Memo
To: Law Firm Partners
From: Nermin, Esq.
Date: April 13, 2026
Re: Consensus Theater
Every month you have a partners meeting. During this meeting you review important growth metrics (KPIs) for the firm and from there you have a list of items to discuss, various tasks, and things that need decisions.
Maybe it’s:
- Deciding to bring on a lateral partner or
- Setting the rack rate for the firm for the next year or
- Taking the firm revenue from Q1 and putting into building a new website
The partners have agreed to this decision, everything is documented.
The next month rolls around, and there was no movement forward. No one took action, despite everyone agreeing.
So what happened?
Consensus theater. The partners agreed, but only on the surface. They agreed for the sake of agreement in the firm. When I dig deeper, I can see there’s no action because there isn’t true agreement.
Example 1: Compensation Consensus Theater
One partner thinks that origination should be higher (no surprise here, this partner has the biggest book of business). The other two partners think that service partners should get some origination as well and not only billable work (again, no surprise here) and the remaining partners stay quiet. After hearing everyone’s side, the partners all nod in agreement and say: “We’re in agreement. Let’s look at comp data next month.”
There was no agreement on what comp should be revised to, if at all. There was a socially accept exit around the topic of compensation. This is consensus theater.
Example 2: Workload Consensus Theater
One partner has been busy and overwhelmed with her book of clients for 6 months and wants to bring in a service partner who will not have an equity interest. The second partner agrees. And the third partner asks a few questions.
The firm decides it’s ok to move forward on bringing on a service partner.
But, no one explicitly asked: “Where do you stand on this?”
This wasn’t brought to a vote to show agreement.
The silence was treated as agreement, when this is consensus theater.
Example 3: “I’m fine either way” Consensus Theater
Two partners are in open disagreement about something in the firm. The other partners are watching and not getting involved, allowing the two partners to figure it out. At the end, one partner relents and says “I’m fine either way.”
That partner is clearly not fine, they don’t want to escalate this any further. And after seeing the other partners sit back silently, they’re starting to feel discomfort, and questioning their silence.
This is consensus theater because agreement is being used to protect the peace instead of solving the issue.
Example 4: “No one wants to be the bad guy” Consensus Theater
You have a partner that has been under performing for a variety of reasons. This under performance has happened month after month, quarter after quarter. During partner meetings, this is mentioned, but isn’t gone into depth because “no one wants to be the bad guy.”
The under performance is effecting the firm’s revenue and profitability. The partner who is under performing acknowledges the problem, but there’s no solution for it.
The partners are having discussions but avoiding any action. This is consensus theater, everyone agrees about the under performance and the impact on revenue, but no one is taking action to find a solution.
Consensus theater has the same pattern: everyone is aware of it, some are in agreement, but no one wants to say the thing that needs to be send. Everyone wants to be in agreement because being in disagreement is too confronting.
Most partners worry that if they start disagreeing it will create tension in the firm and that the tension will turn into animosity and that everything will fall apart.
The reality is that consensus theater, silently resenting decisions that are made, and being afraid of being the bad guy results in distrust and creates a toxic firm culture.
Most firms (and maybe yours) believe that if they get more data, or get better meeting agendas or prepare better for meetings, they’ll get out of consensus theater. But, the problem isn’t the partner meeting structure. The problem is that the people in the room want to be in “agreement” and not be held accountable to making decisions.
The firms where this doesn’t happen has one thing that’s different: there’s someone in the room who isn’t protecting relationships, isn’t part of the firm politics, and is responsible for the firm making decisions and driving revenue. This means that conversations have resolution, not just agreement.
These conversations are uncomfortable, especially when partners are trying to keep equality and fairness in the equation.
It’s not about the partners being capable of making a decision (of course they are), it’s about being responsible for making it happen.
If this is happening in your firm, don’t hide from this uncomfortable truth. Find out what it would be like to have someone in the room who is responsible for making these decisions with you: nermin@nerminesq.com.
