History
Back in 2002, Harvey Ingram Owston was a law firm with approximately 150 employees and an annual turnover of £8.2 million. Based solely in Leicester and as a result of various small mergers within the city from 1768, the client base and strategy was predominantly concerned with work essentially within the county borders. Similarly, Borneos LLP (formerly Borneos Linnells following a 2000 merger) dates back to 1869 and was also the result of several mergers within Milton Keynes, Bedford and Newport Pagnell. Pre-merger, Borneos had a total of approximately 150 staff, whilst the Harvey Ingram headcount was over 250.
The decision was made at the end of 2010 to merge the two firms with our Milton Keynes, Bedford and Newport Pagnell offices becoming Harvey Ingram Borneos (HIB). Within the new business, would be a five member Knowledge and Information team which included two Professional Support Lawyers (PSLs). Four of the team were originally employed by Harvey Ingram (HI).
Despite the original excitement and activity of pre-merger activities, support teams at HI would agree wholeheartedly with Simmonds (2011) that, “post merger integration work is more demanding”Footnote 1
The team was used to working with people who, in the main, had a certain level of knowledge, understanding and approach to information services, but this was no longer necessarily the case.
Jon Beaumont
Helen Marshall
Cultures
One of the most important factors of any law firm merger is the coming together of different cultures. It is hard to believe how different individuals will approach a similar task with such a dissimilar approach, the result being identical, but the procedures involved disparate. None of the methods would be considered incorrect either, simply not the same.
Indeed, Coldrick underlines this as a potentially major issue:
“It's maybe not so much bringing different work types and personalities together, but different types of ethos. Some firms are cutting-edge expertise based, others are experience-based general practices and still more are process vehicles.”Footnote 2
The way in which many things are approached can be extremely particular to a firm – the way employees work can be based upon a vast array of circumstances including management, history and procedures. More often than not merger discussions can focus purely on financial aspects, which according to Denyer is a fundamental mistake:
“If you begin negotiations just focussing on financial aspects, you are likely to negotiate a relatively good deal, but end up making the wrong strategic step with the wrong partner because insufficient attention has been paid to the real fit between the two firms from the perspective of culture and aspirations.”Footnote 3
The initial contact between individuals within the two teams is always going to be slightly difficult, a situation which can be made even more problematic by the fact that, apart from the group of five directly involved, very little thought had been given to the structure of the Knowledge and Information team. There is likely to be a natural worry amongst staff in this sort of situation, a potential issue which can be remedied slightly with effective communication. This is particularly the case regarding messages from Senior Management which need to be frequent and succinct, hopefully preventing the potential disruption caused by unsubstantiated rumour. Within the team an initial lunch meeting went a long way to understanding roles in the old firms and a weekly team meeting, and a belated conformation of the team's new structure, allowed everybody to fully understand their roles. As Cobb states:
“Mergers will work more quickly when you can create a “one” firm image. To do this you will need to either close offices, to have only one office, or to move staff and partners from office to office, so mixing people up. If you don't do this, you end up with a two-firm mentality with no one buying into the new firm.”Footnote 4
Bringing together two departments was obviously going to be a huge challenge, but it was clearly fundamental that all Support Teams made the merger as seamless for our fee-earners as possible. Many commentators discuss time periods relating to ‘full integration’ of two merged firms being anything up to 12 months. Notwithstanding this estimation, in our view it could be double this time. The human resource aspects of such a merger are obviously huge, and the need to consolidate procedures and benefits is vastly important. However, we are going to concentrate on the practicalities in which we were involved, as opposed to this slightly sensitive area.
Initial Practicalities
The greatest burden of post-merger appeared to be shouldered by the majority by the firm's Support Teams. Despite all the fee-earning groups meeting initially, and then having a relatively sustained relationship, most continued largely as they had done pre-merger. The consolidation of non fee-earning groups was certainly more difficult, with immediate structure and accessibility to services being essential. Indeed, Jones and Groom, in their discussion on the implications of consolidating law firm libraries, outline a raft of possible difficulties that may be encountered.Footnote 5 Particular areas of examination for our team included:
• Library Management System
The purchase of a Library Management System (LMS) seemed a logical beginning to the incorporation of two catalogues. We researched heavily into what was available to successfully combine two different systems. Whilst HIB had a self-built system, created on Microsoft Access and housed on individual desktops, HI had an intranet based catalogue. Neither had purchased a system before, which was possibly a good thing as it offered us a fresh start, with no existing contracts to negotiate. However, on the other hand, it may well have been easier simply to incorporate extra catalogue records to an existing system.
There were several things to consider regarding the procurement of a new system. The two key points were: how would users check out items and what access would we provide across five sites? The firms' checking out systems were completely different, with HIB using an online check-out system accessed on their desktops, and HI having a somewhat archaic card system. It was decided that a fresh start would be needed, as it would be labour intensive and costly to incorporate either method firmwide. The issue of access posed many questions; for instance, would requests be made from the Bedford office for a Birmingham held book? Who would then be responsible for the transfer? Were we willing to risk damage/loss/cost of posting materials back and forth? These questions had no obvious answer. Although it was agreed that one system would be preferable, and as Coldrick (2011) states, “poorly integrated systems create conflict”.Footnote 6
In the end however, due to the economic climate, the potential cost of the system could not be justified and the project has been put on hold. This is an area that we would like to revisit in the future, but with many other unforeseen, additional costs as a consequence of the merger, the LMS was not prioritised at a high level (which can often be the case).
