The Lawyers Weekly - July 1, 2011

THE LAWYERS WEEKLY
July 1, 2011 | 23

BUSINESS
CAREERS

JOHN SCHOFIELD

It was a credit union mega-
merger, creating a provincial
powerhouse with $8 billion in
assets under management. The
deal earlier this year between
St. Catharines, Ont.-based
Meridian Credit Union and
Whitby, Ont.-based Desjardins
Credit Union took about two
months to finalize—and was
conducted almost entirely over
the phone and via email. Chris-
tian Gauthier, the lead lawyer
for Meridian and a Toronto-
based partner with Bennett
Jones LLP, says he didn’t even
meet Meridian’s CFO in person
until they went before regula-
tors last February to seek
approval for the deal. “We nego-
tiated almost the entire agree-
ment,” he recalls, “without see-
ing each other.”
In the age of the Internet,
smartphones, and video-confer-
encing, face time sometimes
seems like a quaint custom from
a bygone era. Technology has
revolutionized the way law is
practised. Harried partners and
their clients can sometimes go
months — or even years — with-
out meeting each other. And
firms that want to attract and
retain the best talent are
expected to give their tech-savvy
lawyers the freedom to work
outside the office. But even for
die-hard “CrackBerry” addicts,
meeting clients and colleagues
in person can still play a key
role, says Anne Edmonds,
regional manager for Robert
Half Legal Canada, a Toronto-
based legal staffing agency that
recently released a report called

JOHN PENEZIC / DREAMSTIME.COM

Nothing can replace face-to-face meetings, says a digital expert.

Business Etiquette: New Rules
in a Digital Age. “We might be
able to have Skype sessions or
conference calls over the com-
puter,” she says, “but nothing
can replace face to face.”
On the client side, lawyers
often recommend meeting in
person as soon as possible to
establish the relationship. That
depends, though, on the expect-
ations of the client. The genera-
tional factor can come into play:
younger clients may not need
immediate face time. But a
traditional meet and greet can
make future communication
smoother, says Edmonds. “Then
you can work more remotely,”
she adds. “Once you’ve met, it’s
easier for someone to under-
stand your tone in an email.”
Face time is particularly
important when it comes to
tough negotiations, and espe-
cially when time is of the
essence, says Gauthier. The sea-
soned mergers-and-acquisitions
specialist has been part of many
marathon bargaining sessions
when — to meet disclosure
requirements — executives with
public companies locked them-
selves in hotel boardrooms over
a weekend to hammer out deals.
He says legal fine points or
“cookie-cutter deals” can be
handled by email and phone,
but more confrontational cases
are best handled face to face.
Research shows that most com-
munication is non-verbal, he
notes. “There are all kinds of
things you pick up in a room
that you’re not able to pick up
on the phone,” he says. “In per-
son, you get the full picture. I
think it’s crucial.”
There’s one problem, adds
Gauthier: multi-tasking and
dwindling attention spans have
made meetings more challen-
ging than ever. The flood of
email lawyers face is sometimes
overwhelming. And the longer
you keep them in a room, the
more likely they’ll start popping
out to answer emails or calls on
their smartphones. That’s a pet-
peeve for Edmonds, who ques-
tions how many messages sim-
ply can’t wait. “Anything that
takes away from the face-to-face
diminishes the whole purpose
of a meeting, so turn your phone
off,” she implores. “It seems like
such a no-brainer, but these
days we’re always waiting for
the ultimate important e-mail
to come in.”
When it comes to colleagues,
face time is still an important
career-building tactic for young
associates seeking cases that
could move them up the ladder,
says Lydia Bugden, a Halifax-
based partner in corporate law
with Stewart McKelvey, Atlan-
tic Canada’s largest law firm.
Fundamentally, the business is
still about relationships, and
building them requires face
time. In the first five or six years
of practice, says Bugden, new
recruits rely on partners and
senior associates for the major-
ity of their clients. As they
become more senior, they gain
more flexibility with their time.

Open vs. closed compensation models

THE HEADHUNTER

WARREN
SMITH

If there is a single aspect of a
law firm that perhaps provides
greater insight than any other, it
is their compensation system.
While a great range of elements
undoubtedly are required to pro-
vide a full picture of a firm’s cul-
ture (and value system), perhaps
no other element provides greater
perspective than how compensa-
tion is ultimately calculated.
Moreover, compensation forms
the core of many critical discus-
sions among partners, both
within their firm and across plat-
forms in the market. And on this
topic, few issues attract more
debate than the merits of an open
versus closed compensation sys-
tem. What follows are some of the
key elements frequently exam-
ined when assessing open versus
closed compensation models and
their impact to practice.

open compensation:
Accountability through
transparency

An open compensation system is one where individual partner compensation is known by all partners of the firm. Champions of open compensation systems highlight the need for transparency among business owners as the key to ensuring honesty and accountability by all participants.

Open models aim to reduce
surprises and discrepancies
among partner earnings based on
contributions to the firm. Pro-
ponents argue open systems hold
firm leadership accountable for
decisions on who is rewarded for
what, as all financial decisions,
including allocation of origina-
tion, billing and non-billable con-
tributions are subject to the scru-
tiny of the entire partnership.