Implementing Strategic Priorities in the Legal Profession
The Lookout, Winslow Homer (American, 1882)
Why is change so difficult?
Change efforts are complex in any business or profession and are affected by many factors: e.g., clients’ needs; external pressures and expectations; competitive factors; economic and profitability dynamics; internal culture; personalities; power issues; stages of group development; and leadership capabilities.
There are no quick and easy answers; nor are there prescriptive solutions for success.
Lawyers frequently ask one common question: “Why don’t we do what we say we want to do?” They say, “Our decision-making works, but our follow-through doesn’t.”
Why do lawyers often have difficulty implementing important decisions? What factors create obstacles for implementing change? On the one hand, lawyers are highly productive in their work with clients. On the other hand, they fail frequently at carrying out their plans and decisions. Sometimes these failures to implement priorities are visible outside the firm, to the detriment of the firm’s ability to attract and keep clients and legal talent.
Many of these potential obstacles can be erased, mitigated, or even turned to an advantage if lawyers thoughtfully follow a dynamic three-step change process.
Ready! Aim! Fire!
Getting things done is easy in theory. It’s analogous to “Ready! Aim! Fire!”
Ready: Anticipate the changes that need to be made and make the necessary decisions.
Aim: Set goals and plan how to achieve them.
Fire: Execute with both intellectual discipline and enough flexibility to make adjustments as needed.
But in many law firms and legal service organizations, the challenge of getting things done looks like this:
Ready!
Fire!
Aim!
Or sometimes even just plain Aim!
In other words, we identify a problem or opportunity and then rush to a solution, without fully analyzing the situation or considering options (Anticipate) and without setting well-informed goals or planning to achieve them (Plan).
The risk is when lawyers don’t Aim before they Fire, they often miss. When they miss, they get disappointing results. This sets up a vicious cycle of false starts, in which changes are viewed as “just another flavor of the month.” These false starts can harm the organization’s vitality and performance.
People get discouraged, feeling that they have invested time and money in something that didn’t work. They lose confidence in their ability to execute change and in their leaders’ abilities to make the needed improvements.
This quick jump from a strategic decision to immediate action might work well short-term in responding to a client’s urgent needs, but it can be a significant barrier to executing strategic and internal operational priorities in law firms. When lawyers take shortcuts, jumping immediately from a problem to trying to implement a solution—taking a superficial approach to Anticipate and bypassing Planning altogether—they often find that their intended “solution” backfires, or at best produces disappointing results. They then spend more time and money fixing the consequences of a poorly thought-out response than they would have done if they had simply followed a logical, three-step, proven process for success.
In reality, sometimes we need to move through the three steps quickly. We might not always have all the information, time, and resources that we want. However, if we decide consciously to take shortcuts, at least we are aware that there are some risks we have to manage or some questions that we may need to revisit and answer. For example, we might need to look for additional information relevant to, and possibly confirming, the business case for the decision, even as we move forward with Planning.
When my colleagues at Walker Clark and I observe lawyers and legal service organizations that implement with ease, we always see the same three steps that they use, even if they are not completely conscious that they are doing so:
Anticipate
Plan
Execute
Anticipate
During Anticipate, lawyers often participate in some type of strategic planning process. Regardless of the method they use, in this first step of a change process, lawyers who do this will ask lots of questions. From this information, they recognize the vital signs and symptoms of future risks and opportunities, from the level of individual actions to collective firm-wide performance.
Whether the desired results of the change will be five years or ten years away, lawyers need to probe diverse factors that are shaping, and will continue to shape, the business environment for themselves and for their clients. They ask and answer questions like:
Why should we do this? How do we know that this action is worthwhile and will give us a good return on our investment? How does it link to and support our strategic priorities? How will it strengthen our ability to deliver our business plan?
What do we need to know to make a fully informed decision? Where will we find the information that we need?
What are the potential costs, especially in terms of partner time, ongoing management attention, and long-term financial investment?
What are our options? Sometimes a problem or opportunity requires multiple responses in order to get the desired result.
What and how could things go wrong? What are the leading indicators of oncoming problems? Lawyers usually routinely ask these questions when advising a client, but often overlook them when making business decisions about their own practices.
What will success look like? Are we all making the same assumptions about the results we expect? What specifically should we measure and monitor to ensure that we are improving things, and not just changing them?
Skepticism is not the same thing as pessimism.
Sometimes lawyers don’t ask these questions because they’ve convinced themselves that their solution is the only logical one, therefore the “right” one. This mindset can sometimes blind them to very important information to the contrary. Sometimes they don’t ask these questions because they are so relieved that the group has finally come to an agreement that they don’t want to raise any other issues for fear of undermining it. Sometimes they just want to “get on with it” and not waste time prolonging the discussion.
