Articles
Q&A: Peter Jolly – "What we have is an incredible legacy and the partners view themselves as the custodians of that legacy"
In this Q&A, Thynne + Macartney Chairman of Partners Peter Jolly reflects on the firm’s recent 125th birthday; the challenge of ensuring that a traditional firm stays relevant in the era of NewLaw; and why he likes to bring a sense of humour to the table when dealing with employees and clients.
Congratulations on the firm’s 125th birthday.
“Thanks. It’s our quasquicentennial – that’s the word for a 125th anniversary. I used the word a few times in a speech at our 125th birthday celebration and I did concede that it’s unlikely that I’ll ever get to use that word again in any other scenario. I don’t believe many firms have reached this milestone using the same name they began with.”
Thynne + Macartney claims to have the oldest unchanged law firm name in Brisbane, trading since 1893. What does it mean to the partners to be part of such a long-running firm?
“Part of what makes it such a proud occasion is that we can look back and see the clients that we’ve represented generationally, for second and sometimes third generations of families, and the associations with companies and institutions which go back decades and span different ownerships and personnel. So that’s a remarkable achievement and a very proud episode in our history. As a long-established law firm, we have that wonderful heritage and history of clients.”
Does it give the firm a business edge?
“Of course, in 2018 you can’t just rely on being an old established law firm. While longevity is a great thing, you want to make sure that it doesn’t park you in a pigeon hole as being old-fashioned. Our challenge is to embrace that history and legacy and use it as a platform to provide relevant and modern service offerings.”
We understand that at your 125th celebration you referenced a book the firm had produced for its 100th anniversary. How have things changed in the corresponding 25 years?
“It’s amazing looking back even only 25 years. In 1993, some of the practices were really outdated; it’s been a remarkable transformation, particularly technologically. In 1993, there was no internet and no email. It was the days of the landline and the fax. Word processing systems were in their infancy. There were no smartphones or connectivity like we have now. It all now seems considerably antiquated in terms of service delivery. In 2018, there’s an expectation from clients, and rightly so, that they will get good, fast advice at a fair fee, and you have to be able to harness new technology to do that. Those sorts of advances make service delivery easier but, at the same time, also mean you have to keep peddling a bit harder.”
On the firm’s website, there is a statement: “We believe that the passing on of knowledge is important – to each generation of lawyers and to our clients.” How does the firm ensure that its history and culture are preserved and used for the benefit of staff and clients? Is it structured or through osmosis?
“A bit of both. Like most firms, there’s a formal induction process for everyone who joins the firm to introduce them to and learn about the firm, who we are, how we operate, what our expectations are and our shared values. You’d like to think there’s also an osmotic process that people absorb as they settle in at the firm. I talked in the 125th-year speech about the firm’s legacy and that is quite true – what we have is an incredible legacy and the partners view themselves as the custodians of that legacy. Now we are looking for the next generation of lawyers to come through to continue that process.”
Although it’s a different sector, the issues that have recently confronted some long-trusted brands with lengthy histories in the financial sector drive home the point that directors or partners of firms must always be on their game. Do you agree?
“That’s right. You can’t just rely on the history and the systems you’ve always used in the past. We’ve learnt that we have to keep challenging ourselves about the way we do things. There are lots of things we do now very differently to five years or 10 years ago, both internally with the way we reward people for their effort, and externally in the way we deliver services. They are by their nature evolutionary.”
Thynne + Macartney has been involved in two mergers in its 125-year history, one in 1971 and the other in 2008 when you joined the firm. How did the firm ensure that it maintained its core culture during those mergers?
“The point about those mergers is that they were driven by sound strategic reasons and both of the joining firms had very similar backgrounds and cultures to Thynne + Macartney. There was never any doubt that Thynne + Macartney would be the name of the merged firm. When people join the firm now we make a conscious effort to integrate them into our culture. That can be a challenge. There are lots of law firms that are merging quickly and very often – and I’m not saying that’s an imprudent strategy to follow – but the challenge that process brings is around culture because you’re often putting very different firms together, it is often disruptive and it’s not always easy to get a blended culture.”
