Biglaw

Dictators And Democracy In Biglaw

Why communication and intentionality trump structure in Biglaw.

By  
on

I’ve found myself thinking about John Quinn lately, and not just because I’ve been in the mood for sushi at his personal restaurant. I’ve been thinking instead about the leadership style he practices and preaches as the founder and managing partner of Quinn Emanuel, one of the most successful firms in the country.

If there’s a spectrum of leadership styles with “Single Decision Maker” on one end and “Democratic Bureaucracy” on the other, Quinn Emanuel has planted its flag firmly on the side of single decision maker. I don’t think Quinn would take issue with me describing his leadership style as “benevolent dictator.” Bureaucracy is functionally nonexistent at Quinn Emanuel, at least compared to most Biglaw operations. Major decisions go through Quinn, and what he says goes.

This is very much by design. In the Quinn model, you have a dedicated leader who installs a senior team that aligns with their vision. Debate is minimized, action is prioritized, and when all goes well you have a lean, nimble leadership structure that picks a goal and moves directly toward it.

When I interviewed Quinn a few months back, he spoke to me at length about his distaste for law firm bureaucracy. In his view, law firms default far too often to distributing their decision making, which hampers a firm’s ability to move swiftly and with a clear vision. Worst of all, per Quinn, are the firms that intentionally insert lawyers with fringe, contrarian views onto committees where their beliefs are far outside the consensus. The thought behind these kinds of moves is typically either to spark a fiery dialogue in search of better answers, or perhaps just to throw the contrarian a bone in hopes they’ll quit making so many waves. In either event, Quinn sees it as insanity. It’s a recipe for logjam, and the few changes that make it out of committee will either be milquetoast compromises or at cross-purposes with the firm’s other goals and strategies.

Given the success that this model has brought about for Quinn Emanuel, it’s something that obviously deserves to be considered seriously. But it’s also pretty easy to see that there are downsides to this sort of top-down approach.

For a start, it puts all of a firm’s leadership eggs in one basket, which leaves a firm vulnerable and directionless if something happens to that leader. It could be something like leadership stepping down to engage in some self-care, a scenario that, while it hamstrings the firm for a while, can at least be mitigated by proper planning. The nightmare scenario is the firm leader who gets hit by a bus, leaving her firm without leadership, bereft of vision, and instantly in need of a new identity.

There are also the more mundane, day-to-day challenges of the benevolent dictator style of leadership. It demands a lot of the leader in question, while also potentially leaving other members of the partnership feeling undervalued and out in the cold. For lawyers who just want to show up, build their books, and make money without worrying about firm administration, this setup can be ideal. For lawyers that want to take an active part in determining their firm’s future, it could be a nightmare.

Sponsored

Plenty of Biglaw firms tend toward the distributed, democratic side of the spectrum. By delegating out leadership authority, a firm creates checks and balances within the firm to ensure everyone feels like they have a voice. The firm also ensures that its systems and vision outlast the individuals who fill the current leadership roles. For a firm with a well-crafted bureaucracy, having the managing partner hit by a bus becomes more a tragic inconvenience than an existential threat.

The bureaucratic style of leadership also probably feels most natural to attorneys because, in many ways, it’s the one closest to our everyday work structures. Our clients hire us to assess problems and advise them on their next course of action. We give advice on complex issues every day. Our profession is in some ways a highly compensated “Dear Abby” column. Most attorneys are used to counseling decision makers and having their counsel valued. It’s entirely natural that most of us come to think of ourselves as pretty good at formulating and giving that advice. Is it any wonder most of us would want to be heard within our firm’s management levels as well?

Even the concept of putting contrarians on the same team makes perfect sense to the right kind of attorney. Litigators work every day within a judicial framework that assumes if you pit opposing viewpoints against one another, the better argument will eventually prevail. What John Quinn sees as insanity, many litigators would see as a normal, healthy system of keeping a firm’s decision making honest, and leaving open the door for change if a better idea comes along.

There are successful firms with management styles all along the spectrum, from absolute iron-fisted rule-by-one to fully distributed power structures. And I’ve seen attorneys flee from or gravitate toward either kind of structure. I’ve known attorneys that tired of what they thought of as a slow, unresponsive leadership structure that demanded too much of them, and chose to go somewhere that they could worry less about firm management. I’ve known other attorneys that were frustrated to no end by their inability to be heard or effect change, and chose to go somewhere more democratic to scratch that itch. In either case, the firm failed to create a reasonable expectation on the part of its attorneys of how much voice they would be expected to have. That disconnect damages morale, damages relationships, and costs firms money.

The core of the problem is that too many firms ended up with their management structure by accident of history. Maybe the firm started out ruled by a strong-willed, charismatic attorney who refused to cede power as the enterprise grew, and it remains centrally controlled long after that first great leader left their role. Maybe the firm started out tending toward voting, committee, and popular rule, and never questioned whether that continued to make sense as the number and diversity of voices grew. In either instance, if the firm hasn’t taken time recently to examine its structure, understand what it is, and ask itself if it wants to remain that way, the firm is doing a disservice to itself and its members.

Sponsored

Time and again, I find myself coming back to the core questions that too few firms are asking of themselves: Who are we? Why are we here? How do we best achieve our goals. A firm that knows what it wants to be will always outperform in the long run over a firm that just ambles along blindly. And a firm that can tell its partnership what to expect of its leaders is a firm that has a better shot at retaining that partnership and recruiting like-minded attorneys in the future.

Dictator or democracy, I don’t think it matters in the end. What matters is communication, clear expectations, and purposeful decision making. John Quinn knows who he is, and Quinn Emanuel is exactly what he wants it to be. Once you’ve got that, everything else will follow.

James Goodnow

James Goodnow is an attorney, commentator, and Above the Law columnist. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is the managing partner of an NLJ 250 law firm. He is the co-author of Motivating Millennials, which hit number one on Amazon in the business management category. You can connect with James on Twitter (@JamesGoodnow) or by emailing him at James@JamesGoodnow.com.

Topics

, ,