4 The 7-Core Dimensions©

 

What makes a good lawyer? It is obvious that a good lawyer needs to have in-depth knowledge of the law and needs to know case law. This will equally apply to an academic, an in-house lawyer or a lawyer in private practice. Legal knowledge must be considered the entrance ticket. It is merely a starting point. In marketing terms this would be called a dissatisfier. A dissatisfier is a factor whose absence causes frustration or unhappiness, but whose presence does not necessarily increase satisfaction or motivation. This concept is a cornerstone of Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory. For a professional like a lawyer, being competent is a baseline requirement for entry, like you would expect your dentist to perform a root canal correctly. This ability alone will not make your dentist an outstanding dentist. Its absence, however, will make you switch to another dentist.

So what makes an outstanding lawyer? Why are some partners more successful than others? Thinking about partner compensation this becomes a highly relevant question. If it is not about knowledge of the law, what are the decisive differences between good and great?

In 2020 we conducted an in-depth, large-scale research project that began with analysing the Chambers directories. Chambers and Partners is a renowned legal research and analysis company based in London. Established in 1989, it specialises in ranking and providing insights into the world’s top lawyers, law firms, and legal departments. Their rankings are highly respected and are based on extensive research, including interviews and analysis of achievements, sector presence, and capabilities. The company operates globally, covering over 70 countries and 200 jurisdictions. The Chambers directories and rankings are freely accessible and available online. Lawyers and law firms widely consider Chambers to be the gold standard and put much effort in providing the researchers with detailed information. Part of their research process involves asking a law firm’s client for feedback and opinion. From these interviews some quotes are anonymously made available for describing the qualities of a lawyer. It is these quotes that we used as the starting point of our research.

We had decided to research whether it would be possible to identify characteristics that separate the top lawyers from the rest of the pack. Since Chambers rankings are in the legal industry generally accepted as the most reliable, we would be using their publicly available data. What we did was analysing all client quotes, which number several thousands, to analyse whether clients praise the legal knowledge or expertise of the partner, or anything else not related to legal expertise. We found that only 17% of quotes were on anything legal. A smashing 83% was on non-legal merits. These outcomes were not immediately what we expected, but when you think about it a bit, not so surprising: legal expertise is a dissatisfier and generally clients would expect it to be present. Non-legal attributes are considered more rare and attract praise when present.

After we completed this large quantitative analysis, we decided to dig deeper and try to find if lawyers ranked tier-1 by Chambers were different from those ranked tier-2 and below. For this we had to do qualitative research and over the course of almost one year we interviewed a very large number of people, both industry professionals and their clients. The fact that our research period coincided with Covid was an advantage as people were generally very willing to talk to us via Zoom. Everyone felt lonely and video conference was a cool new thing. Gradually we managed to narrow things down to seven attributes and skills on which the lawyers ranked tier-1 scored statistically significantly better than the others. We later verified our findings against real-world assessment and eventually came up with the 7-Core Dimensions©. If we assume within a peer group of law firms that legal expertise is a level playing field, then the 7-Core Dimensions© that make the decisive difference.

 

So what are these 7-Core Dimensions©?

 

1. Understanding the business

Your clients do not have legal issues. They have a business to run. This is an important notion for lawyers to understand. For companies as well as organisations, the focus is on making a profit or fulfilling a purpose. None of this is legal. If there is an in-house legal department, those colleagues are highly appreciated, but they are not part of the core business. In Chapter 2 we explain the Value Matrix©. This model demonstrates that there is for the client a direct relation between value and return on investment. If the client spends money on a lawyer, is this an investment in opportunity, or is it part of the costs? If it is part of the opportunity, the lawyer will directly or indirectly help the client to generate profit or prevent a loss. There is a demonstrable return on the investment.

