RSS Feed
Management
Leaders and Followers in the Practice of Law -- Be Not an Ass
February 2006
All lawyers have at some time chuckled at Charles Dickens' famous line: "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is an ass." But how many senior partners (or general counsels or attorneys generals) would laugh if they heard the paraphrase "If the senior partner supposes that, he (or she) is an ass?"
Those who have undergone the rigors of legal training take pride in their knowledge of case law, their argumentation skills and their toughness in adversarial relationships. Yet, when confronted with a superior in their own organization who is acting with questionable judgment they may mask the extent of their disagreement and only mutter it to peers or spouses. Why is this so and what are the potential consequences and remedies?
Professionals in all fields are trained to be faithful to the ethical and technical standards of their profession. On the whole, they do a good job of raising concerns about actions others are contemplating that are questionable by their profession's standards.
However if their counsel is rebuffed, many become reticent about speaking up further. "Maslow's hierarchy" kicks in, which tells us that a prime human need is to be accepted by their groups and enjoy the benefits of social inclusion. If continuing to advocate an unpopular view endangers being in the good graces of those at the top of the hierarchy, most professionals will begin censoring their own speech. Self-preservation takes precedence over getting the organization to do the right thing.
The leadership, generally being more experienced, may well be right about the matter at hand. But it may not be. Power and success tend to inflate egos. Those at the top of the food chain may begin to overestimate their own acumen. They may rely too much on what worked in the past but is inappropriate for current changes in sensibility and practice. They may gravely underestimate the chilling effect their leadership styles have on open dialogue.
The leadership is at risk if it fails to create a culture in which subordinates are encouraged to vigorously defend divergent viewpoints they believe are in the organization's interest, or if it fails to take these divergent perspectives seriously. This was true of now-bankrupt Enron's senior management, it was true of their auditors, the now defunct Arthur Anderson, and it was true of the law firm Enron's board asked to investigate finance executive Sheron Watkins' alarmed letter to Chairman Ken Lay. Is it true in your own law offices? This question should not be lightly dismissed. The consequences can be significant or even devastating.
Junior partners and associates, even paralegals and administrative staff need to find the courage and skill to effectively stand up for what they believe to be right. In the long run, they have more to gain than to lose by doing so.
At the same time, ultimate responsibility for creating a culture that supports open, reflective dialogue lies with the office's leadership. Such cultures detect problems of ethics, style, substance and strategy when they are small and correctable. Let it not be said of your organization when a problem escalates out of control that the leadership's head was buried in the sand like an ostrich. Or worse, that it behaved like an ass.