Memo
To: Law Firm Partners
From: Nermin, Esq.
Date: May 6, 2026
Re: The Managing Partner isn’t the bad guy
When I’m brought in to work with a firm, it’s usually the managing partner who I have my first conversation with. At some point in that conversation, the managing partner will say “I’m usually the bad guy, and I don’t mind it because someone has to do it.”
As managing partner, I know you’re not trying to be the “bad guy,” but it comes with the title.
The main reason people see you as the “bad guy” is because your team, the other partners and associates, are likely not being included in your decision making process and don’t have the same spreadsheets or information that you do.
If I asked you about the most recent decision that made you the “bad guy,” did you share the spreadsheet, the P&L, the report from your CFO or accounting department or any evidence with your team before you told them of your decision?
Every managing partner I work with says “no” to this in this beginning.
The responsibilities of being the managing partner includes hiring, firing, business development, client delivery, partner upsets, and the pressure of it all is something that the other partners don’t understand.
This is what we work on when we work together, we take the managing partner from being the bad guy to the numbers being the bad guy. From the managing partner being the one with all the spreadsheets to the entire firm having access to important firm data and being able to make decisions together.
Example 1: Partner A wants to bring on 2 new associates
Before: Managing Partner would look at the P&L, the Partners billables, and then make a decision. Managing Partner would probably say something like “Hey, we don’t have the budget for it right now, but let’s revisit it in 6 months.”
I know this seems like the right thing to say, but believe me, it creates resentment.
After: We create capacity metrics for the Firm that is decided by the Partners. This means all Partners, including Partner A decides when hiring is appropriate for the entire Firm, i.e, when the associates have billed 100+ hours every month for the previous 3 months. Now, when Partner A wants to bring on 2 new associates, Partner A can tell the partners, “We’ve been at capacity for 3 months, and this should trigger being able to bring on at least 1 new associate.” This way, everyone was involved in setting the capacity metric (they have buy-in), and they can’t be mad at the Managing Partner if the capacity threshold hasn’t been reached. Instead, they have transparency and weigh-in on the decision process.
Does your firm have capacity metrics like the table below?
Example 2: Partner B feels that as a Service Partner, the comp structure should be changed
Before: Managing Partner would review the request and talk internally with a few of the other partners and they would probably bring it to a vote, and the comp structure wouldn’t change. Partner B would probably still blame it on the Managing Partner.
After: We would look at the data: how much revenue does each partner generate for the practice and is the current comp structure the right one for the firm, based on the partner revenue. What does the billable data show about the Service Partner versus the other Partners?
Ex: Service Partner is generating $2 million in billable work but originating only $100,000, but the other partners are generating $800,000-$1,200,000 in billable work but originating $1 million+. If we look only at origination, then it looks like Service Partner is not contributing to the Firm revenue, when in fact, Service Partner’s billables contribute 2x more to the revenue than the other partners. And Service Partner only has a paralegal as supporting staff, so the work is highly profitable to the Firm. On a pure billable contribution basis, the Service Partner is generating more profit per dollar of overhead than any other partner in the firm.
Are you looking at the entire comp structure and adapting it for your partners versus what is traditional comp structure in multi-practice firms?
Example 3: Partner C wants to use a new AI timekeeping software
Before: Managing Partner would have the COO/Office Manager look into this. After looking at the cost, the Managing Partner would send an email saying, “Let’s look at this for next year and we’ll add it in the budget.”
After: We would discuss this at the partners meeting, as part of the monthly agenda. I would review the software with the COO. I’d put together a cost/benefit analysis on the software and present it to the partners. Then, they would vote to decide whether the cost (time, mental energy to learn a new software and money) justifies the benefit (i.e., finding 2 hours of billable time per attorney and reducing the effort it takes to keep time).
How are you making decisions for your Firm? Do you have the time to look at cost/benefit analysis on software?
When partners don’t have agreed upon metrics, decision trigger points, or transparency of the information at the same level that the managing partner does, it creates frustration that could become conflict and resentment.
This doesn’t mean that there will never be partner conflict; that’s going to happen, even with transparency. It means that there’s less room for firm politics, emotional decisions, or pressure.
The conversation goes from “Well, the Managing Partner said no” to “We agreed this is how the decision would be made.”
The firms I work with end up with the partners having a trusted and reliable way to make the decisions, together.
