JD Bliss (JDB): Your blog “Adam Smith, Esq.”(www.AdamSmithEsq.com/blog) has positioned you as a thought leader with respect to economic and management issues for large law firms. Can you with us what initially led you to the law and did you find practice satisfying?
MacEwen: When I went to law school at Stanford, it was with the thought that I would end up in business heading my own company. At that time, in the late 70s, an MBA was neither as intensive nor as highly regarded as a law degree, and I wanted to be immersed in rigorous, analytical training. I thoroughly enjoyed law school – it was as satisfying as any time in my life. Because of that I decided to put my business goals on hold and joined the litigation practice of a large New York firm (Breed, Abbott & Morgan, which no longer exists). It was quickly apparent to me that I was not cut out to be a litigator. I didn’t enjoy the thrust and parry, and at a philosophical level my economics (my major in college) made me uncomfortable with litigation: It’s a zero sum game in which no one truly wins.
JDB: Did you leave practice at that point?
MacEwen: No, to make sure I was giving the law a fair shake I went to a second firm (Shea & Gould, which also no longer exists) where I was able to combine litigation and corporate practices, using the help of a friend to overcome the firm’s reluctance at such an unorthodox step. Intellectually, I gravitated to securities law, where the premise seemed to be that you could do just about anything so long as you disclose it. In 1986, my securities experience shaped my decision to go in-house at what is now Morgan Stanley Dean Witter as a member of their 250-person legal staff.
JDB: Based on your experience at Morgan Stanley, how would you contrast the worlds of investment banking and the law in terms of the personal satisfaction they offer?
MacEwen: Both are extremely demanding—even all-consuming. An investment banker or lawyer at a large firm who doesn’t love what they’re doing is going to burn out fairly quickly. As for me, I quickly learned that my real passion was for the organization and management of the department. I had the ear of the general counsel, who gave me free reign to design and implement a new computerized matter tracking system, first for the department and then for the Discover Card division. I saw how management and technology can combine to enhance the practice of law, and learned that I had a knack for making projects like this happen.
JDB: Was that the foundation for your decision to start a dot.com company that focused on applications to the law?
MacEwen: That, plus the fact that I had been at the investment firm 10 years and was ready for a new challenge, and also by this time in the latter 90s the dot.com boom was accelerating. My venture aimed to bring together AmLaw 200 law firms and Fortune 500 clients through an online portal. It was an expensive site to build because it needed to be robust and dynamic. We weren’t able to get the full funding we needed before all the Internet funding dried up in 2000. At that point I had lost all desire to practice law, but I had found and confirmed my passion for bringing professionalism to the economics and management of large law firms. I decided to start an economic consulting firm focused on this passion, and I maintain that business today.
JDB: How did your passions for economics, technology and the law lead to the startup of your blog – and why did you call it “Adam Smith, Esq.”?
MacEwen: I conceived the idea of doing a blog late in 2003 and launched it in January 2004. At first I was a stealth blogger, because I wasn’t sure I would like it and wanted to be certain I could meet the time and content demands. I was convinced that blogs had potential as a medium, but I saw no blogs with the analytical content I wanted to have regarding law firm economics. The name for the blog goes back to Adam Smith, the Scottish economist and intellectual founder of capitalism, and the fact that to this day anyone, like me, who is dedicated to economic efficiency is dependent on Adam Smith’s analyses. To me the name “Adam Smith, Esq.” combined the themes of law and economics concisely, and I’m glad I wasn’t dissuaded by friends who insisted that people wouldn’t get the name.
JDB: With over 90,000 visits per month and membership in American Lawyer Media’s “Legal Blog Network,” you’ve certainly established your success. What have been the benefits of blogging so far as your personal satisfaction?
MacEwen: In addition to the compelling professional and emotional benefits I’ve gained from virtual and personal contacts literally around the world, the blog has given me two completely unanticipated benefits. First, it disciplined me to read the material I should read anyway, in order to make meaningful and frequent posts. Second, the process helped make me a more critical thinker, because I don’t post casual or undocumented thoughts and observations. My goal is to be analytical and to try to anticipate how people and firms will react to new developments in ways that may be surprising and counter-intuitive; in a recent post explaining this approach, I used the example of how the spread of airbag installation in cars hasn’t really lowered the accident rate because the airbags give drivers a false sense of security. I simply couldn’t do my consulting without the thought process and the connections that the blog provides. For example, a recent post I did on eat-what-you-kill versus lockstep compensation – suggesting that the former works better for firms in an expansion mode while the latter better serves established firms with institutional clients – got me a personal meeting with the managing partner of a Magic Circle firm that had been grappling with these issues. That meeting wouldn’t have happened without my blog.
JDB: Your mention of compensation raises the general issue of personal satisfaction in the legal profession. From the perspective of your blog and the responses you receive from other lawyers, how would you assess that degree of satisfaction today?
MacEwen: I hear from a lot of dissatisfied lawyers, but they are associates, not partners. The associates are cynical, with a prevalent attitude of, “This is a dysfunctional system, and it’s not my fault.” My view is, if you’re that dissatisfied, you should leave your practice. I don’t believe that the large firms on which I focus are fundamentally dysfunctional. Firms don’t want to make life miserable for associates. But client expectations are non-negotiable, and the expectations that clients have for these large firms and their attorneys are immense. That creates the pressures that lead to dissatisfaction.
JDB: Do you see any solutions to that dilemma?
MacEwen: I’m an evangelist these days for client service teams, or CSTs. CSTs simply involve getting the right group of lawyers together to deal with matter X now. A biotech/ pharmaceutical client may have a need that requires attorneys with a focus on IP, health care, FDA regulation and securities law. CSTs bring lawyers together to collaborate on solutions, in a process that’s better for the lawyers and better for the clients. Nothing in law school prepares you for the notion of collaboration, but I believe CSTs will become a major vehicle for personal and professional satisfaction within the profession. But at the end of the day firms that don’t believe in their heart of hearts that associates are the future of the firm may not always be pleasant places to work.
JDB: How would you assess your own current personal satisfaction with consulting and blogging?
MacEwen: The most satisfying thing for me is to bring new ideas or clarified ideas to a client and see the light go on for them. As a consultant you want to have an impact, but often you can only see that over time. You don’t directly build a team of people like a manager does, you build a team of ideas, and when these ideas produce positive change it’s very gratifying. Right now I feel I’m at the intersection of many exciting ideas in business and the law that will help shape the future, and I want to continue making that kind of contribution.
JDB: You mentioned earlier that attorneys who are dissatisfied in practice should leave it. What’s your advice on the thought process such a step requires?
MacEwen: I think everyone has to find their passion. Before I decided that improving the economics and the management of large law firms was the reason I was put on earth, I struggled for a time. Such a struggle leads to internal conflict and dissatisfaction, and it doesn’t have to be that way. Never forget that if you’re not passionate about what you’re doing in your firm, someone down the hall is and they’ll do it better than you—not to be oblique about it, they’re going to “win.”. Once you decide what you’re passionate about, the stars will align, you’ll know where you’re going, and you’ll be open to taking advantage of the new opportunities you see.
