Editor’s foreword

It is amazing how time flies. It seems like only yesterday that we launched Managing Partner US edition and already it is on its fifth issue, taking us to the halfway point in its first year of publication. These first six months have been incredibly busy as I have gathered contacts from firms across the US and worked hard to expand my knowledge in this vast legal market. But it has also been an enlightening process particularly in seeing the similarities and differences in legal practice management between US and UK firms.

Both UK and US firms tend to be the larger firms in the global legal market, giving them many similar management challenges in the international space. For example, how does a firm retain its identity and culture when it expands rapidly on a global scale? How can systems and processes be established across such broad offices? And how can clear and consistent performance-measurement strategies be managed over these vast distances? Such issues face any firm that hopes to succeed in the global market, whether based in the UK or US. However, there are also several differences between the approaches of UK and US firms that have comparative value.

For instance, even in the global context, while the UK enjoys a broad range of regional, national and international firms, the goal of many is to expand beyond national borders, particularly into Europe. Perhaps this is simply because of the small geographic size of the UK – an expanding firm quickly reaches the frontiers, making Europe and beyond a fairly obvious growth proposition. While many have been successful, for some, this attitude has led to over-hasty strategies that have resulted in failed mergers, over-stretched resources or client-service inconsistencies.

In the US, the international proposition has been far more carefully considered, with many firms still weighing up the benefits of developing a national, let alone international, platform. Of course, the opportunities nationally are vast and the challenges considerable as firms cross states and jurisdictions. A more cautious approach has also meant that those US firms that are practicing in the global space appear as true Goliaths – their ability to practice law internationally matched by huge manpower and resources. How many more will follow in their wake, however, is debatable.

Different international approaches, however, are only the start of the differences between UK and US firms. For example, knowledge management has gained the attention of law firms on both sides of the pond. In the UK, though, the culture of knowledge sharing, particularly focussed around fee-earner behavior, seems to have taken the center stage, supported by significant numbers of professional support lawyers (PSLs). In the US, on the other hand, PSLs or KM associates are few and far between, with the technology seeming to take precedence as a tool for effective knowledge management. Ali Shahidi draws some particularly interesting comparisons in this respect in his article of this issue (page 12), but our cover story and Risa Schwartz’s article (page 27), also argue the importance of bringing KM center-stage by integrating it with the working culture and other functions of the firm.

The overriding lesson appears to be that UK and US firms could learn a lot from each other’s experiences. This might produce far more balanced strategies that unite technology and human experience to improve performance and firm-wide profitability.

Caroline Poynton
Editor

Features

Pepper in the Apple Free
Kieran Flatt examines the rationale behind the latest high-profile opening in Manhattan.

Turbocharging attorney performance: The power of integrated professional development and knowledge management Free
The problem with knowledge management is that the very term suggests something removed and distinct from other functions of the firm. Only by taking an ntegrated approach, however, will firms really change behaviors and reap the rewards of improved firm-wide performance. By Chris Boyd, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, and Mara Nickerson, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.

Knowledge simplicity Free
The road to standalone, internal knowledge resource at international firm Linklaters. By Matthew Parsons, chief knowledge officer and CJ Anderson, information manager, Linklaters

Access all areas Free
With rapidly evolving end-user needs, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton realized it would need a much more advanced portal solution. Considering it is still just at beta-testing stage, was the firm right to choose Microsoft’s SharePoint 2007? By Tom Baldwin, chief knowledge officer, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, LLP

Moving KM from the sidelines Free
Law-firm knowledge management placed squarely in the workflow of a deal or case can play a powerful role improving the practice of law, far more so than traditional resources such as repositories of model and sample-work product, deal or case profiles and expertise profiles, which are useful but difficult to populate and market. By Risa Schwartz, lawyer and manager of KM, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

The human element in knowledge management Free
Effective knowledge management is dependent on the people who have, or need to acquire, knowledge, but all too often knowledge strategies focus on the technology rather than all-important human interaction. By Ali Shahidi, Alschuler Grossman Stein & Kahan LLP.

Regulars

Thought leader Free
Law firms merge for a number of reasons: to bolster expertise in areas where each firm might be lacking; to increase revenue by building complementary books of business; or, to stake a claim in a geographic market where one firm may be lacking a presence.