Little country, big ideas

In recent years, many UK law firms over the past few years have struggled to retain market share in the face of stiff competition and rapid globalisation. For Ireland, however, a booming economy has been good news for law firms, many of which have successfully established themselves in the international arena. Caroline Poynton talks to Declan Moylan, managing partner of Mason Hayes & Curran, about the growth of his firm and his ambitions for the future.

Can you tell me a little more about the legal market in Ireland?

I think the legal market only reflects the economy in which it is operating, and Ireland’s legal market, like its economy, is sophisticated, highly developed and very international. Most of the legal firms here would say that a lot of their activity or turnover comes from international clients doing business in Ireland. That being the case, Irish law firms or legal-service providers have to live up to the expectations of sophisticated clients who are very accustomed to dealing with law firms worldwide.

Has it become more difficult for law firms to compete in the market in recent years?

Looking at it as a Dublin practitioner, I wouldn’t say it is difficult. In this country, we are experiencing a period of great prosperity and there is a lot of business about. The challenge is to achieve and maintain market share, in a way that is compatible with international clients’ experiences.

I also think the assumption that there is a sort of a ‘magic circle’ here has been dismantled because of the growth of mid-sized firms. Equally, we are now seeing some fluidity in the market as lawyers and teams are shifting between law firms in Dublin. You’ve had that in London for decades, but we’ve only really seen it here in the past couple of years.

So you have to work harder to attract and retain good people?

Yes, and you have to be very strategic, not only in your hiring, but also in how you retain people by creating visible, rewarding career paths.

What other challenges have you faced as managing partner?

I would say that the major challenges are managing lawyer and career expectation and, in the case of my firm, managing rapid growth without forgetting who we are: our origins or style of operation. Also, we have had to manage investment in new support structures outside of fee earning. For example, in the past few years, we’ve created a series of senior and very well remunerated positions, including director of administration, director of HR, director of business development and director of IT. These are senior people who are the building blocks of our infrastructure, leaving lawyers time to do what they are trained to do: earn fees and deliver expertise.

What kind of practical difference have these appointments made to the business so far?

An immeasurable difference. These areas used to be dealt with part-time by partners in the firm. That was okay for as long as we were a small to medium-sized operation. But as the firm has grown in numbers, sophistication and practice areas, the lawyers have encountered more demands to be what they are trained to be, rather than untrained managers of infrastructure parts of the business. It has been a tremendous release to our partners to be allowed away from the nitty-gritty of administrative duties that they probably shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.

On the other hand, I still believe that the best model for a managing partner is to have legal training and practical experience. I therefore think that the managing-partner position should be reserved for a partner in the firm and personally wouldn’t adhere to the idea of non-lawyer chief executives.

I noticed on your website that you have attended a couple of leadership courses. What have you learnt and how have they helped you to become a better leader in your firm?

Lawyers are not trained to be managers, but to analyse legal problems, apply good sense and deliver advice to the client. That is very different to being a chief executive of a significant business. So, when I became managing partner, I went on a significant number of management courses – the most important of which, from my point of view, was one at Harvard Business School. I think what I learnt there, and on other courses, was the definition and importance of leadership and career coaching, as well as a realistic assessment of the extent to which one can balance fee earning against management duties.

Is it possible to balance the two roles?

There is no one-size-fits-all answer to that kind of question because the balance depends on a number of things. If the firm is in a highly active developing position – rapidly growing, putting on new practice areas, becoming full service or is in a pivotal state of its growth – I think it is a bad idea to have the managing partner dabbling in fee earning. If a firm is a more established creature, however, a lot of structures and systems will be in place, which will allow the chief executive to do some fee earning as well.

Another factor in deciding whether there should be a combination between fee-earning and management is whether there are other leadership roles in the firm. For instance, if there is a senior partner who can represent the firm at public events or in the media, it can remove a lot of the burden from a managing partner. But, if a managing partner is supposed to be a representative and hands-on chief executive, and is not working alongside a senior partner, the role has to be full time, otherwise he or she can’t do either job well.

In my firm, with its particular stage of development over the past five years, it wouldn’t have been either wise or effective if I’d had a significant fee-earning role in addition to management responsibilities.

You are making a presentation at Ark Group’s ‘Best practice law firm management’ conference in February 2005 on mergers and alliances. How has your firm gained competitive capabilities in this context?

I think that law firms in Dublin experience a uniquely high proportion of international work for a small country. That makes it virtually impossible for leading Irish firms to do a cross-border merger or indeed enter any publicised international alliances, because you’d destroy more of the practice than you’d ever hope to gain by doing so. In a country like Ireland you’ll instead find law firms creating very good friendships with a variety of international firms. In the US, for example, we can have friendships with firms in a lot of cities, rather than a single relationship with just one senior US law firm.

Do you think it is possible for a smaller firm to retain its cultural identity/working practices when merging with a larger firm?

I think for most firms, they will find it immeasurably easier to retain their cultural identity in an alliance-type environment, rather than in a full merger. I think that a full merger by definition probably implies the ceding of management control to headquarters outside your country, which is really very radical, especially for a firm that has had a lifelong experience of autonomy.

An alliance might be more digestible, certainly for a lot of medium-sized firms. And I think for a lot of international suitors, an alliance might be attractive because you don’t get the financial burden of having to manage a whole lot of subsidiaries. For many major international law firms the delivery of quality advice is more important than compliance with a whole lot of working practices.

Merger has some advantages in that you can plug into a whole lot of resources that you wouldn’t be able to afford otherwise, for example, know-how, knowledge-management precedents, international marketing and assistance in recruitment and training. However, I think that a lot of those benefits can still be negotiated through an alliance. You can also reverse out of an alliance a lot more easily than disentangle a merger if things go wrong.

How well do you think law firms currently manage their clients?

I think that it’s getting better, but there is a lot of room for further improvement. The more law firms can manage to think like their business clients, the better they’ll do. In Harvard Business School, one of the key words that

is hammered into every class is the idea of alignment. If a law firm can identify itself and draw service parallels to the requirements of its clients it will score highly and perform well in the clients’ view.

How far have you followed that advice?

I think we’ve made significant strides. We’ve shown a commitment to training, both in management and marketing, and our appointment of a full-time director of business development is evidence of that, as well as the training that I’ve undergone myself. I’m not saying we’re perfect; I’d like to see every department head in this firm trained in management, advanced marketing and maybe research techniques, and I think the more that sort of business training can be overlaid on a legal qualification, the more business-like a firm is likely to be in delivering its services and aligning itself with clients.

What are your plans for the coming years?

Our big project over the next 18 months involves our move from our current locations (we have three) to a new custom-built headquarters in Dublin’s docklands – which is the new geographical zone for professional firms. My task will be to get the business into shape, unify it in a single location and master the sophistication of our new surroundings to enhance our services. One of my big challenges will be to continue our recruitment activities of the past few years and ensure that we still attract the best quality lawyers both in the Dublin market and indeed from the UK market. We need to make sure that Mason Hayes & Curran is one of the major firms of choice for very up-to-speed smart commercial young lawyers. I think we can do that because the quality of our client base is excellent and all we have to do to succeed is keep the quality of our service delivery up to international standards.