Currently therefore, users at HI, including library staff, have no way to access the catalogue for HIB offices. Although the HI catalogue can be accessed by all users, it remains incomplete as it only displays the HI offices' records. Inputting all the details to form one catalogue would be a major task and it is doubtful whether enough users would benefit out of a consolidated catalogue to justify the time spent. Although an incomplete, stand-alone catalogue is frustrating, with good communication within the Knowledge and Information team we have not encountered too many difficulties to date.
• Consolidation of Materials and Staff
Communication regarding hardcopy, loose-leafs and subscriptions was a lengthy, but necessary step. Jones and Groom (2005) state that “[meeting your counterparts] is the first and most important thing to do”.Footnote 7 This was an obvious first step, but necessary discussions continued far beyond the scope of one introductory meeting. Unfortunately, from the outset, it became clear that anything which could be different was different; preferred suppliers for hardcopy; approaches for hardcopy and online duplication; subscriptions to electronic databases; the online modules taken and business information systems. These aspects were all approached very differently.
The discussions took far longer than anticipated, but were ultimately rewarding. Spending the time to understand someone elses catalogue, all new users and the pressures they have faced, and the reasons behind their decisions, is vital in encouraging honesty and communication between the teams. It should also prevent mistakes being made in the future. Yet quick decisions had to be made to provide a continuous, improved and efficient service for all users whilst, as Ashkenas, Francis and Heinick (2011) discuss, working “in collaboration with relative strangers in an emotionally charged…atmosphere.”Footnote 8
We have now successfully consolidated many resources; some for the long term and others as a short term solution until the end of contractual periods. To achieve this, as a first step, contacts were compared and meetings held with relevant representatives from external providers. Before these meetings, it was key that we had a strategy and were aware of each others' current needs, discounts and past experiences. Presenting this initial united front would set the tone for negotiations.
Responsibilities within the team were also different and signified by titles and names for our service, which in turn suggested different approaches from management towards information. Whilst HI were the Knowledge and Information Team, HIB benefited from a solo librarian. Additionally, HI had far greater support staff and a separate Learning and Development and Marketing team. Conversely, some resources and responsibilities that traditionally came under the Knowledge and Information Team's remit at HI, such as business information subscriptions, were dealt with separately at HIB. Additionally, Knowledge Management (KM) was unfortunately an area which had no formalisation.
Consolidating the team identity and classifying our individual roles was done by internal team discussions and the creation of newly defined job descriptions. It was also important to communicate this to the wider firm.
Shicluna identifies that from a fee earning and managerial perspective, “the administrative side of the merger and the paperwork it generates should not be underestimated”.Footnote 9 Yet, the burden on the Knowledge and Information team for this period has been immense, with meetings to be scheduled, contracts to be renegotiated, job descriptions adjusted and procedures integrated. This has been exhausting and it should not be underestimated.
• Budgets
The new firm would not simply accept a budget based upon the sum of the previous two predicted spends, though immediate savings were difficult to make and realistically reduced spending could only come with time. A distinct lack of time (four weeks) did not allow for comprehensive planning of provisional spend and it may well be the first renewal period for many products whereby we can truly calculate our practice area specific annual budget.
• Electronic Subscriptions
Consolidation of these subscriptions has been equally difficult, with both firms utilising a range of services with differing renewal dates. The two firms are still utilising different services on a per office basis, which is obviously not economically sustainable, along with being very difficult to administer.
• Licensing
Despite the assumption that most of our major services would result in a reduced cost per person due to economies of scale, this was not necessarily the situation. On the contrary, in some cases it did seem as though certain providers viewed the merger as an opportunity to make money.
• Internal Team Promotion
The exact time spent by management on discussing the role and structure of the team post-merger is unknown, although this appears to have been minimal. It was the responsibility of the Knowledge and Information Team to market their services immediately, which was initially undertaken with presentations to various stakeholders regarding the team's role and the services offered. Visiting all offices all allowed the team to meet the majority of staff which was vastly beneficial, as was providing a regular monthly update to the monthly Integration Task Force whose minutes appeared on the firm's intranet.
• Additional External Implications
Whilst library and information teams rarely exist within their own bubble, with a merger, there are so many projects ongoing throughout the firm it is sometimes difficult to identify where your responsibilities with these lie. Whilst IT projects worked to combine resources, our team had to consider the implications of these on our users and what we could do to mitigate any problems they caused in the meantime.
In our case, the main challenge faced by our team, is that the firm is currently working on two completely different Document Management Systems (DMS) and communicating and transferring documents and knowledge between them can at times be irksome. We are in the process of purchasing a new Practice Management System (PMS) and the team are heavily involved in this project.