You have commented in the past that the key elements of a successful legal firm are factors such as the quality of the advice, the character of the people and the culture of the firm. How, though, do traditional firms remain relevant in an era of considerable change and with the emergence of NewLaw firms?
“There’s room for both models. I don’t see them as being mutually exclusive. But in my opinion a lot of what’s described as NewLaw firms aren’t really new at all – they’re just traditional law firms dressed up in a bright set of clothes. Underneath they’re really doing things in much the same way. There are, of course, some genuinely different law firms in the way that they’re delivering services, whether it’s purely online or using some innovative fee structuring, whatever it might happen to be. And good luck to them. We still see ourselves being aligned with the traditional law firm model, although embracing the latest technology and processes, but a lot of that is a function of our client base and work areas. For example, we have the largest agribusiness practice in Queensland and our rural clients appreciate the personal touch – we visit regional centres and we meet clients face to face. So at the moment that more traditional approach suits us.”
Tell us about your role as Chairman of Partners.
“It’s an unusual role; it’s mainly an outward-facing role but there is an inward facing aspect to it as well. We don’t have a managing partner. The partners rely on our Board of Executive Partners and our management team, led by General Manager Ashley Lamb, who is responsible for the day-to-day running of the firm. He’s young, he’s dynamic and he really challenges us. We rely heavily on him to put the options before us with his recommendations and he’s great at doing that. Ultimately, it’s our call about what we do, but this model has worked really well for us over the last few years in growing the firm and delivering efficiencies wherever possible.”
We understand that as a leader you try to use a sense of humour. Is that right?
“Yes, I do try to use humour. Overall, I try to engage with people, not just talk at them, and I find that humour helps me in doing that. It also helps you when you have to deliver a difficult message. You have to find a way that works to engage with people that is empathetic and respectful.”
If you could change one thing about modern law firms, what would it be?
“My original answer was ‘nothing’ because I don’t have a yearning to go back to the days of the leather chairs and the big oak desk. We’ve all moved on from that and the clients have certainly moved on from that. But the one thing that I do sometimes think that we need to remember is some of those old-fashioned values of courtesy, decency and respect. At times, there’s too much point-scoring and playing the person and not the ball – and it’s generally just designed to make the practitioner look good in the eyes of the client. But it’s not a particularly helpful method for the practice of law. The other thing that I’m not convinced about are listed law firms, with all due respect to those that have gone down that path. I see the challenges of what can be conflicting positions as too great – we have a duty to the court and a duty to our clients and when you add a duty to the shareholders, sometimes managing these duties is going to result in conflict. I understand why some firms have moved in that direction, but I’m still slightly challenged by it.”
What’s the key to the future for Thynne + Macartney?
“It’s really around that idea of service – we have 125 years of history of service to back this. That’s the reason we’ve survived for so long, and the reason that we are going to keep going is that we are providing a good service to our clients that doesn’t compromise our integrity.”
Why do you think Thynne + Macartney has made it to 125 years while so many other firms have not?
“It’s a simple question with a complex answer. There are a number of reasons. One, we have been able to adapt and change, otherwise we would not have survived. Two, looking back through history Thynne + Macartney has benefited from a series of remarkably long and stable partnerships, with people being in partnership for 30 to 40 years. While that’s probably not going to happen in the future, it’s still the case that we have a very stable and harmonious partnership. The staff see that and it creates a harmonious working environment and gives confidence about the firm’s culture and how it is performing. Three, we’ve never tried to grow the firm just for growth’s sake. Four, and this is very important for us, we’ve always been a very independent, full-service, Queensland-based law firm. We were in 1893 and we still are now. We can make decisions without someone in another city, let alone another country, telling us what we should or shouldn’t do. The partners strongly value that independence.”