Be suspicious of any strategic planning methods that appear to lead to quick conclusions without the intellectual rigor needed to produce answers to these questions, based on factual corroboration, rather than complacency about past success or wishful thinking about the future. Planning methods that do not challenge lawyers to test their assumptions and anticipations might produce a great-looking plan at a weekend retreat, but they also usually produce adverse consequences that could last for years.
So, during the Anticipate phase, lawyers should demand well-informed, convincing answers to questions such as: How do we know our answers to be true? Too often, groups of lawyers make decisions, sometimes bowing to the pressure of a few. They don’t want their skepticism to be viewed as pessimistic, defeatist, or as not being a good team member. This pressure can lead to overlooking obvious facts, making hasty judgments about critical issues, and acquiescing to an intellectually shoddy business case for a decision, rather than true buy-in and support.
Then they move quickly from decision to execution–spending and wasting money, time, and goodwill–trying to implement something that is doomed from the start.
Four final fundamental tests
A good final test for a strategic plan is to examine its central business and professional priorities and the issues that they address. Ask four questions:
Is it worth fixing?
Are there realistic possibilities to fix it?
This question recognizes that very often the best course of action in implementing a certain priority is actually several courses of action, all designed to support one another.
What happens if we do nothing?
What are the realistic probabilities that the harm that we anticipate from the problem will ever appear? If that happens, how bad could those consequences be?
What is the urgency?
If we take action now, based on incomplete data, is there a risk that we could make things worse? Would it be wiser to wait until we have more information?
Even when a group of lawyers believes that they have reached consensus about an issue, if they neglect to confirm these final four questions, they frequently are not really on the same page. This soon weakens commitment and resolve to follow through to achieve the results that they hope to achieve.
Anticipating when already in a crisis
Lawyers and legal organizations that don’t Anticipate continually find themselves confronted by the need to deal with change that is forced on them. Sometimes the demand for change comes from unanticipated challenges. Sometimes the crisis might be one that they anticipated or should have anticipated, but have failed to address for so long that the damage might already be done.
When law firms and lawyers wait until a crisis has arrived, they often fail to implement their priorities efficiently to achieve desired, sustainable results. Instead, they fall into the habit of simply “putting out fires” all the time, reacting to problems instead of anticipating the need for change and planning for it.
In a crisis, one typically needs to act quickly, usually with incomplete information. Realistic options are limited, and perhaps none of them are desirable. Sometimes the only response is the best of a set of worst-case scenarios. People become stressed and don’t make their best decisions. Most importantly, the crisis environment can distort the individual and collective priorities of the lawyers and the firm. Attention, intellectual energy, and resources are focused disproportionately on the crisis, rather than on issues of greater long term strategic importance.
Obviously, operating in a crisis environment is not fun. People learn to expect breakdowns and distortions in internal communications and information flow, decreased productivity, strained internal relationships, and unreliable cash flow. The ambiguity about the present and the uncertainty about the near-term future contribute to gossip and low morale.
There can be some unexpected benefits. Sometimes it takes a crisis to focus attention on long- needed improvements. A crisis can wake up complacent colleagues and partners and create a higher sense of urgency for change. The question is, “Will it be too little, too late?” There is a strong probability that the problem can’t be turned around in the eleventh hour. The damage is done.
In normal times or in a crisis, when these four fundamental questions have been asked and answered – and only then – the lawyers are ready to make an important decision. They either decide to move forward to Plan the implementation of their priorities; or they realistically recognize that it is not the right time – after a well-informed analysis of the pros and cons – to invest time and resources in planning. Either way, the first step of the change process—Anticipate—has been successfully accomplished.
Plan
Lawyers who plan well don’t engage in wishful thinking. They Plan their changes—rather than improvise them.
Good planning takes time and “time is money.” So, why do successful organizations set goals and plan their actions?
To respond to problems before they become a crisis
To take advantage of opportunities before competitors even know they exist
To increase the probability of good results
In the second step of the change process, leaders develop action plans supported by a realistic assessment of the firm’s unique characteristics and its market. They confirm agreed measurable results. They ask lots of questions, just like in the first step. In Plan, though, the questions are different.
Planning questions
At this point in the change process, the strategic priorities are already agreed. The questions are now related to developing SMART goals and documenting their actions to implement the priorities. For example:
What must we do?
What specific actions must be undertaken to achieve the results that we want?
Who will do it?
Do we have the right people involved with the right levels of decision- making autonomy and skills? If we are using groups, can the group members achieve more through collaboration than they could individually? Is the delegation of tasks clear and agreed? Do people have the training and resources that they need to do what they need to do?
When should we do it?
Are timeframes realistic? Do we have interim deadlines agreed for longer-term projects?
What will we do if things go wrong?
What are our contingency plans? In the first step, Anticipate, lawyers ask what could go wrong? In the second step, Plan, lawyers identify and describe the actions they will take to manage potential obstacles and risks.
