I have covered this a number of times, but it is worth repeating and exploring.
Collaboration still has a somewhat negative connotation from WWII and the Cold War. It dealt with helping foreign occupiers in one's county. Nobody wanted to be referred to as a collaborator. But, this is not the way it should be viewed. Collaboration should imply equal partners who work together on a project.
Sometimes I think that law, representing the moral equivalent of war, does not necessarily sit well
with many lawyers or firms who have grown up to be competitive and zealous. One of the advantages many universities promote in their joint JD/MBA programs is that an MBA is greatly about collaboration and law is almost the opposite. Kind of that "you got chocolate in my peanut butter - you got peanut butter on my chocolate" realization, many are starting to believe that collaboration is a skill that needs to be taught to lawyers.
I am one of these believers. After all, collaboration is a process where a group of people or organizations work together toward an intersection of common goals and intellectual endeavors. It leads to more creativity. I have found that cases are better, presentations are better, settlements are better when you work with other attorneys in building a consensus on a case. It forces a little more introspection. It requires better communication. It leads to better problem solving.
And, collaboration is more about the Third Wave than not because collaboration implies decentralization and it is about egalitarianism.
Collaboration can also be more profitable. For example, I have no offices. I have no staff. I accomplish what I want and what I need by use of collaboration with other attorneys using simply the Internet and a phone.
What we do is relatively simple. A group of attorneys is brought together for a particular type of case. That case is broken down into its traditional component parts. The lawyers are match to those component parts based upon their preferences. Some attorneys like trials. Some do not. Some like meeting with or speaking with clients. Some do not. Some like research. Some do not. Some like the procedural aspects of the case. Some do not. All of there work is simply brought together on something like Basecamp. (For $50 a month you can have an amazing law firm).
Staff cannot always give the the perspective or argument you need in a case. They are use to processing. Attorneys may not only provide perspective and argument, but attorneys are trained to do so. So this is better.
It is better in another way, because you do not have salaries that need to be met. You do not have to concern yourself generally with the work habits of the other attorney. You do not have to deal with how the attorneys wants to run his own office. If he wants a staff person, he can pay for one. If he wants an office away from home, he can have one on his tab. If the attorney wants to work in pink pajamas and fuzzy slippers, then so be it as long as it does not involve an in court appearance. The collaboration is on the case at hand, and not necessarily on management style.
Also, without a salary you do not have to concern yourself with all of the governmental matters that comes with a staff. When business falls or is weak (and there will always be times) then your earnings might fall, but you do not have to worry with how to come up with money in addition to your lose to keep cases moving forward. And, unlike you sometimes have with staff, you have other invested in helping you get business and money back up.
My point is that collaboration works. Lawyers need to try it more often.
Comments