Sneak Peak at Q3 Staffing Survey

After a long, uncertain summer, it appears that the dam is breaking for the E-Discovery industry. The Cowen Groups Q3 Staffing Report found that 35% of major law firms, and 29% of F500 Corporations, anticipate adding staff by years end. In both sectors, nearly half of respondents worked more hours in Q3 than Q2, 2009 – largely due to additional workflow.

Firms and corporations have realigned their strategy to focus on cautious expansion while simultaneously recognizing that continued reliance on existing staff can create long-term staff burnout and exodus.

If you’d like a copy of the report or a full rundown on the 175 law firms and 55 high fortune companies that were surveyed, please contact me (David@CowenGroup.com).

Q3 Staffing Trends Report

For the past year, The Cowen Group has been surveying the marketplace to determine staffing trends, in light of the tough times law firms, vendors and corporations have gone through.  We have just launched our Q3 survey and have some preliminary “tidbits” to share with you.  The good news for all, is that only a small fraction of our surveyed database plan on reducing staffing the upcoming quarter.  Next Wednesday we will have the comprehensive results of the survey to share with you, including data on work load, outsourcing, etc.

As I look forward, I realize that the data that we have is significant for all, but there are many other issues that concern our industry and we have the opportunity to examine those issues in depth.  I have partnered with Jeanette Slepian , former Sr. VP Sales and Marketing at Fios, to develop a comprehensive survey of our industry which will identify leading trends in not only staffing but spending on related litigation and e-discovery services.  What professional and IT-enabled services will law firms and corporations be investing in?  Will the trend of “vendor consolidation” gain further momentum in 2010?  These and numerous other critical issues will be analyzed in our first annual forecast. Stay tuned for more details.

P.S. Congratulations to Jared Coseglia, our Senior VP, for the first Episode of his Career Corner Podcast posted on ILTA… John Kapp (Shearman & Sterling), Jeannie Larrea-Manzano (Wachtell Lipton) and Brad Schaffel (WilmerHale) share their insight about the exciting evolution of their careers in the litigation support industry. Listen Here

Which candidate has the X-Factor?

Sorry my postings have been so light.  I have been up to my eyeballs in truly epic searches. 

Yes, there is a lot of hiring activity going on out there at the VP level.

Vendors are preparing for an increase in litigation and staffing up. Primarily for experienced executive management--thought leaders with deep business development, strategy and client services experience.

One VP of strategy search in particular has me feeling like the ball boy at the US Open, with a worldclass vendor on the client side of the net, and several massively talented candidates on the other. 

But which one has the X-factor?

To gain clarity on this issue, I consulted the  Bible of management thought:  The Daily Drucker, wherein Peter Drucker first defines the term ...

"Leadership is not rank, it is responsibility.  It is the lifting of a subordinate’s vision to higher sights – the raising of a subordinate’s performance to a higher standard.  It is the building of a subordinate’s personality beyond its normal limitations.  A leader must set strict principles of conduct and responsibility, high standards of performance, and respect for the individual and his work."

Now that we know what we're looking for, exactly how would Mr. Drucker go about identifying a new leader of an institution?  As is typical, his answer's awesome:

  • First: I would look at what the candidates have done – and what their strengths are. You can only perform with strength.  What has each candidate done with his strengths?
  • Second:  I would look at the institution and ask: “What is the key challenge?”  I would try to match the candidate’s strengths with the needs.
  • Third:  I would look for integrity. A leader sets an example, especially a strong leader.  He or she is someone on whom people – especially younger people – in the organization model themselves.

When selecting a leader, I always ask myself:  “Would I want one of my children to work under this person?"  If the leader is successful, then the young people will imitate him. 

The Warren Buffett Acid Test

But what should a hiring committee do if all of the candidates in the pool fit Mr. Drucker's profile? When advising a client I do  what Warren Buffett did when he chose Deryck Maughan as the CEO of Solomon Brothers in the wake of Solomon Treasury Bond scandal of 1991.  In picking Mr. Maughan in a time of crisis from a similarly crowded field of superstar candidates, Mr. Buffett distilled his entire hiring process down to two simple questions:

"If this were an investment decision, ...

