Trusted Advisor
Co-creators of Good Governance
The legal profession has a notorious habit of interchangeably using business words with different meanings. A few of the more common "misspeaks" include:
Goals and Objectives
Revenue and Profit
Vision and Mission
Marketing and Advertising
Leadership and Management
Strategy and Tactics
There is a newer one that involves the leadership of their firms. The words are:
Coach and Trusted Advisor
David Maister, the Dean of law firm thought leadership, in his book "The Trusted Advisor" explains the difference in the two terms as
"that while a coach can provide guidance and support in a specific area or task, a trusted advisor goes beyond that to build a deep, long-term relationship based on trust, empathy, and understanding. A trusted advisor not only offers expertise and advice but also acts as a confidant, problem-solver, and partner in the client's success."
That is not to say that coaching is not essential in the grand scheme of things, in the management of law practices generally, and in firms specifically. The focus of coaching is typically to provide guidance, feedback, and support in developing specific skills, behaviors, or strategies to improve performance. The coach helps the lawyer set goals, overcome obstacles, and achieve desired outcomes, often through a structured coaching process.
...the critical difference lies in the depth of the relationship and the broader scope of support and guidance...
In essence, while both coaching and trusted advising play valuable roles in supporting law firm partners, the critical difference lies in the depth of the relationship and the broader scope of support and guidance provided by a trusted advisor compared to a coach. While not always the case, the liaison between coach and trusted advisor and the firm is usually at a different aspect of the firm's management.
The difference is an essential consideration when firms are seeking out a trusted advisor to work with their Managing Partner (leadership team).
To be clear, coaches can and do become trusted advisors.
Managing Partners and CEO's need to believe that the trusted advisor will put the needs of the firm above the needs of the trusted advisor themselves. For instance, if there is a better expertise or resource to assist with the firm's initiative, the trusted advisor will refer them and step aside. As Maister pointed out in his book,
"There is no greater source of distrust than advisors who appear to be more interested in themselves than in trying to be of service to the client. We must work hard to show that our self-orientation is under control."
An interesting point is that there is no professional accreditation for "trusted advisors". In contrast, for "coaches", there is a number of accreditations given through a broad range of Associations, including (not meant to be exhaustive):
Canada
Professional Certified Coach (PCC) - offered by the International Coach Federation (ICF) chapters in Canada,
Certified Professional Coach (CPC) - offered by the Adler Professional Coaching Program in Ontario, and
Certified Health and Wellness Coach (CHWC) - offered by the Institute for Integrative Nutrition in Toronto.
United States
The International Coach Federation (ICF) - offers three levels of certification: Associate Certified Coach (ACC), Professional Certified Coach (PCC), and Master Certified Coach (MCC),
Certified Life Coach (CLC) - offered by the Certified Coaches Federation, and
Certified Executive Coach (CEC) - provided by the Center for Executive Coaching.
While there are no fundamental designated accreditations for "trusted advisors", there are several evident traits they must possess in order to have the "street creds" with law firms, including:
Common sense,
Experience (credibility, and not just with the legal market),
Loyalty,
Trustworthy,
Directness,
Listening skills,
Reliability,
Confidentiality,
Personable,
Long term perspective,
Broad thinker, and
Risk taker.
What is the next logical step for the trusted advisor role in law firms? There is a small but growing trend of incorporating external directors into law firm management and executive committees that is gaining traction. While there are various reasons to consider such a step, the key ones include:
Enhance a law firm's strategic direction and operational effectiveness,
Diversity and inclusion in leadership roles,
Better governance and accountability,
Transparency and the need for robust and independent oversight, and
Shifting market dynamics, particularly a closer identification with clients.
The leading early adopters of this trend include the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, the Netherlands, and Singapore.
Firms looking at their governance with an eye toward the future should seriously consider this concept. Perhaps best captured by Rohini Nilekani when she stated,
"We cannot be mere consumers of good governance. We must be participants; we must be co-creators".