Do we have written goals to support the implementation of the change?
Are the goals specific, measurable, agreed, realistic, and time-oriented (SMART)?
Written goals are the bridge to the third step of the change process, Execute. At this point you know:
Why the change is important;
What impact it will have on the firm’s people, systems, structures, and processes; and
A practical understanding of what it will take to make it happen: the actions, responsibilities, timeframes, costs, and conditions under which you are implementing the change.
You have anticipated political and cultural factors that might pose obstacles and risks, as well as opportunities, and you have identified leaders in the firm who will help the goals stay on track. Put simply, you know what needs to be done and how you will do it.
Only now do successful lawyers ask: Are we ready to Execute?
Execute
Lawyers who find they have done a good job with the first two steps, Anticipate and Plan, find that Execute “just happens!” They say, “We have made a well-informed decision, we have a high level of buy-in for achieving our goals, and everyone has the resources to ‘get it done’.” So, they just do it!
And, believe it or not, they say: “The most challenging part of Execute is to stay alert and flexible. It’s so easy to get complacent when things are going well.”
Lawyers who are successful at managing change understand that the future is a moving target and that change is a dynamic process. So, they continuously look for and look at information from new sources to test their assumptions.
How do we know…?
They take nothing for granted. They ask:
How do we know this will continue to be true?
How do we know that this is still worthwhile?
Goals and people need to stay flexible during Execute, so they are open to new ideas and capable of adapting to changing internal and external circumstances. Rigid goals are almost as bad as no goals at all.
Lawyers can ask:
Are we on track with our goal(s)?
Is the goal still relevant?
To what extent do we need to revise it?
Are priorities shifting?
Should we reconsider the goal in light of changed circumstances?
These three steps—Anticipate, Plan, and Execute—and asking and answering the relevant questions at each step do not guarantee success. The degree to which we complete each of these three steps effectively correlates to the results we achieve. Doing them effectively involves paying attention to how we use three conditions for success.
Three conditions for success
The three conditions for successful change management are: Document, Collaborate, and Measure and Share Results.
Without documentation in each of the three steps of the change process, the resulting ambiguity causes stress and distraction, which only increases the longer that documentation remains unaddressed.
Without collaboration in each of the three steps, the amount and reliability of information are greatly reduced, relationships suffer, and trust deteriorates.
Without measurement and sharing of results in each of the three steps, there is no agreement about what success should be, could be, or is. Motivation decreases, priorities become blurred, and individuals and groups go “off the rails” in their efforts to achieve the goals.
This “3 X 3” analysis—three conditions of success for each of the three steps (Anticipate, Plan, and Execute)—helps lawyers and their organizations get to the root of their implementation problems. It’s a diagnostic tool to figure out “what’s not working?” and a planning tool to decide “what do we need to do next?”
Document
Documentation in each of the three steps of the change process is a catalyst for action.
In Anticipate, documentation can provide a “reality check” on perceptions that might be leading to selective hearing or wishful thinking. It serves as a factual basis from which to evaluate the pros and cons of business opportunities. It can establish and confirm the level of urgency for change by creating a common frame of reference.
Solid documentation enhances collaboration. It is usually much more efficient and cost-effective. For example, documenting client feedback and market intelligence gives lawyers a strong source of information as they begin developing strategic plans in Anticipate, the first step of the change process.
Documenting roles and responsibilities in billing, for example, ensures efficient collaboration between lawyers and staff when, for example, they write SMART goals to improve profitability by increasing the realization rate, a frequent strategic priority set by law firms in the first step, Anticipate.
“Documentation opens the door to meaningful dialogue between firm members because it provides a factual basis for sharing views and exploring alternatives.”
Successful lawyers automatically look to what is documented in the firm as a realistic basis for moving forward with any planned actions. The documented goals, in step two of the change process, Plan, are the catalyst for action in step three, Execute.
Collaboration
In the “Managing Change” chapter of Good Governance in Law Firms, I observed:
The more that partners need commitment from other people in the firm, the more they should involve other fee earners, staff and sometimes even clients, at points in the change process, as appropriate to the role of each…
…Partners and staff alike need reassurance, information, patient explaining, and clear expectations about the “what” of the change along with opportunities to give input and get involved in the “how” of the implementation…
…Breakdowns in communication are deadly during change when timely and candid information is of the utmost importance…
…Successfully resolving issues, using collaboration, is essential at each step in the change process. If partners hide behind false collegiality or feign consensus, results of the change initiative will suffer. Conflict can be loudest during silence, when one or more of the parties is not expressing his or her genuine feelings, a crucial misstep during change…
Lisa M. Walker Johnson, “Managing Change,” Good Governance in Law Firms: A Strategic Approach to Executive Decision Making and Management Structures, (London: Globe Law and Business, 2014)
An important tool for Collaborate is to ask thoughtful, non-leading questions. Asking questions effectively and listening carefully to the answers can help build trust through an exchange of information, views, ideas, and feelings. It can also increase decision-making efficiency and build commitment to change at each step of the process.
