New Executive Director Training

Materials V. Staff

Sponsored by:

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION EXCHANGE 99 CHAUNCY STREET, SUITE 716, BOSTON, MA 02111-1743 ◊ TEL 617-556-0288 ◊ WWW.MIELEGALAID.ORG

V. Staff Table of Contents

All articles by Jan May

Some Management Challenges in Maintaining a Top Flight Staff Attorney Program 1

The Barely Managing Attorney 7

One Minute Legal Services 8

Are You a Theory X or Theory Y Manager? 9

Are Work Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction Opposites? 10

The Alchemy of a Successful Meeting 11

The Seven Deadly Sins of Performance Appraisal 12

Mediocre Myron: Dealing with the Marginal Performer 13

Advice from a Managing Attorney 14

Dear Managing Attorney… 15

The Overmanaged Attorney 16

A Dozen Antidotes to Burnout 17

When a Skunk Invades Your Next Meeting… 18

special feature: isn’t it time to put Your sacred cows Out to pasture?

Some Management Challenges in Maintaining a Top Flight Staff Attorney Program

By Jan Allen May, Director�

AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly

I was a staff attorney in a legal services program for many years. I believe strongly that the staff attorney model for legal services delivery can provide a combi-

nation of flexibility, quality, ex-pertise and productivity second to none. I also have managed and directed a legal services program for a number of years, and in so doing, have come to recognize the host of challenges to running a quality staff attor-ney program.

One legal services management consultant is fond of saying that to run a legal services program requires “hiring good people and creating an environment in which they want to remain.” Like many generalizations, however, the devil is in the details. It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the “hire good people” part of that generalization , but I would like to focus on the “create an environment in which they want to remain” (and presumably in which you want them to remain).

To achieve that optimum performance level re-quires constant management work — work to maintain flexibility, work to maintain balance, work to maintain expertise and relevance to the client community, work to ensure high quality litigation. Most importantly, leaders of legal services programs must formulate and re-formulate a vision of the program and constantly communicate that vision to the program’s stakeholders, of whom staff attorneys are a key component. To do anything less allows a program to stagnate and the staff attorneys along with it. To engage in all these activities simultaneously is difficult, complex, often frustrating, unglamorous toil—but doing so results in a high qual-ity and highly functioning legal services staff attorney program.

The Challenge of Lack of Flexibility or “Hardening of the Categories”

I am reminded of a situation when a new legal ser-vices program opened its doors and decided to focus on public benefits. Around that time, attorneys representing a large tenant group approached me with the dilemma of many poor people suddenly getting a one-time lump sum which could profoundly effect their public benefits. The attorneys for the tenants needed legal services pro-grams to guide individual tenants through the havoc that the lump sum might potentially wreak on their monthly sources of income and health care. I knew our program could not solely handle the volume of the work so I called the new legal services program assuming that they would eagerly accept the challenge. Much to my dismay, the director informed me that they could not help. He informed me that they only do certain types of public benefits cases, that the cases must be at a certain stage of the appeal process, and that this set of circumstances, al-beit compelling, simply did not fit “their model” of what their staff wanted to do. I was dumbstruck, but realized at that point how quickly the problem of “hardening of the categories” can afflict a legal services program. Here was a real and imminent need on the part of the client community. This program had been set up to deal with public benefits. The clients were eligible. The program was looking for clients. The new legal services program simply had decided that the model it had just set up could not be made flexible enough to serve the needs of the clients.

Up until then I had thought the organizational malady of “hardening of the categories” was one that afflicted more mature legal services programs that had been doing the same thing year after year and did not want to change. I now realized that this management problem can afflict any program at any time. I think it often occurs when a program designs or adopts a model or priorities that reflect the preferences of the staff but

1

Winter 2006

not the needs of the client community. For example, staff may want to accept cases only at the hearing level, but a program may be able to help more clients more effectively if it intervened at an earlier point. It may be that staff are more comfortable working Monday through Friday 9 to 5 in a downtown office, but clients’ needs may be met best if the office is open at night and on the week-ends or in the courts or in the clients’ neighborhoods. It may be that staff are experts in cer-tain areas of law, but client needs have changed and the areas of staff expertise no longer match the needs of the client community. In short, the program must change to meet the needs of the client community and remain relevant to the people it is attempting to serve.