The team did communicate in person to the new offices, believing, as Rigby (2011) states, that “integration does not occur though written or mass communication alone”.Footnote 10 In taking this face-to-face approach we were then in a position where people felt they could ask about other projects, therefore, it was vital to remain involved in these projects to give honest answers and gain trust from the new users. Additionally, in this position we were then able to feed back to management the questions people were asking and difficulties they were facing and raising with us. In this way we played a fundamental role in the integration (and continue to do so), but not necessarily in a traditional way.
As well as internal communications to explain what role the team has, we also found the need for additional communication surrounding how our team and users would be affected and impeded due to external factors. The intranet was probably the major area in which we wanted input to try and communicate with all users, but were restricted by the concurrent use of two intranets and the traditional usage of these.
Additionally, with the lack of video conferencing but desire to communicate throughout the newly merged firm, travel time should also not be under-estimated. This is a problem that we are sure will be remedied shortly.
Knowledge Management
As previously highlighted, the large difference in firm working practice within the new organisation also extended to KM. Knowledge-sharing and transparency in working practices is imperative for those involved with any sort of know-how initiative, so meeting any sort of resistance to these principles will always be disheartening. As May states:
“The first step to ensuring that knowledge systems work is to create a knowledge-sharing culture. Common barriers to sharing knowledge must be removed.”Footnote 11
Encouragingly, progress has already been made here with a specific KM group created in our new offices with input into firmwide documentation and regular meetings. A greater understanding of know-how has also hopefully been achieved, with the Legal Services Act 2007 acting as a particularly useful tool in making individuals understand the importance of our own efficiency. Visiting new offices (and revisiting old ones!) has allowed the incorporation of new knowledge champions and processes which it is hoped will have an impact on culture.
Further progress will only probably be made once the firm have purchased a joint PMS or at least once we have a definitive date for this to happen. Minimal KM work has taken place thus far, but as our cultures become more greatly aligned it is hoped that this will become pivotal to the firm. Both teams and individuals consider KM to be rather low in their list of important post-merger tasks, but this is once again where the Knowledge and Information team have such an important role to undertake.
Negatives
Denyer (2003) is correct when he states that managers should “promise blood, sweat and tears”.Footnote 12 As a team we have had to stretch ourselves and our resources to the limit in an attempt to promote our team and enthuse new users. Denyer (2003) states that organisations should “only do the merger if both sides are really ready for it”.Footnote 13 Whilst it is apparent that a great deal of thought and discussions was had regarding the merger on both sides, very little was seemingly given to Support Teams. Is it that this is usually the case?
As the firms were similar in their full service approach, general requirements have not changed. However, there are still occasions where a team in one office declares a resource indispensable, when the equivalent team in another office has never taken the item. In these cases we have taken the view, in the first instance, that the users are the best placed to judge their own resources, but we also offer alternatives in an effort to reduce duplication whilst supporting specialisation. This certainly doesn't assist with budget reductions and initially we are in a poor position to question decisions via such unambiguous tools as usage statistics.
Positives
From an information perspective, the merger has not disadvantaged a single user. All fee-earners now have a larger team as a resource on which to draw for queries regarding legal research or information, allowing for more specialisation.
One of the more difficult tasks has been encouraging use of this expanded resource and reminding users that they have a whole team with vast experience at their disposal. The team continue to promote themselves internally and it may well take some time before it becomes more natural for them to contact the team as oppose to an individual. We did briefly consider adopting a service desk approach, but decided against this as we wanted to continue with existing, successful processes and minimise disruption. Hopefully, our face-to-face approach will assist in engaging users and encouraging them to expand their notions of what we do as a team. To this end the whole team make visits to other offices and have face-to-face meetings with users regarding training and resources as often as possible.
For some users, there are no resources which have changed due to the merger and for other users there are more business information and legal online resources and hardcopies for their use. Indeed, as discussed earlier due to economies of scale, negotiations for purchases or leases should improve in the future and save money.
There may well be a change in the coming months or years with regard to legal databases, but as an expanded support services team we will be able to offer a valuable and all-encompassing training programme with internal and external assistance to make this as straightforward as possible.
Summary
There is no doubt that a merger between law firms will place massive emotional, practical and time burdens on the majority of individuals. Information professionals within such an organisation will certainly not be immune to this. However, a merger offers an opportunity for the group to play a significant part in the integration of the firms and hopefully contribute to its ongoing and continued success.
Despite the numerous issues in bringing together separate cultures, it is a wonderful opportunity to review the team's approach and work processes and question whether information and knowledge requirements are being met in the best possible way. It is very easy to forget the positive implications of mergers, with many people naturally focussing on the more negative aspects, but for HI, progress as a merged firm is now being achieved.
The team has been substantially stretched on occasions, not just by time restraints, but also by new information requirements and working practices. It should be a very interesting forthcoming twelve months where it will be extremely important to keep information and KM at the forefront of firmwide strategy. This should facilitate positive changes to our new culture. We must work towards our goal of full integration and hope that profit, presumably the main reason for the merger, is also achieved.
