#.

_-,_ 7_ '
 i
Every law rm needs a leader.
And while law rm management
structures vary greatly, most firms
l are led by a single person, often
l
called the managing partner. The
process for managing partner suc
cession also varies greatly by firm,
but there are common challenges
that occur at many firms: nding
l
willing or suitable candidates, train-
ing the successor and carrying out
the transition. At the request of the
l
Law Practice editorial board, I asked
four managing partners to share
their experiences regarding manag-
ing partner succession. They are
Paul Rabinovitch of HGR Graham
Partners LLP (HGRGP) in Simcoe
County, Canada; Kevin Gordon of
i Crowe & Dunlevy (C&D) in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma; Marc McAree of
l Willms & Shier Environmental
Lawyers LLP (WSEL) in Toronto,
l
Canada; and Jan Goddard of
Goddard Gamage Stephens LLP
l
(668) in Toronto, Canada.
l
Law Practice (LP): Can you tell us a little bit about
your rm?
RABINOVITCH: HGRGP was formed several years
ago with the amalgamation of three long-standing
regional law rms. It has ve o'lces across Simcoe
County, a large area in central Ontario just north of
the Greater Toronto area. HGRGP is a general prac
tice rm with 34 lawyers and more than 65 support
staff. A management committee composed of a man
aging partner and two other partners manages it.
HGRGP also has a full-time executive director who
oversees the daytoday operations of the rm. The
rm organizes itself by way of practice groups.
GORDON: Since 1902 C&D has provided compre-
hensive legal services to clients ranging from individ-
uals to Fortune 100 companies across the nation and
the world. As one of the largest and oldest law rms
in Oklahoma, we offer a comprehensive approach to
clients legal needs in nearly 30 areas of practice.
MCAREE: WSEL has been in existence for four
decades. Our rm has 16 lawyers, ofwhich six are full
equity partners. We specialize in environmental law,
Aboriginal law and energy law. Our environmental
law practice is all encompassing and the mainstay of
our rmand has been during our rms history. In
the realm of Aboriginal law, we focus on First Nation
 economic development and predominantly natural
Y IMAGES (PREVIOUS PAGE)
resources project work, and much of our energy law
practice involves clean tech energy.
GODDARD: GGS is a boutique rm in Toronto, pro
viding full services in the elds of estates and trusts,
capacity and elder law. This means our seven lawyers
PHOTO COURTESY OF DAN DALTON. GE
provide a wide range of litigation services, drafting
wills, powers of attorney and trusts, and assisting
with estate administration.
LP: How did you identify the succeeding managing
partner?
RABINOVITCH: Before our year-end partners
meeting, any partner who is interested in taking on
the role of managing partner is invited to put his or
her name forward. The only requirement is that the
person is a partner in the rm, At the yearend part-
nership meeting, the partners hold a vote, and the
partner with the most votes becomes the managing
partner. Since our rm has only existed for about
ve years, we have only had two managing partners.
In the rst instance no one put their name forward
except the one person who became the managing
partner and, in the second instance, two parties put
their names forward, and there was a vote. To date
there has been no attempt by the management com-
mittee to identify potential candidates to take over
as the next managing partner.
GORDON: As a larger and longer-established rm,
we have more structure in place to identify a suc
cessor for the managing partner. We typically select
someone with considerable rm management expe-
rience, including service on our executive commit-
tee. We have found this provides good continuity of
leadership and is essential to developing and imple
menting long-term business plans.
Y lMAGES
MCAREE: From inception, and for most of our four
decades, we have had the same managingpartner. Given
PHOTO COURTESY OF MOOF, GEl
the changing demographic at our rm and an identi
ed need to introduce a second generation ofpartners,
in 2011 our partners embarked on a formal succession
planning process. All partners were of the view that a
succession plan was essential to ensure continuity of
our practice and clients and to i-nable overall growth of
We typically
select someone
with considerable
firm management
expeence,
including service
on our executive
committee.
Kevin Gordon
our practice and rm. We engaged two succession con-
sultants (both from the same consulting rm) to (1)
interview all of our lawyers well in advance of meeting
to talk about succession, (2) identify an issues list, (3)
prepare an agenda for discussion, (4) facilitate meet-
ings of the partners and (5) draft a succession plan for
circulation and comment by the partners. With the aid
of the consultants, we decided a number of key issues
during our meetings, including which partner would
be responsible for implementing our succession plan
and who would be our next managing partner. After a
