Training of lawyers was the focus of a great deal of discussion during the 2007 annual meeting of the College of Law Practice Management last September. From leveraging the desire of Gen X lawyers to constantly add to their resumes to the need for aging lawyers to learn more about retirement planning. . . training and development was definitely on the minds of the College Fellows. And little wonder.
Given the rate of change -- and the threat of more -- in the business of practicing law, the need to add new skills and adapt older ones is at a fever pitch. The need is high, but the response appears to be less than effective on many fronts. Regardless of how needed they may be, firm sponsored training programs will still stumble into the traditional potholes in the road unless a hard look -- with an eye to change -- is taken at firm policies and culture that stifle all but minimal participation on the part of those in need.
If you work regularly in law firms you know that it is near impossible to get high attendance at training sessions from the firm's lawyers. The reasons are myriad: Billable hours, trial dates, poor planning, etc. But one of the issues will always be the fact that lawyers are trained - in law school - that an important part of their competence and ability to compete is based on the "fact" that they already know everything.
Okay, okay. . . I exaggerate. But will you agree that most lawyers avoid circumstances where they may be perceived as being less than totally on top of the subject matter? That it is part of the skill of lawyering to project confidence and a total grasp of the information? Add that to the natural competitiveness of lawyers and the stress of the tournament to partnership in most firms and you've got a whole lot of empty sessions and silent chat rooms.
Ponder this: Might it be possible to create learning sessions supported by the understanding that all bring something to teach and something to learn? My doodles during the above-mentioned COLPM sessions turned into something resembling a perpetual motion machine.
Allow me to suggest that the next time you structure learning groups or skill-building sessions you contemplate a structure that allows all to be learners and teachers. Break down the resistance to being perceived as the one who needs to be taught by asking everyone to learn. . . .and to teach.
Senior lawyers still active in practice have an immediate need to better understand social networking, Twitter, blogging, etc. Those fresh-faced new lawyers who arrive wanted to be "made into lawyers" look to their seniors for coaching and advice on those traditional lawyering skills so long not taught in law school.
The secret is not just to abolish a learning hierarchy, but to value what each brings to the table. It's a good feeling for all involved.
Is this an approach you've tried? Do you know of someone who has? I'd love to hear more about the results of your experiments.