Some lawyers excel in understanding their clients’ business. They show an interest and understanding of how companies make money. They also understand how they can help their clients to be more successful. Let me illustrate this with a simple example. Picture a client that is a property developer. This property developer has started a greenfield development of a very large inner-city shopping mall combined with offices and some residential apartments. This project will require a five hundred million investment. Let’s assume this project grinds halfway to a halt due to environmental concerns. The lawyer must understand that time has a monetary value: every day of delay is one extra day until rent and sales revenue starts coming in. It is one extra day of interest to be paid and one extra day that capital is locked in this project and cannot be used for anything else. The lawyer who understands the monetary value of time will be able to balance the client’s business interests against what is legally feasible. The client may win in court. But if this would take months or even years, it might be better to quickly settle and move on. This oversimplified example illustrates that a lawyer should be able to look beyond the law.

So if you now think about yourself, how well do you understand your clients’ business? At TGO Consulting we also work with in-house departments. Here the same principle applies. Just like outside counsel, in-house attorneys should understand the business they are in. Surprisingly we often find that not all in-house attorneys are equally interested and knowledgeable. A simple question like “what is your company’s most profitable product or business line” is sometimes met with glazed eyes. For in-house, understanding the business should be relatively easy since it only involves one company. For outside counsel, lawyers in private practice, it requires more effort as they will work with new clients all the time.

How could a lawyer improve on understanding their clients’ business? I would say it starts with curiosity. It helps if the lawyer is genuinely interested in the client’s business. It also helps if the lawyer is interested in the economy and keeps up to date by regularly reading the most important business newspapers and magazines. Doing this will help the lawyer to better understand the client’s business. Over time and with experience this understanding will further develop and grow and the lawyer will be able to provide great value and become a true trusted advisor.

 

Developing an understanding of the business

Developing this dimension requires deliberate practice. Lawyers can start by engaging directly with the business environment of their clients: reading industry reports and financial statements, following competitors’ moves, attending trade events and consuming the media their clients read. Asking questions during client meetings that go beyond the immediate legal matter, such as questions about business strategy, operating challenges or long-term goals, helps build a more complete picture.

Internal collaboration also plays a role. Lawyers who learn from colleagues in different practice areas, or who spend time on secondments within client organisations, gain invaluable perspectives on how decisions are made and where legal advice adds the most value. A partner who has spent three months embedded in a client’s commercial team will think about that client’s legal challenges differently for the rest of their career. That kind of experience cannot be manufactured in a seminar room.

The reverse also works. A partner who has never spent time inside a client’s organisation tends to view legal advice as a product delivered to the client rather than as a contribution to the client’s decision-making. The lawyer who has sat in a client’s board meeting, heard the questions the non-executive directors ask, and understood the commercial pressures the management team is navigating, gives different advice from one who has not. Understanding the business is built through proximity to the business, and that proximity has to be pursued actively.

 

2. Creativity

Initially when I started at law school, the legal profession seemed rather binary to me. There were laws, regulations and case law, and in combination these led to an outcome in an almost mechanical way. Something was either allowed or not allowed. It was only after some time that I began to see the creative side of the legal profession. It was with the arrival of that insight that I became truly energised and knew this was absolutely going to be the right profession for me.

My maxim has always been “Road Maps, not Roadblocks”. We also teach this to our clients. Clients do not need lawyers who tell them what they cannot do. They need lawyers who focus on what can be done instead. Lawyers need to be solution-driven, helping their clients reach their goals. This requires creativity. Lawyers need to be able to come up with new, relevant and acceptable solutions to client problems. These could be legal solutions, but could equally be novel strategic negotiating tactics, clever use of public opinion, or anything else that could help the client in a given situation.

Creativity comes in many shapes and forms. I know the lawyer who made securitisations feasible in the Netherlands more than two decades ago. Legally, securitisation was possible, but only if every single debtor was notified. This made securitisations practically impossible. The lawyer found a creative way to circumvent this obligation, which was accepted by the market and the authorities. Subsequently, the securitisation industry kicked off. There are many more examples where lawyers did creative thinking, such as famously Martin Lipton who in 1982 came up with the poison pill to fend off corporate raiders. The best lawyers are also creative lawyers. Creative solutions need to be relevant and realistically acceptable to all parties involved.

Creativity is a skill that can be developed. It is also a process that benefits from teamwork. In many ways we are so much smarter together. This is what we call swarm intelligence. The power of all brains combined within the team is much greater than the sum of the individuals. When applying this to creativity we might call this brainstorming. Tapping each other’s brains for ideas is one of the most effective ways to come up with new relevant solutions. There are some of the best law firms in the industry that have fully embraced this concept and where partners systematically reach out to other partners to help come up with ideas. Working together on that level makes these firms near unbeatable. They know how to let swarm intelligence and creativity work for their advantage. This is ingrained in the culture of the firm and has become second nature.

A good lawyer will be able to think outside the box. This ability is not limited to the legal aspects of a matter. Creativity applies equally in all other relevant areas and is closely related to all of the other 7-Core Dimensions©, perhaps with the exception of Integrity, which we will discuss later.

 

Developing creativity

The starting point for developing creativity is the same as for understanding the business: curiosity. A lawyer who reads widely, across industries and disciplines, trains their brain to spot patterns and analogies that others miss. The lawyer who reads a Harvard Business Review article on supply chain disruption and recognises its implications for a client’s cross-border contract negotiations is doing exactly what the most creative lawyers do. They are borrowing a frame from outside their immediate field and applying it where it is useful.

Within legal practice, creativity can be strengthened deliberately. Looking back at closed matters and asking “how else could we have approached this?” is a simple but effective habit. Presenting hypothetical scenarios to colleagues in different practice areas and asking how they would tackle the same client problem is another. Creativity in law is not the product of a single brilliant mind in isolation. It is the product of a team that feels safe enough to float ideas without fear of immediate dismissal. Firms that want more creative lawyers need to build the culture in which creative thinking is encouraged, not punished.

The relationship between Dimension 1 and Dimension 2 is worth noting. Without genuine understanding of the client’s business, legal creativity tends to generate solutions that are technically interesting but commercially useless. A brilliant legal structure that creates governance friction for the client, or an innovative regulatory argument that would take three years to test, is not creative in any useful sense. Business understanding is what makes creativity functional. It establishes the parameters within which the creative work has to operate.

 

3. Practice development

Every partner has to build and maintain their own practice. Creating a profitable book of business and building a strong reputation in the market. Out of the 7-Core Dimensions©, practice development is perhaps the least surprising. All partners at any law firm should have the ability to build reputation and develop a relevant business network. All partners are supposed to build a good book of business. Unfortunately, reality is that some partners are not so great at doing this.

Practice development is perhaps the only one of the 7-Core Dimensions© that is across the industry universally seen as most closely tied to partner compensation. Compensation is tied to a partner’s book of business. Economic performance is considered paramount. The delta between partners’ books of business often becomes the topic of heated debate. There is constant pressure on partners to perform better, certainly on those who are seen as trailing behind. Theoretically every partner should have the talent and skill to develop a large book of business. Bringing in the business is the principal differentiator between equity partners and everyone else whose income remains largely salary based. Still we often see equity partners struggle to bring in the right amount of work. Why is it so hard?

A partner needs to be proactive in maintaining relationships with clients, potential clients and market influencers. Some partners feel more comfortable sitting behind their desks. Many lawyers do not have an outgoing, sociable personality. Lawyers are typically somewhat risk-averse. Reaching out to a potential client always bears the risk of being rejected, something the partner might want to avoid. The legal profession is a very competitive environment. Law firms and partners compete for mandates and clients. Sometimes, frustratingly, it may seem that price is the only component clients are interested in. A race to the bottom. Reality is that clients focus on value rather than price. A good understanding of the Value Matrix© will help to identify the mandates that will have a higher return on investment for the client. Being able to quantify the return on investment will help in getting closer to the client.

When it comes to value, it is not only the monetary component that weighs in. There are many intangible elements that might help convince the client that a higher price is actually better value. When I was young, my father always used to teach me that a poor man buys twice. Throughout my life I have time and again experienced that he was right. All too often when I went for the cheaper product, it did not fulfil its function or it broke down. Even though I was brought up with this maxim, I have kept falling for the trap of low prices. Besides the monetary and quality elements, there is also the element of brand reputation. When looking for a reliable form of transportation, objectively a cheap and basic car would do just fine. And yet, most of us prefer a more upmarket lifestyle brand car when we can afford it. Buying is not a rational process. There are mostly irrational components involved that shape the decision-making process. For clients in the legal market, this is no different. If the stakes are high, the client will probably not take a risk but instead opt for one of the reputable market-leading firms.

Even if your firm is not the market leader, there are ways to leverage your firm as a platform and to think of arguments that would differentiate you from the competition in a relevant way, potentially justifying a higher price. We could look at toothpaste for comparison to illustrate the point. Most toothpaste is basic toothpaste and there are well-known premium brands that sell for a higher price, and then there are store brands and unknown fantasy brands that sell for a much lower price. Toothpaste is a relatively low-interest product in the bigger scheme of things. Yet, surprisingly, many consumers go for the more expensive premium brands. If one can persuade cash-strapped consumers to fork out extra money for toothpaste, surely a partner must be able to convince a client to look beyond the lowest price.

 

Developing practice development skills

Practice development is a skill that can be built, but it requires an honest assessment of where you are now. A partner who struggles to originate should start by mapping the relationships they already have: former colleagues who moved in-house, clients from previous firms, contacts built through industry involvement, former trainees now at senior positions in companies. Most lawyers already have the beginning of a practice development network and have not yet turned it into one deliberately.

At TGO Consulting we have developed an ABC analysis which helps to make the segmentation between clients by potential and value. The starting point is always what you have, not what you wish you had. A partner who tries to originate everything simultaneously will originate nothing. Focus on the relationships most likely to produce work, develop those deliberately, and build from there.

The most common mistake partners make in practice development is talking about themselves and their firm rather than about the client and their challenges. Practice development is not selling. It is understanding. A partner who spends a client lunch asking about the business, listening to the general counsel’s frustrations, and genuinely engaging with the pressures they face will leave that lunch with infinitely more than a partner who spent the same time presenting the firm’s credentials. The second question, the one you ask after the client has answered the first, is where the real practice development happens.

 

4. Practice management

It is highly unlikely that a partner will work only on one mandate at a time. Partners need to have the ability to work on multiple, complex mandates simultaneously without creating chaos or stress. A partner should be able to communicate in a timely, clear and specific way when cooperating with others, be able to realistically estimate how long tasks will take and know the interdependencies between certain tasks. As everyone in the profession knows, some partners are better at this than others.

What we clearly experience and observe in our own practice is that top-end law firms are better organised overall. Partners are professional and act in a timely way with a high degree of reliability. These partners are typically well prepared and on time. When moving down the law firm ladder, these attributes start to disappear. So ask yourself: are you always on time and well prepared for every meeting, irrespective of what kind of meeting it is?

Practice management is to a certain degree a matter of discipline. It is correlated with the ability to estimate how much time certain tasks will take, knowing who needs to be involved and what the interdependencies are. We have regularly seen lawyers struggle with this. A partner needs to develop the ability to see time in a three-dimensional way, visualising tasks and processes in time, working backwards from a set deadline. This ability is common practice in many other industries. When building a house one needs to know when the painters, the electricians or the plumbers need to come in and how long they will need to finish their job. Getting it wrong can be costly as other processes cannot be completed before the electrician has finished. For law firms it is no different.

There is also a financial component. As outlined elsewhere in the book, utilisation is one of the key components of profitability. Optimising utilisation by evenly spreading workload would be good for profit as well as for the mental wellbeing of the associates. The quality of the work would also potentially be better if associates were able to work on a steady workflow. Provided with uninterrupted work, seven to eight billable hours per day should not really be a problem. Inefficiencies prevent this from happening. Workload tends to come in waves, communication is not streamlined and associates often have to stop and wait for feedback or input before they are able to proceed.

Practice management is also a matter of clear and timely communication and expectations. This is both within the firm and the team, as well as with the client. Within the firm and the team, expressing concise expectations, what needs to be delivered and by when, and clear communication providing all the necessary information and verifying that the message is well understood, will definitely facilitate a smooth working process and likely lead to a better result. Also in interacting with the client, clear and proactive communications are key, just as managing and meeting expectations. Part of communication with the client is surely responsiveness. For a lawyer it is advised to remain on the ball and be quick in responding to messages from the client.

 

Developing practice management skills

The single biggest lever in improving practice management is visibility. Most partners manage their practice from memory and their inbox. A practice that exists only in your head cannot be properly managed. The starting point for any partner who wants to improve in this dimension is to externalise their work: put the matters, the deadlines, the people involved and the interdependencies somewhere visible. It does not matter what system you use. What matters is that you can see the whole picture at once and identify where the pressure is before it becomes a crisis.

The second lever is delegation quality. Many partners are overwhelmed not because they have too much work but because they have not delegated properly. Delegating properly means specifying what needs to be delivered, to what standard, and by when, at the outset of the task, rather than checking in continuously and correcting as you go. A partner who invests five minutes at the start of a task defining “done” precisely will spend far less time on that task in total than a partner who sets it in motion vaguely and then manages it through a series of anxious follow-up calls.

As AI takes a more prominent role in legal work, project management skills will become even more important. The shift toward alternative fee arrangements changes the economics of practice management fundamentally. In a time-based billing model, inefficiency is subsidised by the client. Under a fixed-fee arrangement, every hour of disorganisation comes directly out of margin. A partner without rigorous management skills becomes a direct financial liability to the firm. Partners who develop this dimension now are building a competitive advantage that will be decisive in the next decade.

 

5. People skills and emotional intelligence

The last decade saw a multitude of legal tech startups and products launch. Most have silently disappeared and a few have remained. None of this has managed to make a dent in the universe of law firms. Even private individuals with little money to spend on lawyers have not converted en masse to using digital platforms or robo-lawyers. When ChatGPT was launched on 30 November 2022 the whole discussion rekindled with vigour. Surely, this must be the revolution that would turn everything upside down. Well, the jury is still out, but I would still put my money on real humans rather than machines. The legal profession is a human profession before anything else. That is why the 7-Core Dimensions© are more important than knowledge of the law.

The most human of the 7-Core Dimensions© is surely people skills and emotional intelligence. The legal profession is par excellence a profession where one has to interact with people all the time. There is interaction with the client, with the other parties, with judges, the regulator, the prosecutor, you name it. The quality of the interaction will have substantial influence on the outcome of the matter. Understanding the drivers, values and emotions of all parties involved, and the ability to work with that, is perhaps the most important quality of a lawyer.

Within the firm, one has to interact with fellow partners, associates and staff, both directly in the team, the practice group, the office and the firm. Also in this context people skills and a deep understanding of drivers, values and emotions are crucial factors for building a great practice. Understanding these drivers is one thing, but it will only have an effect when acted upon. Lawyers must have the ability to build rapport with other people. This does not mean that one has to become friends, but there must be a good level of respect, trust and energy, and preferably looking forward to seeing each other.

Lawyers should have the ability to effectively communicate their emotions. That this is not always the case was demonstrated when McKinsey did a survey during the great resignation to find out why talented young lawyers left the profession. What came out on top was “uncaring leaders” combined with unrealistic performance expectations. People skills and emotional intelligence are the key to building a strong relationship with a client. They are also crucial when it comes to negotiations and when litigating in court. People are not machines. That is why they are susceptible to emotions and can be influenced. People are also not rational and there might well be a discrepancy between what they say they want and what it really is they are looking for. Good lawyers have a well-developed radar to detect, analyse and understand emotions, as well as the ability to effectively act upon this.

Beyond client relationships, emotional intelligence is essential for what happens on the other side of the table. Law is inherently adversarial, yet the most profitable outcomes often result from finding common ground where others see only a zero-sum game. A partner who can manage their own ego and accurately read the emotional drivers of their counterparts can de-escalate tension and steer a negotiation toward a creative solution. The ability to read the room and adjust accordingly is not a soft skill. It is a decisive competitive advantage.

 

Developing people skills and emotional intelligence

The most common mistake people make when thinking about developing emotional intelligence is to assume it requires a personality change. It does not. An introverted lawyer does not need to become extroverted. A reserved partner does not need to become warm and expressive. What emotional intelligence development actually requires is observation and deliberate practice.

Observation means paying attention to what is happening in a room beyond the words being said. A client who answers your question with a technically complete answer but does not make eye contact is telling you something. A partner who nods at every proposal in a meeting but says nothing may be signalling disagreement rather than assent. A junior associate who has stopped asking questions may be confused or struggling. Emotional intelligence is the capacity to notice these signals and respond usefully to them.

Deliberate practice means putting yourself in situations where these skills are tested and reflecting on how you performed. Preparing for difficult conversations rather than improvising them. Reviewing after a client meeting what you learned about the client’s real concerns, not just their stated ones. Asking a trusted colleague after a negotiation what you could have read better. This kind of systematic reflection, over time, produces genuine development in emotional intelligence in a way that no workshop or training programme can replicate on its own.

 

This is not a personality test

Some partners react defensively to the idea of developing emotional intelligence because they associate it with personality assessments like Myers-Briggs or True Colours and the kind of team-building exercises that feel patronising to experienced professionals. That reaction is understandable and, in the context of how emotional intelligence is sometimes taught, not entirely wrong.

In the context of the 7-Core Dimensions©, developing people skills and emotional intelligence is not an exercise in psychology, not a quest to fix a partner’s personality, and not about stereotyping or categorising anyone. It is about giving the partner more control over the outcomes of their interactions. When a partner can de-escalate a tense meeting, or draw out the real concern behind a client’s stated objection, or motivate a fatigued associate through a difficult week, they are exercising a form of practical skill that has direct consequences for the quality of their work and the sustainability of their practice.

The goal is not to turn a lawyer into a therapist. It is to ensure that the partner’s technical brilliance is never obscured by a simple misunderstanding of human cues. Those are very different things.

 

6. Presence and confidence

Many lawyers are introverts by nature. They will shy away from conflicts and prefer to remain quietly in the background. A small number of lawyers are bullies. They like to dominate and do not fear confrontations. For them the introverts are easy prey. For a lawyer to be effective we need to look for the middle ground. In most cases the lawyer is the only person defending the client’s interests. The client must feel that they can rely on the lawyer. For this the lawyer needs to demonstrate a good level of confidence. In part, confidence is based on deep understanding and knowledge of the matter, but this is not enough. It is also important to be self-assured and not immediately giving in when faced with opposition. The ability to speak up and express one’s thoughts and considerations clearly and with confidence.

These are skills that also apply within the firm. We frequently see partners hesitant to express their views, fearing to fail or to be made fun of. A good partner should not be limited by fear, should not shy away from opposition, and should have the ability to stand their ground in a constructive and civilised manner. For a lawyer to build a network in order to grow a reputation and compile a book of business, it is helpful to mingle easily and connect with other people. It is sad to see at receptions and conferences lawyers of one firm stick together instead of mingling and making new acquaintances. There is some overlap here with people skills, but since one must overcome a certain fear, we have placed it here under presence and confidence. This dimension also describes the ability to speak in public or give a presentation at a conference. It helps if a lawyer is a good public speaker, capable of delivering a clear and coherent message in an engaging and entertaining manner.

In a competitive pitch, the client is often looking for a sense of competence as much as they are looking for a specific legal strategy. They are asking themselves: do I want this person in the foxhole with me? A partner who speaks with conviction and demonstrates a calm, assertive presence answers that question in the affirmative before the technical portion of the presentation even begins.

 

Developing presence and confidence

Developing presence and confidence is not about undergoing a personality transplant or mimicking the bravado of a superstar rainmaker. It is about the systematic expansion of one’s professional comfort zone. A partner’s baseline temperament is relatively fixed, but presence is a set of observable behaviours that can be practised and mastered. Any partner can achieve a level of professional gravitas that ensures they are heard and respected, even if they never become the loudest person in the room.

For many lawyers, a lack of confidence manifests as qualifying language: “I just think” or “in my humble opinion” or “you might disagree but”. These phrases signal uncertainty before the argument has even been heard. Starting with the recommendation and providing the supporting evidence only when asked is a simple structural shift that dramatically changes the perceived authority of the speaker. When a partner leads with their conclusion, they signal that they have done the intellectual work and are confident in the result.

Stress testing matters. Bloomberg’s documentary ‘Supreme Advocacy: What It Takes to Argue at the Supreme Court’ follows Latham & Watkins Supreme Court litigator Roman Martinez as he prepares and argues a disability-rights case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, showing the strategy and pressure behind a Supreme Court case. Martinez prepares for questioning by the Supreme Court justices by practising in a moot court comprising experienced lawyers from his firm. Practising high-stakes critical situations is not only for those heading to the Supreme Court. It is a useful tool for any partner. Every pitch, every difficult client conversation, every contentious partner meeting is an opportunity to practise staying grounded when challenged. The partner who has rehearsed their response to a hostile question is a different presence in the room from the partner who is hearing it for the first time.

 

7. Integrity

Some have argued that integrity should not be one of the 7-Core Dimensions© as this is something that all lawyers should have by nature and thus it cannot be a differentiator. Unfortunately and sadly, reality is a bit more complex than this. Working with some of the best high-reputation law firms in the world, we are consistently asked to advise on integrity issues a number of times each year. We have come across partners that structurally bill their clients for more time than actually spent, we come across abuse of substance, misuse of money belonging to the firm, insider trading, bribery, sexual misconduct or harassment and more. These are all isolated cases across different firms, but they happen nonetheless. Breaches of integrity are not our business. We are management and strategy advisors. So if we come across serious integrity issues, it must surely happen on a bigger scale. Sad but true. Therefore, yes, integrity is one of the 7-Core Dimensions©.

There is no clear and concise definition of what integrity is and what it is not. Even more so than when assessing a legal issue, it depends. Lawyers need to develop a good moral compass which needs to be recalibrated all the time. What is deemed normal today could be totally unacceptable tomorrow. Often the path towards breaching integrity is a treacherous slippery slope. It rarely starts intentionally. Typically it starts with a harmless error of judgement in the spur of the moment. After this the threshold will be lower until the point of no return. In order to prevent disasters from happening, a firm should have an open culture that invites partners to pro-actively discuss moral dilemmas with others. This requires a high level of trust and also courage. Not all law firms have such a culture. Integrity is putting decency before profit or personal temptations.

Integrity issues are among the most difficult and complicated issues to handle in a partnership. To start with, it is often difficult to prove, and almost always the partner concerned will strongly deny all wrongdoing. This being a partner whom we have known for a long time and who is generally liked makes it hard not to believe when they claim innocence. We must stand by each other, no? That is what a true partnership is about, right? Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but what to do with a partner who has been accused of a criminal offence? Gardening leave, and what do we tell the associates? We have advised on many of such dramas and it is always emotional and it rarely ends well. Even if later cleared, the partner will feel damaged and unsupported and will likely leave the firm. Crossing the line with integrity is never worth it. Do not do it. Do not fall for temptations and seek guidance from others before it becomes too late.

