This report updates a survey last conducted in 2002. It examines the spending, staffing, and internal resources dedicated to law office PD programs; it also inquired into program evaluations and results. In 2007 we also asked for the first time about firm's PD budgeting and financial control and reporting processes, because respondents to the 2002 survey had reported significant difficulties with those processes. The full report, published in two parts in the February and May 2007 issues of Professional Development Quarterly, contains 17 tables of comparative data on the topics surveyed.

I. Survey Respondents

To Part 1 of the survey, we received usable responses from 15 private law firms, 14 of them headquartered in the United States and one in Canada. (Responses from three law offices that were not permitted to share their financial data could not be used.) The firms ranged in size from under 100 to over 1600 lawyers, and averaged 559 lawyers. The firms' geographic spread ranged from a single office to more than 30 offices in 8 countries. In total, the responding PD programs represented 8,380 lawyers.

Two additional firms responded to Part 2 of the survey, bringing the total number of responses for that section to 17, and the total number of lawyers represented to 9,680.

The average firm responding to our 2007 survey (559 lawyers) was much larger than in 2002 (315).

For purposes of analysis, we divided the responding firms into two groups by size: firms of fewer than 500 lawyers (8 firms in Part 1, 9 in Part 2) and firms of 500 or more lawyers (7 firms in Part 1, 8 in Part 2). We then reported the survey results (a) for all respondents, (b) for larger (500+) vs. smaller (<500) respondents, and (c) in comparison to the 2002 results.

II. Survey Findings

Part 1. Budgets and Spending (February 2007 issue):

PD Budgeting and Financial Management

Budget projections for PD are prepared by 100% of respondents. In the smaller (<500 lawyer) firms, budgets are primarily based on the prior year's PD expenditures; in the larger (500+ lawyer) firms, they are more often based on plans and projects developed by the PD office, with past spending as a secondary consideration.

Oversight responsibility for the great majority (80%) of professional development budgets lies with the top PD officer. At the remaining 20% of the responding firms, that responsibility is shared with practice group/department heads (14%) or between two managers of different PD-related areas (6%).

Of five potential financial management tools available to top PD officers, the most widely available was the ability to "make PD-related expenditures without higher approval," and the least widely available was the ability to "enforce policies and procedures with everyone who incurs PD-related expenditures."

Current and future funding levels: The perceived adequacy of PD funding has declined since 2002, when a majority of respondents (58%) considered their current funding to be adequate or more than adequate to meet the needs of the program. In 2007, no respondent considered its budget more than adequate, and only 33% considered it adequate. However, 80% of the 2007 respondents expected to spend moderately (67%) or substantially (13%) more for PD in the next 12-month period.

The most-wanted change in PD financial management was to centralize oversight of PD-related finances in the PD office.

Direct Expenditures

In five years, per-capita PD spending has increased more than 50% overall. The report breaks out spending in three dimensions: by program (e.g., firm-wide training, new hire orientation), by target population (e.g., first-year associates, partners), and by expense category (e.g., consulting services, meeting space). Some highlights of the results:

Spending by program:

Outside CLE courses, averaging 53% of budget, are the most expensive program. The range is wide, however -- from 0-80% of budget. And the smaller firms spend more proportionately than the larger ones. (This was also the most expensive program in the 2002 results.)

Spending on mentor programs, while still relatively small, is significantly higher (7% of budget) than five years ago (0% of budget).

Spending by target population:

First-year associates continue to be the most expensive target population at an average of $5,465 per capita at all firms (compared to $3,287 five years earlier). Breaking the data out by firm size shows that, on average, the larger firms spend more than twice as much per capita on this population as the smaller ones.

Other differences by firm size: The smaller firms spend more per capita on PD for associates above the first year than the larger ones. The larger firms spend more per capita for partners' PD.

PD staffs were much less likely to be responsible for the PD needs of non-lawyers in their firms in 2007 than in 2002.

Spending by expense category:

In five years, law firms' spending for outside PD consultants has increased from 19% of budget to 22%. At the same time, their use of outside consultants to teach in-house courses has declined, from 35% of courses to 22%. Evidently, firms are making more use of outside consultants for non-teaching assistance (e.g., for program design services).

