Practice group survey reveals struggles in performance

March 15, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A recent survey by law firm consultancy Altman Weil shows that about half of practice groups and leaders are receiving only fair or even poor ratings from their managing partners.

The Altman Weil Practice Group Performance Survey polled managing partners at 855 law firms with 50 or more lawyers in the U.S. and Canada and received completed surveys from 81 firms. The results: only 49 percent of practice groups and 52 percent of group leaders were rated as excellent or very good in overall performance.

The top three factors managing partners rated as important in measuring practice group success are acquisition of new business, revenue growth and profitability.

According to the survey, 42 percent of practice groups are excellent or very good in generating new business and 41 percent of groups are excellent or very good at cross-selling other firm practices. In firms where practice group leader training is required, business development and cross-selling performance jumped around 15 percentage points higher than the average score. Yet, the survey found that only 13 percent of law firms require mandatory leadership training for their practice group leaders.

The full survey can be downloaded at www.altmanweil.com/PGPerformanceSurvey.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT