Why do British Patent and Trade Mark firms think they’re ‘progressive’?
It is an overused term in 21st century Britain, from the Labour Party to local newsagents and to a large number of patent and trade mark firms – everyone considers themselves ‘progressive’. And I’m not arguing that we’re immune either, I’m sure we’ve used it about ourselves and we have definitely used the term when describing some of our clients in advertising (there’s even a reasonable chance we’ve done this in our last print advertisement). I certainly don’t think the use of the term is illegitimate in every (or even many) case(s) but perhaps we’re not all as progressive as we think we are?
Some firms in the UK have paperless offices, others have files in every nook, cranny and corner, and many fall somewhere in between. It would be difficult to argue (although not necessarily impossible) that being paperless is more efficient than not being and in the sense that a firm is taken advantage of modern technology they are in fact ‘progressive’. But does this mean that the firm itself is progressive? Does this mean that firms that are not paperless are not progressive? Neither is the case in my opinion. Progressiveness I would argue is a state of mind that envelopes the whole firm and its attitude, so being paperless could be a result of a progressive mind-set but equally it could be a tokenistic gesture towards ‘progressiveness’ without an ideological change amongst the partnership. It’s probably important to state that I’m not meaning to imply any criticism of paperless (or paper-full) firms. I’m simply making the broader point that being paperless may be evidence of progressiveness but it’s certainly not a fait accompli.
So why is the term overused? What do firms mean when they use it? If we’re being honest, at times it’s a little lazy; it’s shorthand for expressing something about the firm that we can’t exactly define. But that’s also not to say that all firms that use it are using it lazily. Some firms have a very clear idea of what makes them different, or more modern (if that’s what they mean by progressive) than their competitors. But the term’s overuse in general means that their clear interpretation is in danger of losing some of its impact.
So is this simply a discussion of semantics? Well no, I think firms should both be clearer in what they say about themselves but also perhaps consider why being ‘progressive’ is seen as being positive. Why do both firms and recruiters use it when talking to potential recruits? What is it about being progressive that firms who genuinely are so make a virtue of which enables them to attract candidates? In other words, is there some sort of definition at least of the mind-set of progressiveness that we can broadly agree on?
From my perspective, I think progressiveness in the context of describing a firm is largely about how control is handled. When candidates come to us looking for a more ‘progressive’ firm, more often than not they mean they want more autonomy over their own responsibilities. To use an example, at Fellows and Associates we attend Intellectual Property conferences every year. It’s noticeable that in general, different jurisdictions have different attitudes to who they send. It’s not uncommon at the INTA Annual Meeting to meet relatively junior associates from South and Central American firms as well as from the USA, whereas a great deal of UK firms only send Partners. From my point of view this is myopic. Whilst it might be important to send Partners in certain circumstances, I would argue that giving newer attorneys a broader sense of what the IP community is about earlier in their career can be massively influential and certainly build confidence. In fact, for any new recruitment consultants we hire at Fellows and Associates, we want them to be at a conference as soon as possible – it’s the fastest way of giving them a broad understanding of what the IP sector is. Attorneys who are earlier in their career will forge new relationships that could help them progress through their own firm more rapidly and that will be potentially long lasting. If you are meeting a great deal of your existing contacts it can be difficult to have time for business development at a conference which could be an issue for Partners; less senior staff on the other hand should be more free to meet potential new clients as well as building a useful contact base. And in my experience some of the best business development people at legal conferences are the paralegals but I can’t imagine many UK firms sending their paralegals to the INTA Annual Meeting.
There are plenty of other examples. There are huge differences from firm to firm as to when attorneys can speak to their clients or sign off their work. Some have a great deal of autonomy even before they’re qualified whilst others have no recognisable direct responsibility for their clients until they make Partner. The latter attitude could be detrimental to the firm, as associates have no experience at all of how to develop clients until they are required to do so as a Partner, and yet some of these firms would still describe themselves as ‘progressive’. Having said that it could be that they have a highly nurturing environment ensuring that attorneys know their job very well before the way they interact with clients changes. Could this be progressive too? I think probably not but it may well be a virtue attractive to many candidates and in this case perhaps widening the scope of descriptive adjectives would be a good idea.
Are there dangers associated with over using the term ‘progressive’? Well yes, describing yourself as progressive when you’re not could be problematic when one of your attorneys talks to another from a competing firm and compares notes. Not all attorneys want to work for a ‘progressive’ firm in the way that I have defined it. Some prefer less autonomy, being left to do the work without having to spend time building business and networking. So a firm could be actively putting people off applying to them by mistakenly describing themselves as something they’re probably not.
Perhaps firms who genuinely have a lot to offer in the way they enable their attorneys to have control need to communicate this in a different way? Being progressive is attractive to a great many attorneys in the way that a firm who genuinely is progressive (in the way I have defined it here) means it. But because the term is used so fluidly, it’s important for firms to demonstrate what they mean by it to both their clients and applicants and to be aware of what their competitors are doing. Being progressive today may not be progressive at all tomorrow. You can’t stop progress but you may not realise when it’s happening to you or when it isn’t.
Written by Pete Fellows, Managing Director of Fellows and Associates. Article taken from that origionally published on LinkedIn Pulse.