreds of partners. As one of many examples, I advised a twelve-partner firm in the United Kingdom some three years ago that has since entrusted its leadership to a non-lawyer chief executive. Not only has that decision helped the partners to focus on client work, but the CEO’s professionalism and dedication have undoubtedly helped the firm to blossom. Nor is the example isolated to the United Kingdom: I have noticed the same trend in firms that I have advised in various parts of the United States and in Europe, Asia and Africa.
Running alongside this trend, there continues to be considerable debate about how firms should be governed, led and managed. In particular, there remains some resistance to professional support staff sitting at the top table – entrusted to make or share decisions and to enforce discipline on partners – rather than bearing mere responsibility for the humdrum administration of the practice. It is also true that the majority of law firms still prefer to entrust the overall leadership of the firm to a managing partner or chairperson who – as I did – is expected to give up a significant part of his or her fee-earning practice to take over the reins of management.
Evolving leadership roles in law firms
In many law firms, the leadership team now looks remarkably like that of other sophisticated professional services businesses. New executive roles are also emerging: the chief of staff, for example, is gaining ground in large firms – particularly across the Am Law 100 and 200 – as the strategic right hand to the managing partner or CEO, bridging the gap between leadership vision and day-to-day execution. Other members of the leadership team will typically include leaders in finance, people, technology and marketing. Some of these may be lawyers, some not. The old question of whether to ‘do management in‑house’ or hire external managers has become a shared dilemma across the sector: insiders bring deep client and cultural insight, while external leaders offer objectivity, broader management experience and the ability to challenge unhelpful traditions. In practice, the strongest firms tend to blend the two, pairing home-grown leaders with experienced external hires – but the combination only works when both are given genuine authority rather than advisory status.
Updating governance: building a genuinely supportive environment
A genuinely supportive environment for management is not one of vague consensus and unenforceable norms. It requires clear decision rights, agreed rules of engagement and the data to hold people to account. Whether the firm is a traditional law partnership, a publicly listed legal services business, or an alternative business structure, leaders need a mandate that goes beyond persuasion alone. Partners and principals should know precisely which decisions sit with the board, executive or practice leaders, and which are reserved to the wider ownership, and they should expect those decisions to be implemented consistently. Without that backbone, even the most capable management team is reduced to pleading for compliance.
Comparative data is difficult to acquire but my intuition is that in general, law firms often do not spend enough on the bench strength of their management teams, and as a result their leaders often lack the authority, information and infrastructure to execute even well-supported decisions. Boards should also be clear about the data on which management will be judged – financial performance, client feedback and people metrics alike – so that accountability runs in both directions.
Leadership, management, technology and AI
The core leadership challenge has broadened significantly in the last two decades. Technical excellence and emotional intelligence remain essential, but leaders in law firms must now also be comfortable with data, technology and multidisciplinary teams. They are expected to interpret real‑time dashboards of financial and client‑experience metrics, to sponsor the piloting and implementation of AI‑enabled tools and workflow systems, and to work alongside legal operations professionals, project managers and technologists. It is not easy to develop AI capabilities that change how lawyers work, how matters are delivered, and how the firm measures performance. Training and development programmes therefore need to concentrate on progress from awareness to competence, then to practice-specific application, and finally continuous improvement. This goes beyond the traditional mix of finance, marketing, HR and IT, to help current and future leaders not only build digital fluency but also the confidence and competence to orchestrate complex change.
Talent, culture and inclusivity
In many law firms, the loudest signals of value are still sent to the biggest billers and rainmakers, even when their behaviour undermines culture and drives good people away. Modern leadership requires a more balanced definition of contribution. Those who build strong teams, develop younger professionals, improve processes and champion inclusion create enormous economic value, even if it does not show up in their personal billings. Firms that explicitly recognise and reward these contributions, and that invest in management capability at every level, are far better placed to sustain a healthy culture and retain globally mobile talent. That rebalancing will rarely stick, however, until partner remuneration systems visibly reward these contributions alongside billings.
Developing management as strategic investment
The costs of a competent management and leadership team, supported by robust governance and modern tools, should be seen as an investment in the firm’s capacity to adapt – not as a drag on partner profits. Law firms that consistently under‑invest in management tend to drift strategically, struggle to execute change and lose ground to more disciplined competitors. Those that treat management as a core value‑creating function, and give their leaders the authority, data and resources they need, are far more likely to navigate disruption with confidence and to build enduring, profitable practices.
The starting point need not be complicated. Three questions will test any firm’s position: does our management team have a clear mandate and the data to use it; do our reward systems value the people who build the firm as well as those who bill for it; and are we investing enough in the leaders – lawyers and non-lawyers alike – on whom the next decade depends? Firms that can answer those questions honestly are already making the most of management.