The 2026 Blickstein Group law firm COO survey recently came out, and it has some startling, interesting, and downright disheartening results. The survey, in its fifth year, was of 213 chief operating officers (COOs) or those with similar roles at North American law firms. Although the survey doesn’t mention it, I would guess that most of those firms were larger ones, since mostly only larger firms would likely have a COO in any event.
What COOs Are Saying Is Important
Why is the survey important? I think it offers a somewhat unique look into what is really going on in these larger law firms. Most surveys of this ilk obtain responses from lawyers — partners and associates — in law firms. The Blickstein survey, on the other hand, is of those individuals who are not lawyers but who are charged with operating the business end of the firm. No doubt, they view the firm’s decision-making structure, and their partners, more candidly and are perhaps less tied to romantic and traditional notions of what law firms are like.
The Findings
So here is what the survey of these clear-eyed businesspeople reveals. There’s a gap between the way businesspeople think and the way lawyers who think that they are businesspeople think. For example, COOs say the biggest constraint to growing profitability in their law firm is talent capacity and that talent recruitment and retention is the biggest operational challenge facing the firm. But most COOs believe the biggest initiative for their law firms in the coming year is not talent acquisition and retention but technology investment and adoption.
Not surprisingly, most of the respondents (63%) still expect the headcounts in their firms to stay the same in the coming year. If you need more talent, you ought to be planning on getting more, not treading water.
When it comes to technology investment and adoption, get this: When asked how their firms were measuring AI-related efficiency, 66% replied that their firm was not formally documenting AI efficiency gains. That’s a business decision for you: pay a bunch of money for technology but don’t measure its effectiveness or impact.
As the report puts it, “Because few are formally documenting efficiency gains, the expected benefits (increased capacity without additional added headcount, greater lawyer productivity, faster matter completion, and reduced administrative hours) remain beliefs. But belief and documentation are not the same thing.”
While we’re on AI, another startling finding: 69% of the firms are using both legal-specific and general AI tools. That would suggest that many firms are allowing use of general AI tools which is, in and of itself, scary. I can only wonder what the firm policies relating to AI use at almost 70% of those firms are. That’s poor governance any way you look at it.
Add it all up and you can’t help but conclude there’s a lack of clear-cut strategy and thinking. Indeed, 15% actually identified the lack of strategic consensus as the biggest constraint to profitability, and 28% said the same lack of consensus was the biggest obstacle to implementing change.
But Why?
It might be tempting to conclude that the COOs aren’t doing a very good job. We are talking about pretty smart people here, right? COOs typically have advanced degrees in business administration, ample experience, and are familiar with the law firm business. Yet there seems to be a gap between what they see needs to be done and the direction of the law firm. Why? The short answer (and this is me talking) is the COOs ain’t driving the boat.
When asked, 38% of the COO respondents say the first structural issue they could fix if they only had one would be the elimination of practice silos. Twenty-seven percent cited a lack of operational authority. When asked what the biggest internal obstacle to implementing change was, again almost 28% said a lack of strategic consensus, and 22% cited the partners as a group. The survey report concludes, “The COO’s standing has grown, but execution still depends on alignment among partners, leadership, and budget owners.” Yep, that hasn’t changed much since I was in a law firm.
Begging The Question
But that begs the question why what the COOs say needs to be done isn’t getting done. I think it’s because in most law firms, the COOs, those charged with operating the business, are still considered second-class citizens. The partners own the firm. They bring in the revenue, and they divide up the spoils among themselves at the end of the year.
The COOs? They’re often viewed as an expense that doesn’t directly produce revenue. But, you say, if their recommendations were followed, the firm would make more money. True enough. But how do most partners measure profitability measured in most law firms? Through the lens of the almighty billable hour. COOs don’t bill hours.
But more than that, the view of most partners, consciously or subconsciously is that COOs work for them and, therefore, can be told what to do, ignored, or shut out from most big decisions. Thus, when the COOs talk about practice silos, what they’re really talking about is that in many firms, a partner with a big book of business controls a practice group and dictates what that group will or will not do. That’s also what the COOs are talking about when they refer to a lack of strategic consensus. The partners might consider what the COO says, but the COO is relatively powerless to implement change.
This is, of course, driven by ethical rules that prevent nonlawyer ownership in a law firm. By definition, a COO will never rise to the ranks of an owner. Throw in lawyer hubris (only we know best) and the COO has less clout and status than the equity partners.
And Then There’s The Money
We also see this in compensation. According to the survey, the median base salary of COOs at law firms is $227,000. The average was $359,354. While there are no exact figures on the average and median compensation to equity partners in Am Law 200 firms or elsewhere, the profit per equity partner is revealing. According to reports, the profit per equity partner in Am Law 100 firms last year was $3.59 million. Profit per equity partner in Am Law 200 firms was $1.21 million.
While that’s a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, it is clear that, based on the profit per equity partner, compensation of those partners likely exceeds, and exceeds significantly, what they are paying their COOs. That discrepancy again reinforces the COO status.
In normal businesses, the COO would have the status of second only to perhaps the chief executive officer, who, of course, reports to a board of directors, all of whom have substantial business experience. In a law firm, however, there is no such equality or experience. Partners with the greatest clout and power are often those with the biggest group of business.
In today’s times, when a partner can pack up and change law firms at a moment’s notice, that clout is even greater as firms struggle to ensure that the biggest rainmaker is happy and stays. So you get little fiefdoms of powerful partners who won’t change and can’t be made to change, not by law firm management and certainly not by a nonlawyer, nonowner COO.
The More Things Change …
It’s no secret that many law firms are not run like great businesses. The irony of it all is that they are bringing in people who are adept at running businesses but then not listening to those adepts. And that is reflected in the mismatch between a need for a greater talent while investing heavily in technology. It’s reflected in a lack of calculation and measurement of the return on the investment in technology. It’s reflected in a lack of strategic planning. It’s reflected in a lack of governance of AI and its use in law firms. All of these things, COOs, businesspeople, could resolve if only they had the chance.
And that hasn’t changed much.
Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.
The post The Blickstein Group Law Firm COO Survey: The More Things Change, The More Some Things Stay The Same appeared first on Above the Law.