Structurally Obsessed Comments

Structurally Obsessed Comments

Here are some comments NJK has received following his recent article Structurally obsessed

Jeff Gillingham

“I have found that one of the main problems with law firm organisational structures is the conflict between the agendas of equity holders and the roles and responsibilities of the firm’s executive. As we both know in law firms equity holders and executives are usually one and the same people. A more commercial structure should encourage equity holders to move from a partnerial attitude to a more traditional shareholder view. Thus leaving the executives to get on with their jobs even though they might also be shareholders. “

Alex Bevan

“I do agree about structure (and form) with solicitors (many of whom who are a variety of sheep on the whole). They tend to follow the herd. The trouble is that with the LSA in force shortly a new species will be down from the hills –the wolf of capitalism!

I have always been a supporter of the limited company as you know (but not to ignore the even more important strategy). I do wonder though if increasing use of the limited company will provide wolves with easy access to the sheep pen!

Norm Mullock

“I enjoyed this quite a bit and agree with its conclusions.  Two thoughts:

·         Your article seems to speak on behalf of value investors, which I commend.  That said, it would be a perfectly rational strategy for a firm with no real substantive differentiation (I could name several, you probably many more) to attract investment on the basis of a compeeling story, a la .com or some of the more recent IPOs.  Claim brand excellence, some technological innovation, a service delivery model and/or a compelling top line growth experience, attract private equity (with or without an active management role) or even better public funds and distribute the proceeds to the partnership.

·         Ever hear the American expression “like putting lipstick on a pig”? :)”