To do so, however, requires that the directors, man-agers, staff attorneys and other staff change, sometimes dramatically. The program may have to adjust its pri-orities. It may have to redesign how it delivers services, or when it delivers services, or where it deliver services, and even what those services might be. It may mean figuring out what this “community lawyering” stuff is really all about. It may mean learning new areas of law.

But for directors or managers to just hire “good people” and leave good people to their own devices is to abdicate fundamental leadership duties (e.g., the vision thing) and ignore enormous opportunities for program growth and staff development. As directors and managers, we have to continually monitor the pulse of the client community—its needs, its greatest challenges and aspirations, and design, with the com-munity and staff, programs, systems, cases and projects to meet those needs. We need to encourage staff to do likewise. To invoke the words of the late Peter Drucker, we have to repeatedly ask ourselves “what business are we in and what business should we be in?” And we need to answer that question, completely and in detail, over and over again. To do any less is to implicitly state that the program exists for the convenience of its staff and not for the needs of its clients. But no one ever said this task is easy.

Let me cite one example of institutional change at Legal Counsel for the Elderly (LCE) of which I am very proud. This past year, a law was passed in the District of Columbia granting a monthly governmental benefit (subsidy) for grandparents (and certain other relatives) who are raising their grandchildren (up to about $900 a month). A large percentage of children in the District of Columbia are raised by grandparents. The law states, however, that in order for a grandparent to receive the subsidy, the grandparent must have legal custody of the children. Most grandparents raising their grandchil-

dren do not have legal custody of the grandchildren. Hence, anyone who wants the subsidy needs legal help to secure legal custody of their grandchildren.

LCE had, up until this year, handled few, if any, child custody matters. No one on staff had expertise in this area. We knew there was going to be an onslaught of requests for services in this area.

We had to change the way we did business in significant ways. First of all, we sought out the neces-sary expertise. We found a former LCE staff attorney expert, who now teaches at a nearby law school, who agreed to take the first ten cases, and, after that, men-tor others who might take the cases. We also discovered we had in-house a recently retired volunteer attorney with significant expertise in this area. She worked in our Brief Services Unit (BSU). With her help, the staff of the BSU was brought up to speed on child custody cases. Further, she designed a system for the hotline at-torneys and a questionnaire to be used by interviewers of grandparent caretakers. She set up internal systems, and worked closely with the court personnel utilizing forms designed by the D.C. Bar family law section and other materials to help clients help themselves, at least in those cases where a “pro se plus” system would work.

The BSU handled some of the cases, and devel-oped others for referral from our Volunteer Lawyers Project. We assisted in offering a District of Columbia Bar course on child custody, tuition for which included taking two child custody cases on a pro bono basis. We partnered with another legal services program to han-dle child custody cases where the grandparent was not yet sixty (and therefore not eligible for our services). We recruited a number of larger law firms to handle these cases. We also recruited two law firms to write a manual for professionals on grandparents’ legal issues which we distribute widely throughout the city.

As a result, as of last month, LCE had helped 169 grandparents with this legal problem in an area we had never practiced before. The Hotline, BSU, two staff at-torneys, one staff paralegal and the Volunteer Lawyers Project have experienced a significant change in their work. Clients are now receiving up to $900 a month to take care of their grandchildren. I believe we have made a real impact in the quality of life for many of our clients. In short, a number of staff and programs un-derwent substantial change, but we met the challenge and we are, I think, a better and more responsive legal services program as a result.