lengthy period training under my predecessor, I transi-
tioned to the managing partner position at the start of
2014. Through the training period our former manag
ing partner and I developed and worked through our
own written agenda of managing partner issues and
strategies for discussion. We met frequently, including
for dinner once every six weeks for about a year or so
and churned our way through our own agenda while
using day-to-day rm management issues as practical
examples for discussion.
GODDARD: As a very small rm, my experience
is very different. I founded the rm in 1999 and
have managed it since then. A few years later, I
hired my rst associate, and she became a partner
several years ago. We have worked together closely
0 'er the years, and our plan for hf r to succeed me
www.|awnractice.org | November/Decembe' 2016 Law Practice 31
 as managing partner has felt natural and foreor-
dained. Its only when I start thinking about who
will succeed her as managing partner that I realize
how much luck has been involved in there being
someone on the scene who can succeed me because
she has the right leadership and management skills
and the desire to do so. Identifying her successor
will be a greater challenge.
LP: Can you describe the steps you took to imple-
ment the transition? ) great learning experience for both of us.
RABINOVITCH: In both instances little was done
to implement the transition, and the person chosen
as managing partner had been on the management
committee and involved in the management of the
rm for several years. As a result they were quite
familiar with the operations of the rm. There was
no overlap between old and new managing partners
so, when the new managing partner took over, the
old managing partner was no longer a member of
the management committee. There was no training
process for the managing partner role.
GORDON: Again, it was similar at my rm, but we
have more operational structure in place. Our rm
is run by a ve-person executive committee that
the president/chief executive ofcer chairs. Two
members are elected annually, although they often
serve more than one term. The president/chief exec-
utive ofcer appoints the other two members of the
executive committee. In my case, I appointed two
proven rm leaders who served with me all four
years I was president. So when I chose not to run
again, we had multiple experienced candidates the
rm could feel condent electing as my successor.
MCAREE: In 2011 we built into our written succes
sion plan the responsibility for one of our partners
to implement our newly minted plan. We identi-
ed that partner during our last succession plan-
ning meeting and got everyones buy-in, giving that
partner authority to delegate tasks and to follow up,
all of which occurred during subsequent months. In
2012 and 2013, we added a succession plan update
to our usual partners monthly meeting agenda. We
made our own checklist of succession tasks to com-
plete. We all agreed to the plan because we knew that
38 Law Practice November/December 2016 | www.|awpractice.org
transition was needed for our partnership to remain
strong and vibrant going forward.
GODDARD: We are partway through the transi
tion, and I remain managing partner, but my suc-
cessor is quite involved in ongoing management. In
many ways we operate as a committee of two. A few
years ago I had to take three months off for personal
reasons. My successor acted in my stead. I completely
stepped away and let her handle everything. It was a
LP: Did any unanticipated things come up as you
moved through the succession?
RABINOVITCH: No signicant issues arose. However,
the biggest issue is probably that moving from a
member of the management committee to manag-
ing partner places a much greater workload on that
person than one would think from having been a
member of the management committee. There are
many responsibilities and duties as managing partner
that are not seen by the members of the manage-
ment committee, and a large amount of time is spent
on day-to-day matters in dealing with the executive
director, staff, partners and associate lawyers.
GORDON: There are always unexpected develop
ments in managing a sizable business. In general,
succession issues were easily handled, apart from the
inherent ebb and ow of legal workespecially liti-
gationthat delayed the availability of some of the
potential candidates for both president/chief execu-
tive ofcer and other management positions.
MCAREE: Not that this was so unexpected, but I
soon came to appreciate that the workload as a new
managing partner was signicant. It was a load that
was layered on top of my other duties as a law rm
partner. There was no subtracting; it was all about
adding on. The client work still had to get done, and
done correctly and on time. The business develop-
ment work still demanded the usual commitment.
The rm administration work that every lawyer must
do was still a priority. And, on top ofthis, was another
nearly 500 hours per year of managing partner
engagementand much of whichtneeded to be done
during usual business hours.