  1. FROM which candidate would I want to COLLECT 10% of his earnings in perpetuity?
  2. TO which candidate would I want to PAY 10% of his earnings in perpetuity?

… assuming I got to pocket the difference." [Don't you wish you had that kind of mental clarity?]

Try it right now:  Write down the names of any six of your college friends.  Now notice as your mind automatically begins to stack rate "intangibles" like energy, drive, focus, resourcefulness, decision quality, maturity, command presence, IQ, EQ, and so on.  Like magic, the wheat segregates to one side of the ledger, the chaff to the other. 

If you are following the Good to Great "First Who, Then What" rule, then this is a great way to get the right people on the bus.
__________________________________________

Q:  Need the number of a recruiter who "gets it?"

A:  Download David's contact info for further reference 

Your New Role, Raise & Staff

IP continues to grow at double digits and so does the demand for Litigation Support talent required to perform such work.

As law firms continue to add talent and clients to their IP practices, Litigation Support professionals will see a dramatic increase in workflow and new client demands.

And I do not mean scanning and coding. IP clients are highly sophisticated and demand more.
This means meeting your firm's clients.

The client's CIO will demand to meet you and the rest of your firm to be sure that you can handle the case. This includes your knowledge of various strategies, data collection options, online tool selection, server space, backup solutions, EXPERIENCE with similar matters and the firm wide talent to handle the case.

The lawyers have the easy role here. Try spending 2 hours being grilled by a Biotech CIO in Indianapolis. It’s 5 o’clock somewhere.

The King & Spalding link below is just example of this war for talent. The hidden story is how the role of Litigation Support will change and become more critical to winning the assignment (top line revenue) and ultimately the case.

Yes, the case. IP clients don’t tend to blink. They go to court and litigate.

Need more budget for staff, tools and training? Here is your business case:

King & Spalding Raids Rival for IP Talent [From The Daily Report Online, registration required]

King & Spalding, looking to beef up its intellectual property and biotechnology practices, hired three attorneys from cross-town rival Kilpatrick Stockton and may be scoping out more hires in those areas.

King & Spalding wants to grow its IP practice group within three years to about 150 members from the current 100 lawyers and patent agents, said King & Spalding partner Courtland L. Reichman, head of the firm's IP group.

Lead, Follow, or Get Bought.

Cloaking! What is it good for?

"...Absolutely nothin! Say it, say it, say it again, now..." (Apologies to the late great Edwin Starr)

About this time last year the blogosphere lit up with natterings about an uptic in lateral hiring. How would law firms hang onto their poachable associates? In an unfortunate imitation of the worst of twentieth-century geopolitics, some of the most venerable firms opted to wall in their talent, limiting the contact information about associates provided on their web sites, or scaling back information in law firm directories. Latham & Watkins' web site, e.g., provided direct numbers for partners but only general numbers for associates, and no associate bios or practise particulars.

By June, LawFirm, Inc. was reporting an improvement, or at least a promise of improvement, "within the context of data protection and data privacy protocols," among the AmLaw 100's top 10. And top blawgers acknowledge a movement toward greater transparency throughout 2005.

But as yet another fiscal year turns over, Law.com still headlines with "Cloaking...", the cyber-term for playing hide-and-seek with key information. One signal that the term and practise is standard and persists, is that everyone knows the code. That is, any firm that resorts to cloaking pretty much sends an engraved invitation to recruiters - like carrion to buzzards in the desert. It's true that efforts have been made. At the Latham & Watkins' site there's more associate 411 now - but you still can't find it without a map.

That's a waste of any firm's investment in its own future. Lateral hiring is a serious concern, certainly, and the consequences can be far-reaching. But outside counsel is a boon only when and if in-house resources have been fully advantaged, and when imported talent fills practise area gaps and meshes with a firm's existing dynamic. The costs of attrition are too high not to go deep for talent, before going wide. And the more that partner-worthy associates are put to work on high-visibility matters for core clients, the less "poachable" they will be.

Besides, didn't you know? "Something there is that doesn't love a wall (thanks again, Robert Frost)..."