But in my experience, in confronting change, we quickly encounter challenges in terms of achieving “balance” which leads me to my next point.

2

� Management Information Exchange Journal

The Management Challenge of Achieving Balance

The “Balancing Act” required of management plays itself out in myriad ways in a legal services program. For a program to function well it has to be attuned to the ever-changing needs of its community, but to change everything all the time is much more than any-one or any program can tolerate. My experience, how-ever, is that the majority of programs suffer from too little change, not too much. An organized plan for on-going change is probably best achieved by a periodic review and re-setting of program goals and objectives by all the stakeholders in the organization (community, clients, staff, volunteers, etc.) Many of the goals and ob-jectives might remain the same, but perhaps a goal of reexamining and refocusing at least one major project per year is both healthy and doable by most programs.

Another aspect of the ‘balance” question has to do with the balance between work and personal life. I think we have all seen the phenomenon of the “burned-out” staffer. This can occur in any position in the organization but staff attorneys are perhaps more vulnerable because of the constant demands of a large caseload. I think you know the scenario: While this person may have been a gung-ho advocate in his or her early years with the program, the zeal waned. The attorney continues in the same job, however, and now goes through the motions without the drive or the desire. The result is that the attorney does not push the envelope on behalf of clients, try out new approaches, venture into new areas, or serve as model for others on staff.

I see at least two management challenges regard-ing “burn-out”: (1) Are there activities program-wide that directors/managers/leaders should be engaging in to prevent or lessen burn-out? and (2) Once burn-out occurs, what can managers do about it?

The first question might best be addressed by the program’s management team institutionalizing ways of achieving work/life “balance.” Are caseloads reason-able? Are there standards regarding the number, type, breadth and depth of cases to be handled? Do in-depth case reviews reveal ways that casehandling might be done more efficiently or effectively? Should some areas be dealt with through systemic work and not through individual casework? If a staff person is working very long hours on a continuous basis, are there steps man-agement should take to help that person better pace

Some management Challenges Continued from page 33

the work? Are there creative and flexible work arrange-ments that can be at least a partial solution? Does a mandatory vacation policy make sense? Should all casehandlers be required to reserve a portion of their work-time to a larger project that does not focus on cases, to provide the opportunity to see the “forest” as opposed to the “trees”? Is job rotation a viable meth-odology? Are there other “work restructuring” avenues worth exploring? Is there a mentor in the program who can provide more guidance with the workload? Could co-counseling play a role? The answers to these ques-tions will vary program to program, but asking these questions and working through viable options may minimize the phenomenon of burn-out at least among staff attorneys.

But as a wise man in legal services once said, “The only thing worse than high burn-out and high turn-over, is high burn-out and low turnover.” The already burned-out but once highly contributing staff member presents the larger management challenge. Here the manager needs to show real leadership and begin that “difficult conversation.” Among the difficult choices are whether the employee should be encouraged to stay but in another capacity, or whether the burned-out staffer should be encouraged to seek other opportuni-ties outside the program. Having a candid conversation with the employee about goals and aspirations, and the extent to which they overlap with the needs of the pro-gram might help move the dialogue toward a mutually beneficial solution. Sometimes the employee may not be aware of the behavior and its effect on the program. Diplomatically raising these issues and attempting to work with the employee on solutions may be a difficult but important conversation to engage in for the best interests of clients, the program and the individual employee.

