Of
Businesswomen
Collaborating
In
Creative
Meeting
Around
Table
In
Modern
Office
Many
lawyers
have
a
lone
wolf
approach
to
their
cases.
Even
when
they
lead
a
team,
they
often
make
decisions
with
little
to
no
input
from
the
team.
Senior
lawyers
typically
view
their
role
as
defining
and
determining
the
case
strategy,
leaving
the
rest
of
the
team
to
implement
their
plan
and
ideas.
They’re
the
ones
defining
a
win
and
concocting
the
roadmap
to
achieve
it.
The
rest
of
the
team
takes
that
blueprint
and
constructs
the
case.
This
process
is
the
default
of
many
hierarchical
firms
–
senior
partners
create
the
plan,
junior
partners
manage
the
plan,
associates
and
paralegals
implement
the
plan.
It
often
works,
and
the
desired
outcomes
are
generally
achieved.
I
would
suggest,
however,
that
a
better
approach
exists,
which
yields
better
outcomes.
This
top-to-bottom
approach,
almost
a
military
perspective,
where
generals
decide
on
the
war
plans
and
foot
soldiers
take
the
hill,
has
the
potential
for
poor
results
when
those
at
the
top
create
a
flawed
strategy,
resulting
in
the
execution
of
a
flawed
approach
that
produces
poor
results.
There
is
value
in
having
the
entire
team
contribute
input,
ideas,
creativity,
and
imagination
to
a
plan
before
finalizing
and
implementing
it.
This
strikes
me
as
a
truism.
Yet,
why
don’t
more
lawyers
take
this
approach?
The
obstacles
are
myriad.
For
those
of
us
who
bill
by
the
hour,
some
clients
are
hesitant
to
pay
for
brainstorming
sessions.
You’ve
been
doing
this
for
X
years
–
why
is
collaboration
needed?
Don’t
you
already
know
how
to
handle
this
case?
Clients
have
historically
viewed
team
sessions
as
billing
blackholes,
fueling
senior
partners
to
create
a
plan
themselves
and
have
their
teams
implement
it,
with
little
to
no
input
from
them.
It
looks
cleaner
and
creates
fewer
line
items
on
the
firm
invoice.
Some
senior
partners,
due
to
tradition,
customs,
or
their
egos,
prefer
this
top-down
approach.
They
can
define
a
case,
set
it
in
motion,
and
proceed
to
the
following
case.
They
say
jump,
and
the
troops
ask
how
high.
It’s
hard
to
change
how
things
have
always
been
done.
Some
junior
partners
and
associates
may
be
hesitant
to
be
seen
as
contrarian
or
argumentative,
and
therefore
feel
uncomfortable
voicing
their
views
and
opinions,
especially
if
they
contradict
the
senior
partner’s
plan
of
attack.
Better
to
stay
quiet
and
implement
a
flawed
plan
than
risk
a
poor
performance
review
for
being
perceived
as
not
getting
along
with
others.
And
collaboration
needs
to
be
intentional
and
well-directed.
Experienced
lawyers
may
not
possess
the
necessary
skill
set
or
emotional
intelligence
to
encourage
the
team
to
freely
and
openly
participate
and
share
their
views
and
experiences.
All
of
these
inhibit
team
brainstorming
sessions.
Intentionality
is
key
to
overcoming
these
obstacles
and
breaking
down
these
barriers
to
facilitate
more
group
discussions
and
thoughtful
dialogue.
For
group
brainstorming
to
work,
the
firm
must
appreciate
its
importance
and
significance,
and
take
steps
to
implement
it
firm-wide,
including
addressing
billing
issues
with
clients,
creating
safe
spaces
where
the
team
can
speak
freely
(so
long
as
they
do
so
professionally
and
politely),
and
training
everyone
on
how
to
lead
and
participate
in
these
sessions.
Simply
encouraging
your
team
to
think
collectively
is
insufficient.
You
must
empower
them
to
do
so
and
teach
them
the
necessary
skills.
When
a
case
first
comes
in
and
a
team
is
assembled
to
handle
it,
an
in-person
or
virtual
meeting
should
be
held
to
set
the
stage
for
the
case
and
discuss:
(1)
how
to
define
a
win;
(2)
how
to
achieve
that
win;
(3)
a
plan
with
action
steps
to
achieve
that
win.
Everyone
should
be
encouraged
to
participate,
share
their
thoughts,
and
discuss
the
subject.
About
once
a
month
(sometimes
less,
sometimes
more,
depending
on
the
case’s
complexity,
activity
level,
and
stakes
involved),
the
group
should
schedule
another
meeting
to
discuss
the
case’s
status
and
identify
any
necessary
adjustments
or
changes
to
the
plan
to
achieve
the
desired
outcomes.
This
ensures
that
the
plan
is
modified
as
needed
and
also
serves
as
a
check-in
for
everyone
to
report
on
their
progress
and
any
roadblocks
or
issues
they
encounter.
In-house
legal
departments
are
generally
much
better
at
this
approach
than
law
firms
(possibly
because
they
don’t
encounter
billable
hour
issues
and
view
their
work
as
inherently
more
collaborative).
Taking
their
lead,
trying
this
approach
should
yield
more
effective
strategies
with
better
results.
Frank
Ramos
is
a
partner
at
Goldberg
Segalla
in
Miami,
where
he
practices
commercial
litigation,
products,
and
catastrophic
personal
injury. You
can
follow
him
on LinkedIn,
where
he
has
about
80,000
followers.