The difficulty of maintaining integrity often stems from the gradual erosion of ethical boundaries. It is rarely a single, dramatic moment of corruption. A partner might feel pressured by an extremely wealthy client to adopt a legal interpretation that is creative but ultimately misleading. The allure of being part of the client’s world, the invitations to exclusive events and the promise of massive future billings, creates a powerful incentive to prioritise the client’s immediate desires over the law’s requirements. This slippery slope is not theoretical. It is vividly illustrated by the high-profile lawyers who became entangled with Jeffrey Epstein. What began as high-stakes legal representation often devolved into social proximity and personal favours that blurred the line between counsellor and confidant. This culminated in significant institutional damage for those involved.

Integrity, therefore, requires the moral courage to accept short-term loss for long-term professional survival. This was illustrated starkly in the wake of the 2025 executive orders in the United States targeting several elite law firms that had represented political opponents of the administration. The orders directed federal agencies to review and terminate government contracts with these firms and restricted their attorneys’ access to federal buildings. While most firms sued and successfully blocked these orders in court, with judges calling them unconstitutional retaliation, others reached deals with the administration, committing millions of dollars in pro bono services to administration-favoured causes to avoid the sanctions. The debate on integrity has a high tendency to become academic when facing adverse commercial consequences. When facing existential threats, integrity often becomes fluid.

In this climate, a partner must be able to tell a client, even a powerful or politically connected one, that their proposed course of action is not only legally risky but ethically untenable. This is where Presence and Confidence, Dimension 6, become essential. A partner cannot maintain their integrity if they do not have the self-assurance to say no to a person of significant influence. This final dimension binds the other six together. Without integrity, business acumen becomes manipulation, creativity becomes deception and confidence becomes arrogance. With it, the partner becomes a truly formidable and valuable asset to the firm and the client alike.

 

The 7-Core Dimensions and compensation

As our research shows, lawyers ranked tier-1 have a statistically significantly higher score on the 7-Core Dimensions©. This indicates that these dimensions are determinants of commercial success. Most law firms that have a modified lockstep aim to also stimulate their partners’ development via the compensation model. For example, at some firms a partner may earn extra points for business development initiatives.

What we would suggest is to consider incorporating the 7-Core Dimensions© into the compensation model by making part of the compensation dependent on how the partner scores on each of the core dimensions. When this helps partners grow and develop, the firm will benefit as partners become more successful and their reputation and book of business grow. This in turn will help attract new clients and new mandates. Developing on the 7-Core Dimensions© is an effective way to grow the business. And since no partner is perfect, there are development and growth opportunities for everyone.

The 7-Core Dimensions© have also proven to be a great predictor when it comes to assessing the potential of future partners. Young lawyers who demonstrate talent and potential on the seven dimensions are more likely to succeed as a partner. The 7-Core Dimensions© have also been used as part of the due diligence when attracting lateral partners.

The way to apply the dimensions to compensation is probably not to evaluate or score all seven annually, as that would be too complicated and too subjective. It is more effective to focus on one or two criteria that have the most development potential for each individual partner. These could differ from partner to partner depending on strengths and weaknesses. Each year, one or two of the criteria most relevant to that partner’s development would be singled out and specific targets agreed between the partner and the compensation committee. This gives personal development a real place in the compensation conversation rather than treating it as a parallel HR initiative that does not connect to money.

The deeper implication of our research is this: the 7-Core Dimensions© are not a model of the ideal lawyer. They are a map of what clients actually value, drawn from thousands of client observations, not from what law firms believe they sell. That 83% of client praise in the Chambers data fell on non-legal attributes was not a curiosity. It was a verdict. Clients already know that their lawyers are technically competent. They take that for granted. What they notice, remember and return for is everything else: the business understanding, the creative instinct, the presence under pressure, the integrity that holds even when the commercial incentive points the other way. A compensation system that rewards only financial production is therefore not just incomplete. It is systematically blind to the qualities that clients are actually paying for. Embedding the 7-Core Dimensions© into compensation is how a firm closes that gap.

The dimensions themselves, however, only operate within a partnership of the right size and composition. That is the subject of the next chapter.