The Challenge of Leveraging Expertise: The Staff Attorney as Technical Advisor

Part of the balancing act in effective utilization of staff attorneys is leveraging staff attorney expertise to provide support to other systems of legal services de-livery within the program. Experienced staff attorneys can play a vital role in the effective administration of hotlines, brief services units and pro bono projects, to name a few, but not to the exclusion of their significant casehandling responsibilities. Structured properly, this support function need not take up a large portion of a staff attorney’s time. An experienced attorney pro-viding back-up support to these delivery mechanisms can effectively provide quality control to these other

3

�Winter 2006

systems, especially in their early stages of their develop-ment. In terms of a pro bono project, I think it makes sense for the pro bono staff of a legal services program to field basic substantive and procedural questions, and for staff attorneys to respond to the technical ques-tions of particular cases. I have heard staff attorneys complain about the amount of time spent on providing technical assistance to pro bono attorneys (“it’s cheaper and less of a pain for me to handle the damned case myself”). I think, however, a carefully structured pro bono program limits the involvement of the staff at-torney while allowing enough time to be sure questions requiring substantial expertise are timely and fully ad-dressed. Further, relationships developed between pro bono and staff attorneys can be a valuable asset for the program in myriad other ways, not the least of which is fundraising.

Similar procedures may be utilized for other sys-tems such as hotlines. When we first started our hot-line, I would read over a daily computer print-out of all the case notes from the hotline. When I did not know if the hotline attorney’s response to a given question was accurate or complete, I would ask the staff attorney with the most expertise in that area to read the case note and advise the hotline attorney. Such a procedure accomplishes several things. It ensures the quality of the hotline advice. It creates a “team” with the hotline attorney and the casehandling attorney joining forces. It involves the staff attorney but typically takes little time. In fact, this process is needed less often as the ho-tline attorneys grow in knowledge and expertise. Thus, I think it makes good management sense to have staff attorneys spend a portion (not large) of their time with these alternate delivery systems.

The Challenge of Maintaining Focus on the Core Responsibility to Handle Cases

If a staff attorney is to carve out a portion of time to devote to a systemic issue, apart from individual casework, and provide some technical assistance to other projects, such as pro bono, just how much time and effort can be expected of a staff attorney on the core business of handling cases? With all these respon-sibilities, does the productivity of the staff attorney suffer? However important, I recognize that measuring the activity of casehandling is difficult. Simple formulas of closing “X” number of cases per year ignore a host of key variables such as subject area, complexity, level of representation, importance of the case, overall quality of the legal work and outcome achieved.

At the outset, it may make better sense to ask a se-

ries of overall programmatic questions. Is the program achieving maximum and optimal use of all its delivery systems? Has the program devised a methodology, such as a hotline or legal clinic staffed by volunteers, to deal with a high volume of advice cases so that staff attor-neys can focus on in-depth work? Is the program get-ting the “highest and best use” of its pro bono attorneys? Is it leveraging staff attorney resources so that systemic issues are being addressed through partnerships of staff and pro bono counsel? Does the program have an effec-tive way of measuring outcomes program-wide?

With these questions fully explored, the program is in a better position to take stock of the staff attorney’s work. Here is a list of questions that begin to get to the heart of the matter: n Is the staff attorney handling cases that are gener-

ally commensurate with his or her experience? If not, why not?

n Is the staff attorney handling cases which might be better, more easily or less expensively handled by another methodology or other staff with less expe-rience? Has or can the program design and imple-ment such a methodology?

n How long does each casehandler keep a case open? Can the program’s case management system gener-ate reports showing the age of a case? What does this report reveal about how well the staff attorney is moving cases along?

n Does a manager review cases upon closure? Does the case management sytem capture enough infor-mation upon closure that it can run meaningful reports as to what has been achieved on behalf of clients?

n Does the work of the staff attorney show initiative, creativity and persistence in securing the results the client is seeking?

n What percentage of the staff attorney’s time is spent in court, in hearings or in other sophisti-cated legal work? How many cases does this work represent? How does this data compare across the program’s attorney staff? Across other similar pro-grams?

n What is the system for periodically assessing the quantity and quality of this work? How are manag-ers kept informed of the number of cases handled, case types, case closure reasons, significant victo-ries, and progress on systemic work?

