The Buck Stops Where?

 

I can’t say I blame him - you never did get around to compiling and distributing that organisation chart, did you?

 

 

Well, somehow you should be letting everyone in the firm know who does what around here.  That applies both to your managerial responsibilities and to your departmental and supervisory tasks.  Usually, the best way to do that is an organisation chart, setting everything out in graphical form.  It’s easy for you to compile, and easy for the staff to understand.

 

Sometimes, the chart can be just as informative for the partners as it is for the staff!  But, that aside, it’s always important for the staff to know who is accountable for decisions in any particular area.  That way they know who to approach when a problem arises, and they know who is going to look to them for implementation of any decisions which affect them.  And, let’s face it, you don’t want to be bothered with queries about matters which are outside your remit – far better they are asked of the right person in the first place.

 

 

That’s why it’s your responsibility to make sure the information is kept up to date.  For instance, Lexcel requires it to be updated within three months of any change.  That’s why something simple like a chart is useful – you can just replace it and pin up the new version and put in on the firm’s intranet: you don’t have to go all through the office manual looking for consequential textual changes.

 

 

You’ve been trying to improve your supervision arrangements, haven’t you?  Well, how can people help you there unless you tell them clearly who is responsible for supervising each area of work.  I know you’re organised into departments, and often it will be the case that you are simply confirming that the department head is the person responsible for the supervision.  But it’s not always that way, is it?  For instance, that new chap you mentioned – didn’t you tell me that he was going to be doing some family work, some employment and some licensing?  It’ll be difficult enough for him to keep up with all that without having to wonder which bit of his workload is supervised by whom. 

 

 

No problem.  There’s nothing to stop one person being a supervisor of more than one type of work – always assuming that they do actually have the competence to deal with that area of work.

 

 

Not if you think about it in risk management terms.  There are two aspects of competence, really.  One is the person-to-person skills which you need to supervise someone properly.  But just think about technical competence.  If you’re advising a junior colleague on whether he is, in technical terms, on the right track in a case then, in addition to the common sense and wisdom of your years, surely you need up-to-date technical knowledge, at as high a level as possible, of the actual area of work they are engaged in.  Otherwise you simply won’t spot the danger signals, and you may even compound their lack of knowledge by trying to impose a view which is simply no longer correct.  So, stick to your current specialisms.

 

 

Fair point.  Where someone is in effect self-supervising like that, it places a higher burden upon you to look after the non-technical aspects of supervision, such as making sure he is not over-burdened; providing adequate support staff; helping out with dedicated IT where possible; and ensuring that his training plan covers the subject as thoroughly as possible, and is implemented at all stages.

 

 

Emphatically not – though both those will have their place in the programme of measures you should be adopting.  Take the post.  You mention checking it, but do you mean both incoming and outgoing?  You should, even if it is on a random selection basis.  And what about faxes and e-mails?  They can often be harder to check on, especially when it comes to outgoing e-mails.

 

As far as talking to him is concerned, that should be more proactive than simply responding to his concerns.  You should be actively seeking out his views on how things are going, both generally and with regard to specific matters.  Also, that communication should be part of a wider process involving others with a common interest, such as through departmental or team meetings.

 

 

For a start, use the tools you’ve got.  Your management information system will tell you at a glance how many cases everyone has got.  You should have a standard in your mind as to what is an acceptable number for everybody – and that may vary from person to person according to your knowledge of their experience, working practices and efficiency.  So in simplistic terms you can make sure that no-one has too many cases, just by checking your screen or print-out, whenever you come to allocate a new case or to review workloads generally.

 

 

I did say that was for starters.  Of course you have to take into account the complexity and demands of particular cases.  That just makes it all the more important to know the detail of who has what, and for that information to be shared generally across the team.  That way you’ll get much more co-operation if someone does get overburdened, and you have to reallocate some cases accordingly.  Oh, by the way, if you do change who has the conduct of a case, don’t forget that the client must be notified of who the new person is to whom they should turn, what their status in terms of professional qualifications is, and whether there are any alterations in the lines of communication for expressing concerns about the case or its new lawyer.

 

 

Once again, you can probably use the management information system you’ve got.  At the very least, it can give you a regular print-out of matters current for each person, and you can then give that to them and require them to check that they are aware of, and satisfied with, the stage of progress of every case.  The danger there, however, is frankly that they either won’t do what you tell them; or alternatively will give you false assurances if they realise something is wrong but think they can dig themselves out of the hole.

 

 

You may be able to take the use of your system a stage further.  You might have the facility to programme it to notify you direct of any matters where there has been no time recorded for, say, a month, for each fee earner.  You can then quiz them direct as to what the situation is on each such file.  There may be a perfectly good reason, but if any file starts to show up month after month you’ll know something’s wrong.  One snag, however, is that a cunning fee earner may learn to manipulate the system by deliberately recording time once a month, even if there’s no real step being taken, by doing an attendance note simply saying ‘considering file’.

 

 

There’s no substitute for a proper programme of file reviews.  I know everyone hates them, whether they are doing the review or being reviewed, but once the pattern is set they should be a matter of course.  You can’t of course do a physical review of all the files in everyone’s cabinets every month, but you can make it a pretty robust system on a sample audit basis.  It doesn’t have to be you personally doing it – others within the department may be perfectly well qualified to do reviews of their peers’ files, and may even find it instructive to do so.  Try to use it as a means to disseminate best practice – discuss at team meetings the techniques which some are adopting and which you feel could be used for everyone’s benefit.

 

 

Preferably both.  There used to be more emphasis on the former, but, for instance, Lexcel now encourages both aspects to be covered.  I think you’ll find that the reviewer will actually find it a far more satisfying exercise if they are looking at the lawyerly aspects of the file; but that doesn’t mean that the necessities of procedural compliance can be ignored.  It really should be an overall review of what has been done on the case.  It will be of far more value to the fee earner in question, and even more importantly to the client, if that is so.

 

 

The first thing is to make sure that it’s all properly recorded.  Anyone who comes to look at the file must be able to see what was done by way of a check, and when.  Also, you should have one or more central records, so that it is easy for the firm’s managers to see what has been reviewed.  That can be kept either as one for the whole firm, or else at departmental or team level.  Of course, if you’re putting it on the firm’s management information system, you should be able to order it in any of those three ways simply by selecting the type of report you want.

 

 

Again, it’s important to log it.  Then, of course, you should discuss it with the fee earner involved, and agree with them the steps to be taken.  Make sure you agree who is to be accountable for any actions to be taken, and a timescale within which they must be done.  It’s then up to you to check that it has been done.  Fee earners should be in no doubt as to the seriousness of failure to comply with any such requirements.

 

Then, the last thing is to make sure that the data regarding that problem is filtered through into the process for review of the firm’s problems.  That should be done at least annually.  The idea is not to rehearse individual problems – they should have been long dealt with by the time the review comes around – but to see whether there are trends in them, and any commonality of problems.  That way it should help you to recognise any difficult areas, perhaps with an individual fee earner, or a type of work, or a particular working practice which is proving inadequate, so that you can improve the position for the future.

 

Simon Young MBA is a solicitor and management consultant.

 

syoung@eurobell.co.uk