Another tool to ensure the Collaborate condition of success is to use effective leadership behaviors to help group members constructively manage conflict or tension during times of disagreement. Conflict occurs and can be observed at each step in the change process. This might conjure up images of lawyers yelling at each other and fighting.
In reality, conflict often involves a wide range of behaviors related to people seeing things differently and presenting diverse views about what matters and what to do about it. Working through disagreements in a respectful and collaborative way can actually strengthen trust, confidence, and optimism about the change initiative. It is a natural part of the development of any group of people working together; and it is a condition for success at each step of the change process.
Measure and share results
Focusing on the results in each step helps track progress through the entire change initiative. Having indicators of progress and knowing that those objectives have been met help people know when to move to the next step in the change process. Published progress reports help to sustain support for change, convey momentum, and increase optimism.
Agreed measurements can be highly reliable signals of implementation actions that are not delivering expected results. Failure to achieve the targets at a progress point usually indicates that an implementation is not proceeding as planned and that management review and possible adjustments are needed. Inquiry and intervention at the first sign of a problem can prevent an implementation issue from deteriorating over time into a crisis that could jeopardize the entire initiative.
Progress measurements are perhaps the most effective tool to avoid one of the most frequent causes of failed innovation: “sunk cost bias.” “Sunk cost bias” is what causes managers to respond to a failing initiative by saying, “We have already invested so much in this project; we cannot afford to quit now.”
Qualitative indicators of progress—ones that are not expressed as numbers—can also be important. For example, it is difficult to measure changes in attitudes, such as “teamwork” or “dedication to clients” accurately. However, it is relatively easy to observe specific behaviors indicative of these attributes and measure them before, during, and after a change. Clients are more likely to provide qualitative indicators about changes in a law firm that serves them. Therefore, qualitative measurements can sometimes be even more compelling, in terms of their long-term strategic importance to the firm, than the numbers.
When our efforts produce none of the desired results, only disappointing results, or even counterproductive ones, successful change leaders don’t give up. Many factors can derail, sometimes unexpectedly, the best-intended aspirations and goals.
Sometimes assumptions about lawyers’ capabilities to assume certain responsibilities are too optimistic. Sometimes the planned approach didn’t take into account the impact of the commitment of partners’ time on the firm’s ability to deliver its business plan. Perhaps the lack of a decision stalled progress.
Keeping the change initiative “on track” also involves stepping back once in a while. A realistic assessment of the situation may require revisiting some of the questions in step one, Anticipate, to consider options and alternatives, then adjusting plans to reflect new realities in step two before moving into Execute again.
Evaluating to what extent documentation, collaboration, and measurement requirements were met at each of the three steps in the change process also provides added perspective on what might be contributing to disappointing momentum or results. For example, if we took shortcuts in Documentation, we might not have convinced our colleagues of the urgent need for change in step one, Anticipate. If we took shortcuts in Collaboration, we may have missed essential feedback and perspectives from a group of lawyers during the Plan step; and these were the same lawyers on whom we are now relying to implement the change. If we took shortcuts with respect to Measurements, we might find ourselves in step three, Execute, with disagreements about what we actually were supposed to achieve.
We may even need to look inward at ourselves, our leadership capabilities, and our organizational cultural dynamics, honestly and with a view to accepting both strengths and weaknesses as they affect our ability to get the results we desire.
Changing how we manage change
In summary—
Why don’t we do what we know we want to do?
Knowing the three-step process for implementing change and using the three conditions for success in each step are essential to managing change, rather than having it forced on us.
It also provides an intellectual process and planning structure so that leadership roles and responsibilities can be delegated with confidence. All participants in a change process can be active leaders when they know what questions to ask, what they are doing, and why it is important.
Problem solving can be more objective when everyone shares responsibility for results, rather than pointing fingers or scapegoating individuals for their failures. Constructive and timely feedback about performance is more likely, too, because people trust the process and each other's intentions. They do not feel as personally threatened by setbacks, mistakes, or problems, because they know that implementing needed improvements is a natural part of managing the change process.
The 3 X 3 approach to managing change helps us deal with—and often mitigate or even eliminate—frequently cited obstacles of time, under-committed partners, a lack of internal communication, and unclear priorities.
Implementing strategic priorities is never perfect, but the practical concepts, tools, and methods outlined in this article greatly improve the chances of achieving the best results.
Copyright 2017, 2026, Walker Clark LLC. Visitors to the Walker Clark website may reproduce and distribute this article within their organizations, provided that its contents are not changed and that full and exclusive authorship and ownership rights are clearly attributed.