hen Law Firm Workarounds Become the Default

A workaround can solve a problem today. But if your law firm keeps relying on it, it may eventually become the system.

Most law firms have systems. Even the ones that do not have a formal operations manual, documented workflow, or clearly defined process still have a way of getting work done. Someone knows who to ask. Someone always approves a certain type of decision. A particular attorney handles something because “they've always handled it.”

A staff member keeps a running list because there is no other reliable place to track the information. Everyone knows that if one person is out, someone else needs to remember to check a particular inbox. None of these arrangements may have been intentionally designed. Yet they still shape how the firm operates. That is the difference between having no system and having a system that was never consciously designed.

In practice, the second situation is much more common.

Workarounds Are Often the Beginning of a System

A workaround usually starts for a reasonable reason. Something does not work as expected, so someone finds another way. A deadline is approaching, so an attorney steps in. A handoff is unclear, so a staff member starts sending reminders. A process is too cumbersome, so someone creates their own shortcut. A decision keeps getting delayed, so the person with the most knowledge simply starts making it.

The workaround solves the immediate problem. The problem is what happens next. If the workaround continues to work well enough, people keep using it. Other people learn to accommodate it. New employees are taught to follow it. Eventually, the workaround stops feeling like a workaround.

It becomes normal. And once something becomes normal, people may stop questioning it. That is how an informal practice can become part of a law firm's operational structure.

Your Firm's "Normal" May Not Be Intentional

Consider a few common examples.

“Just ask Colin.”

Colin may be extremely knowledgeable and helpful. But if everyone knows that certain questions should go to Colin, the firm has created an informal information pathway.

“That attorney always approves those.”

That may reflect appropriate authority. Or it may mean a decision has gradually become concentrated around one person without the firm ever defining why.

“Everyone has their own way of doing it.”

That may give experienced employees flexibility. It may also mean the firm does not have a shared workflow.

“It's in her head.”

Institutional knowledge is valuable. But when a process exists primarily because one person remembers what needs to happen, the firm has created dependency rather than a transferable system.

“We just do it this way.”

This may be the clearest sign of all.

When nobody can explain why a particular process exists, the firm may be operating according to a default rather than a deliberate design. None of these situations automatically means something is wrong. The important question is whether the structure still serves the firm.

A Default Is Still a Decision

One of the most useful distinctions in operational leadership is understanding the difference between a decision and a default.

A decision is something the organization intentionally chooses. A default is a choice the organization continues making because it has become the established way of operating. That distinction matters because defaults can feel invisible. Nobody may have decided that every question should go through the managing partner.

Nobody may have decided that one employee should be responsible for remembering every follow-up. Nobody may have decided that a particular workflow should require three separate approvals. The structure can emerge gradually. But the absence of an intentional decision does not mean the structure has no consequences.

If the same behavior happens repeatedly, it affects capacity, accountability, authority, communication, and ultimately the firm's ability to operate without constant leadership intervention.

The Operational Cost of "The Way We've Always Done It"

Defaults are not inherently bad.

In fact, defaults can be useful. They create consistency and reduce the need to make the same decision repeatedly. The problem occurs when a default remains in place after the circumstances that created it have changed. A firm may have grown from five people to twenty-five, but still rely on an approval process designed for a five-person firm. A managing partner may have originally taken over a particular responsibility because nobody else had the necessary experience. Years later, the responsibility may still sit with them even though the firm has hired people capable of owning it.

A staff member may have created a workaround during a period of growth, and the firm may still be relying on it long after a better workflow could have been established. This is where operational friction begins to accumulate. People spend time asking questions that should already have answers. Leaders continue making decisions that could be delegated. Employees develop individual workarounds. Handoffs require follow-up. Information becomes dependent on individual memory. The firm may continue functioning.

But functioning is not the same as being intentionally structured.

The Goal Isn't to Formalize Everything

Recognizing informal systems does not mean every law firm needs a 200-page operations manual.

That would simply replace one problem with another. Good operational structure is not about documenting every movement a person makes during the workday. It is about making the parts of the business that require consistency, ownership, authority, and accountability clear enough that the firm does not have to rely on constant intervention.

Some processes need documentation. Some decisions need clearly defined authority. Some responsibilities need a named owner.

Some workflows need a shared structure. And some things may be perfectly fine remaining flexible. The work is determining which is which. That requires looking at the firm's current way of operating before deciding what needs to change.

Ask Where the Default Came From

A useful operational exercise is to take something your firm considers “normal” and work backward.

Ask:

How did we start doing this?

Who currently owns it?

Who has the authority to make decisions within it?

What happens when that person is unavailable?

Does everyone understand the process the same way?

Would we design it this way if we were building the firm today?

That last question can be especially revealing.

You may discover that the process is intentional and still makes sense. You may discover that the process needs clarification. Or you may discover that a workaround quietly became part of your firm's operating structure simply because nobody stopped to redesign it. That is not necessarily a failure. It is information. And information gives leadership something to work with.

From Default to Designed

Operational identity is not only about what a law firm says it values. It is also reflected in what the firm repeatedly does. The way decisions move.

The way responsibilities are assigned. The way people communicate. The way problems are escalated. The way work is handed off. The way leaders spend their time.

These patterns create the firm's actual operating environment. Some were deliberately designed. Others evolved in response to circumstances. Most firms have a mixture of both. The goal is not to eliminate every informal practice. It is to become more intentional about recognizing which defaults are helping the firm—and which ones are quietly defining the firm for you.

Because eventually, the way things keep getting done becomes the way the firm operates. The question is whether that operating structure reflects the law firm you are trying to build.

Ready to See What Your Current Structure Is Creating?

If you are a managing partner who feels like too many decisions, follow-ups, approvals, or operational questions still come back to you, the issue may not be that your team needs to “do more.”

The structure may need to be examined first. The Firm Structure Assessment is designed to help identify where leadership dependency, unclear ownership, decision bottlenecks, workflow friction, and accountability gaps are showing up in your firm's current operations.

You do not have to redesign everything at once. You first need to know what is actually there. Start with the structure. Then decide what deserves to change.