4

� Management Information Exchange Journal

n Are there regular meeting opportunities for case-handlers to discuss and strategize with others on problematic cases?

n Are there creative ways to handle more routine cases? Are staff attorneys challenged to come up with innovative approaches to common problems? Are there incentives for staff attorneys to engage in creative lawyering?

n When was the last time the staff attorney took on a new substantive area of law? Is he or she receptive to the suggestion?

n What do clients think of the casehandler in terms of responsiveness, willingness to answer questions, and ability to keep the case moving toward a reso-lution? Is there a better way to obtain this informa-tion than with pro forma client satisfaction surveys?

n Does the staff attorney spend time in the client community? At community meetings? Does the staff attorney ever suggest communitywide issues that need to be addressed? What has the program done in response?

The answers to these questions are going to differ program to program, staff attorney to staff attorney. What is important is that the questions get asked and get answered at regular intervals. The answers should be probed in some depth and action plans (whether individually or program-wide) developed and imple-mented where the answers are unacceptable or inad-equate.

The Centrality of LitigationA discussion of staff attorneys in legal services

programs is incomplete without addressing the issue of litigation — to a very great degree the place where our clients’ rights can be asserted, validated and upheld is in court. Our reputation vis-à-vis clients, judges, the private bar, bar associations, the press and the commu-nity at large is to a significant extent dependent on the quality, breadth, depth and importance of the litiga-tion.

Therefore, in a staff attorney program, litigation is at the vital center of what staff attorneys should be doing. Management should promote, exhort, support and recognize that at every opportunity. Creative litiga-tion should be fostered. Co-counseling arrangements

Some management Challenges Continued from page 35

with the private bar, with other legal services programs, even with national organizations, should be encour-aged. Work with bar and judicial committees should be encouraged to shape the way justice is dispensed. Offices should be located close to or in the court house. The many delivery systems, community organizing projects and self-help centers all serve a useful purpose. But what legal services attorneys can do, often on an emergency basis where pro bono fails, is to go to court and assert the rights of our clients. Staff attorneys need to be on the prowl continuously for how clients’ rights can be asserted, vindicated and expanded. Developing measures for staff attorney performance or the perfor-mance of the staff attorney program in general should focus on these concerns as a key part of the analysis.

The Challenge of Communicating a Common Vision

Another wise person in legal services once said that the great legal services programs are ones in which you can ask anyone what the mission of the organization is and everyone will give you the same answer. Using that yardstick, I think there would be few great programs.

The core mission of your organization, while per-haps obvious to you, is not obvious to everyone. Too many staff attorney issues arise because the vision of the program differs widely between staff attorneys and managers, staff attorneys and directors or among staff attorneys themselves. Questions pertaining to program priorities and resource allocation, such as time devoted to technical assistance, to individual cases, to systemic work, to other delivery systems and to community work are often a source of confusion, frustration and friction. The operational plans of the organization that flow from its mission need to be hammered out at least annually and then effectively communicated to staff.

The effective use of staff attorneys in a legal ser-vices program, indeed the effective functioning of the program, is hugely dependent on everyone understand-ing and accepting the overall mission of the organiza-tion and the decisions for how that mission will be implemented on a day-to-day basis.

It falls to the director and the management team to be clear and unwavering about the vision and direction for the organization — its mission and goals and how it plans to implement them. Leaders of the organization need to use every opportunity — staff meetings, cases reviews, performance reviews, discussions of problem-atic cases, public relations and fundraising — to com-municate the vision, mission and goals of the program.

Continued on page 39

5

~ SOME MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES

Continued from page 36

In doing so, we create a framework for ourselves and for the program to address the challenges of flexibility in adapting to changing conditions, setting high but reasonable standards for casework, maximizing the po­tential of a variety of delivery mechanisms, and empha­sizing the importance and centrality of litigation in the program. This approach I am convinced maximizes the potential, durability, expertise, creativity and legal skills of staff attorneys as well as providing the best possible services to our clients.

Jan Allen May is the Director of AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly, Co-Chair of the MIE Journal Committee and freqent contributor to the Journal.

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18