There is often a gap between the way things function and the way things ought to function.
Law firms are bastions of doing things “the way they’ve always been done.” Change is often not welcome within the legal field. See the continuous stream of complaints about legal writing [Hereunto, wherefore, premises considered, three (3) forms...] as an example. This same can be true for the manner in which matters are handled within your firm. Perhaps there is a set process for handling a routine matter. Something that was put in place ten years ago and does not take advantage of modern workflow procedures. Coming in with a fresh set of eyes and understanding of computers and technology, perhaps you see a way in which to improve and build on it. You see the incongruities and think you can fix them.
Stop. No you don’t. Policies and procedures that are in place are likely there for a purpose – a senior attorney has set it up that way for a reason. More than likely there is something there you don’t see. Something their experience and perspective provides that you can’t perceive. They are not looking at it on an individual basis, but how the process has been handled over the course of dozens of cases. The process is designed to address multiple problems that could occur along the way. What might seem inefficient to you, could actually be the appropriate amount of due diligence required to make sure something is done right.
If you are truly convinced you could offer a way to improve a process and add value to the firm – watch. Watch the process in a variety of matters over the course of a few months. Try to understand every aspect of it and the documents/communications that flow through it do so. If after a few months of observation, you still feel as though the process can be improved – develop a plan to improve the process and implement it – on a single matter in which you can exert some level of control. If your experiment is successful, break it apart.
Why did it work? Can it be broken down into easy-to-follow tasks? Is it something that can be rapidly taught and implemented by many people? Does it requires special knowledge of some kind? If after all has been said and done, you genuinely feel as though you can help improve the efficiency of the workplace – request a meeting with the senior partner responsible for the process.
Ask them questions. Why was it set up in this fashion? What is it designed to address? Does he have any ideas of how it could be improved? As you engage them on the topic, now is the time to bring out your plan and explain how it works. Explain why you changed the process and why you believe ti works better. Depending on the senior attorney this could evoke genuine interest or a brutal cross-examination. Be prepared for both. Regardless, the senior partner should be impressed by one thing: you care. You’re not a mindless drone, coming into work to grind away at your desk. You are attempting to be more productive, help the firm, add value. Yes, doing this will make you stand out in your firm and attract attention – but why do you want to blend in?
|
Like what you read?
If so, join the thousands of others who receive updates from Associate's Mind in their inbox. (And no spam ever!)
|
|
No related posts.
“More than likely there is something there you don’t see.”
I don’t know if it’s more than likely. Certainly happens a lot that a perceived redundancy or inefficiency is actually a very well thought out, intelligent plan. I check twice before pulling out on to a busy street. Why? Am I just creating busy work? No. The cost of being wrong is just really high, and the cost of preventing a problem is virtually free.
But, there are plenty of people who “cut the ends off the roast.” The legal profession is one which encourages us to keep cutting the ends off. Look at the size of contracts that are filled with pieces from other contracts and various boiler plate. Much of that is probably useful, but how many people use these documents without having a clue why any of that is there, what it does, and if its even legally relevant? How many e-mails go out with an IRS 230 disclosure, even if from a secretary who doesn’t work for anyone in the tax department?
You shouldn’t toss the baby out before learning more about the baby, but don’t keep the baby just because the law firm gave it to you.
I agree that legal profession can often be stuck in a rut with its approach to work, procedure, etc. But I think too many new lawyers come out of law school full of hubris and swagger in their knowledge when they don’t actually know a damn thing. I’m all for systematic improvement – that’s the point of this blog. But it needs to be careful, measured improvement. Improvement that benefits from the experience of people with more experience in their practice than any new lawyer is going to have. It’s the new lawyers job to bring their fresh set of eyes and knowledge to problems and possibly improve on the creation of answers. It just needs to be tempered with the experience and guidance of a more senior lawyer. It’s a fine line to walk I think.
Haven’t you been an attorney for like two months?
3 months! That’s 33% longer.