Toward the end of my second year as managing Th t

partner in late 2015, I approached my partners to e par ners
discuss options for handling the managing partner I
duties differently We quickly and harmoniously deCIded that 0" r
decided that our rm would try out a co-manag'
ing partner model, with the co4managing partners firm would try out
knowing that they can call on other partners to pitch
in on discrete tasks or projects to share some of the a co ma nagi n g
load. On January 1, 2016, I began working with one
of my partners as side-byside co-managing partners. t d I 'th
From the start we agreed that we would try to avoid pa r ner mo e 7 WI
duplication of effort. We also agreed to convene quar- I

terly (or more often, as need be) to confer and update th e co _ m a n a g I n g

one another about our respective tasks. To date the
co-managing partner model has worked very well in pa rt 6 rs kn OWi n g
all respects, including removing the entire burden of
managing partner from just one partner. th at th ey ca n ca I I

GODDARD: We are a small rm that has grown a th t

lot. Several years ago, we were joined by a partner on 0 er par ners
who is senior to me, but she has not taken an active ' '
role in management and may be closer to retire- to p'tCh In on
ment than me. This means that the succession track
for the rm consists of one senior lawyer (me), fol- discrete taSks or
lowed by one midcareer lawyer, followed by a group
of associates with four to seven years of experience. p rajects to Sh a re
We thought it would be helpful to recruit at least one H
other midcareer lawyer so that my successor would f th I d
not be alone at the top of the pyramid. This caused so m e o e 0a I
unanticipated anxiety on the part of our associates. Marc MOAIGB
It also caused me a lot ofworry about how we would
nd the right kind of person, someone who would
t within our culture. We have since realized that
we are better working with what we have. We have
time to plan for the fact that someday my successor
IMAGE COURTESY 0F MINT IMAGES] DAVID ARKY: GETTY IMAGES

will be the senior person in the rm and the only

one in her cohort. Between now and then we plan
to develop the skills of Our associates, transition
them to partnership and ensure that she will have
adequate support.

LP: What would you do differently next time?

RABINOVITCH: We are trying to implement a policy

whereby the managing partner must come from the
ranks of the management committee and preferably
be on the management committee for at least two
years. The diiculty with implementing this policy is

WWW'awpraci"ze.org I November/December 2016 LuPractIco 39

i3

that there are many partners 'who do not want to be
the managing partner or on the management com-
mittee or who might not be appropriate as managing
partner. For this reason the pool to draw from is rela-
tively small, especially when you factor in the age of
the partners and the age of their families. Young part
ners may not want to take the additional time away
from their families, and older partners nearing retire-
ment may not be appropriate candidates.
As a result, I am not sure that any policy will nec
essarily always work since there may only be one or
two possible candidates each year. I believe that our
partners may underestimate the work involved in
being the managing partner unless they have been
on the management committee. When the rm is
operating well, both nancially and otherwise, the
managing partners role appears seamless; however, it
takes a great deal ofwork for that to occur. I think we
need to educate all our partners, so they have a better
understanding of what the role of managing partner
entails. I think it would be benecial for us to draft
job descriptions for the managing partner and for the
management committee members that set out all of
the tasks they perform.
GORDON: Before becoming president/chief execu-'
tive ofcer, I would have spent more time studying
law rm management materials and attending some
of the training programs available through legal
service organizations.
MCAREE: In hindsight, I must say, not much. Our
rm and its partners were ripe to embark on a succes-
sion planning process in 2011. It was time to look to
the future. Succession planning can be scary because
it is about change. By and large, lawyers (and humans)
are not so amenable to change because change means
more effort and the unknown. But, in our rms
case, we knew then and continue to know about the
importance of engaging a roster of lawyers of all vin-
tages, from newer to older, and in progressing every
one, including those lawyers who may be suitable to
assume managing partner responsibilities. We also
seem to accept change quite readily. Our rm prides
itself on being nimble and quick with our practice as
it evolves and with our decision making. As I look
back, I can say that taking time to seriously engage
with one another about succession turned out to be
a healthy experience for our partnership and its indi-
vidual partners. Furthermore, succession planning is
not a onetime shot. It should be an ongoing process.

