An organisational structure delineates lines of communication, authority, responsibility, sign-off processes, and so much more. Structures determine how leadership is organised throughout an organisation and, importantly, how employees manage and are managed.
There are two core structures: . The legal sector is typically quite conservative, with traditional firms preferring structures that are more hierarchical, with several layers of management, top-down approaches to processes and decision-making, and a long chain of command.
But many modern firms are breaking the mould, particularly platform law firms, as discussed in the recent ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû report Rise of the legal consultants. These firms are questioning the long-term viability of hierarchical structures and looking to flatter alternatives to provide better solutions.
In the present article, we look at why law firms are switching to flat structures, consider some of the benefits of that switch, and look at some potential drawbacks.
Flat structures have been successfully adopted in many other industries and the legal sector’s initial aversion is wavering. Many firms are looking at – the process of removing layers of admin or management – and other firms, such as platform firms, are starting from a flatter position.
In a small law firm, the flat structure might mean less managers but a wider span of the firm, with more subordinates and shorter chains of command. Or, as with many platform firms, flat structures might lead to the complete removal of managers in the commonly understood sense, with lawyers given only tools, legal tech, and back-office support by centralised and non-hierarchical systems.
Adopting such structures can lead to myriad benefits. Flat structures allow for within firms, for example, as lawyers and legal consultants are not constricted by hierarchies. They also boost team morale due to the sense of equality that they often engender.
Flat structures also allow for faster and simpler decision-making due to the short chain of command, which prevents bottlenecking through elongated sign-off processes. Flat structures promote , too, as firms are better positioned to quickly adapt. And, importantly, they give more self-direction and autonomy, which can lead to various innovations, automations, and efficiencies.
The above benefits make a convincing case for flat structures in law firms. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that many smaller modern firms and platform firms are adopting them. ‘[Platform law] is a whole culture,’ said James Knight, CEO at in the ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû report. ‘It’s about the flat structure and the fact that everybody has the same deal and everybody has the same title, it’s about a lack of hierarchy – these are all things that people do really look for nowadays.’
The legal sector is increasingly adopting flat structures, but that adoption largely comes from platform law firms. Many traditional law firms remain risk-averse and flat structures do present myriad risks.
To start, flat structures can fail to offer the same degree of collaboration that has previously worked in hierarchical structures. ‘You’re not going to get the continuity and collaboration that you get from a traditional law firm where these people work together on a day-to-day basis,’ said Mark Smith, Director of Strategic Markets at ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû. Platform law firms promote autonomy, more individual working, but that autonomy can come at the expense of collaboration.
There is also a , as employees may have , may have several bosses, or may have no bosses whatsoever.
Flat structures can also discourage law firm growth and the growth of lawyers or legal consultants, as the opportunities for growth are not as clear across a flat structure. Lawyers working hard may receive extra compensation, but no additional responsibilities or power in terms of decision-making. And the failure to utilise the strengths of the best people may prove detrimental to law firms in the long-term.
Specialism suffers, too. Solutions may be missed due to siloed workloads. As Smith explains: ‘Another challenge platform firms face is being able to effectively collaborate across practice areas or to handle more complex, cross-border work…that may not just require cross-practice depth and expertise but also lawyers located in multiple jurisdictions—a level of reach revenue-share firms don’t yet have.’
Law firms of the future will likely increasingly adopt flat structure, but with the aim of mitigating some of the above risks. That will likely consist of delayering to offer lawyers and legal consultants more autonomy without losing accountability, collaboration, or the ability to utilise the best talent.
Ultimately, firms will find the processes that best work for them and that will depend on the specialisms of each firm, practice areas, clients, and workloads. But one thing seems clear: all law firms will take small or large steps towards flat structures to reap some of the abovementioned benefits.
* denotes a required field
0330 161 1234