Part 2. PD Staffing, Resources, and Results (May 2007 issue):

Staffing

Staff size and percentage time commitments:

The average ratio of lawyers per FTE (full time equivalent) PD staff member has risen to 161:1 (from 150:1). That increase is entirely accounted for by the larger firms (500+ lawyers), where the average ratio is 179:1; at the smaller firms it's 146:1.

Many more PD leaders and staff are now dedicated full time or nearly full time to the PD program. Of PD leaders in the top 3 compensation tiers ($150,000 and up), the average time commitment to the program has risen from 46% to 79%. And whereas in 2002, because of multiple part-time staff it took 2.2 PD staff members to make 1 FTE staffer, in 2007 it took only 1.2.

Staff qualifications and compensation:

More leaders with qualifications other than the J.D. and law practice experience are assuming positions in the top 3 compensation tiers ($150,000 and up). In 2002 100% of the leadership positions in those tiers were occupied by lawyers; in 2007 only 79% were. The larger firms are more than twice as likely to employ leaders with PD-related graduate degrees: 50% of them do, vs. only 22% of the smaller firms.

Median compensation for top PD leadership positions overall is about $175,000. At the median, either (a) having a J.D. or (b) working for a firm with over 500 lawyers is worth an additional $75,000 in compensation.

The 2007 respondents rated both law-related and PD-related capabilities (tied at 35% each) as being their staffs' most valuable capabilities. The corresponding 2002 "most valuable" ratings were 50% for law-related and 8% for PD-related capabilities.

The capabilities that the 2007 respondents most want to add to their staffs are PD-related capabilities, including instructional and e-learning design, CLE knowledge, and teaching experience.

Other Internal Resources

The most common of 15 possible internal resources available to PD was videoconferencing facilities at 94%, followed closely by teleconferencing, intranet, and CLE credit for in-house courses (tied at 88%). The least common was an assignment tracking system (6%).

The most useful internal resource was the evaluation/appraisal/survey system (cited by 29% of respondents). Tied for least useful were the videoconferencing facilities, CLE self-study resources, and calendar of public CLE courses (each cited by 12% of respondents).

Resource Adequacy

While PD resources have expanded since our 2002 survey, apparently the needs and expectations have outpaced them: 83% of the 2007 respondents (compared to 58% of the 2002 respondents) rated the adequacy of their staffing and other internal resources overall as moderately or substantially less than needed.

The most-wanted additional resource was more staff.

Program Results

Attendance at In-House Training Sessions:

Actual attendance averages 83% of target attendance.

The great majority of responding organizations have a voluntary attendance policy for all but first-year associates.

Evaluation of In-House Training:

Of 10 possible sources of feedback on the quality and effectiveness of training, written evaluations by the course participants are the most often used: 100% of the 2007 respondents collect and compile participant evaluations for at least some of their in-house courses.

On average, evaluation ratings by course participants fall in the top 20% of the rating scale. The top-rated courses are interactive ones.

Smaller firms are more likely than larger ones to use exit interviews, client surveys, and financial data to evaluate the quality of their training.

Evaluation of Other Components of the PD Program:

Only 53% of respondents evaluate any component of the PD program other than in-house training. The mentor program is the most likely "other" program to be evaluated (by 56% of the smaller firms and 38% of the larger ones).

Strongest and Weakest Components of the PD Program:

"Has the greatest impact on individual competence and performance": In-house training.

"Generates the most upper management enthusiasm": In-house training.

"Most valuable purchase/resource for the PD program": viDesktop.

"Most needs improvement": In-house training. (In 2002 it was the mentor program.)

Most Valuable Contribution of the PD Program:

A tie between Lawyers' career development and Stronger firm ties.

Most wanted change in the PD Program:

The top two changes desired by those who answered this question were (1) improvements to in-house training (50%) and (2) more staff and other resources (25%).

 

Copyright © 2007, Evelyn Gaye Mara. All rights reserved. This document may be printed for personal use only. Any reproduction, retransmission, or republication of all or part of this material is expressly prohibited without prior written consent from the copyright holder. Contact maraeg@profdev.com for reprint permission.