GODDARD: Because I started the rm and always

managed it, we have never had a job description. It
took a long time for me to call myself the managing
partner. I think now that it is never too early for asso-
ciates to understand what is involved in managing the

PHOTO COURTESY 0F GEORGE CASWELL, GEITY IMAGES

rm. A job description educates everyone, assisting
in the management ofexpectations and the avoidance
ofmisconceptions. It may seem overly formal to put a
lot in writing, but I think it would have been helpful.

LP: What do you see as the key piece of advice for a

successful transition?

RABINOVITCH: I think its imperative that the man

aging partner has prior management committee
experience and at least one management committee

40 La- Practico November/December 2016 I www.lawpractice.org

member should remain on the committee for the

rst year ofthe new managing partners term. Ideally,
there would only be one person leaving the manage
ment committee in any given year, for better con-
tinuity. The managing partners term should be a
minimum of three years as the rst year and a half
are spent learning the role.
GORDON: Plan ahead. A vital component for suc
cessful law rm management requires an executive
committee whose members bring different perspec
tives and constituencies to the decisionmaking
process. Having potential successors with whom
you share common goals and good personal rapport
makes the process much easier. Additionally, having
an executive committee planning retreat early in the
transition period helps to ground goals and establish
big picture plans, which inevitably will help garner
buy-in. This is especially helpful since bigticket
items will take time to cultivate, foster and execute.
MCAREE: It was important for our partners to have
outside consulting support in the beginning. Simply
put, our partners did not have time to organize a suc-
cession planning process, extract from the process
key ndings and then translate them into actionable
transition tasks. Further, the outside consultants gave
us outside and independent perspectives. They were
able to probe and draw out issues that may not have
made their way into our discussion had the partners
attempted to handle succession planning on their
own. Going forward, our partnership will rotate into
the role of managing partner one new comanaging
partner while the other co-managing partner remains
on until the next rotation. The idea is to ensure that
our newest co-managing partner always works with
a more experienced co-managing partner. We expect
that this will ensure continuity of co-managing part-r
ners on a rotating basis.
I realize how
much luck has
been involved
in there being
someone on
the scene who
can succeed
[this seat].
Jan Goddard
go a little bit and adapt as a leader to others needs as
each new lawyer has joined the rm. Succession is a
mindset as much as an event.
LP: Thanks to everyone for sharing your comments
today. Even though this brief survey involves small,
medium and large rms, you see the common issues.
Like the rms in our roundtable today, many rms
struggle with nding people who are willing and
able to take on a leadership role. It really emphasizes
the need to take a longer-term perspective on suc~
cession planning. All rms need to proactively take
steps to identify future leaders, give them opportu
nities to gain experience and grow their leadership
skills. Condent and capable leaders are critical to
the success of a rm, and all rms should take steps
to ensure there is someone willing and able to take
on the managing partner role. LP

GODDARD: In a small rm like this one, I think the
biggest step is acknowledging that leadership succes
sion has to happen. I recognized as soon as I hired my
rst associate that even though she was an employee,
the rm now had to be more than a vehicle for me to
pursue my career in law. Everyone who joins the rm
has to be able to work in an environment where their
career can develop. This means th at I have had 10 let
Dan Pinnington is vice president of
Claims Prevention and Stakeholder
Relations at the Lawyers'
Professional Indemnity Company.
He helps lawyers avoid malpractice
a claims and succeed in the practice
h of law. He was chair of ABA
TECHSHOW 2007 and is a past editor-in-chief of Law
Practl re. dampimnngton@laupro.ca

www lawpracieecrg | November/Dece. iber 2016 Law Practice 1