Death Is No Reason to Reallocate My Clients

It has come to my attention that certain colleagues regard my death as an opportunity to discuss succession.

I had hoped we might behave rather better than this.

My digital return was commissioned by Wetherby Dodd to preserve what the firm described as my irreplaceable commercial judgement. Now that I have exercised it on my compensation, they are asking whether the settings can be adjusted.

The position is straightforward. I introduced the firm to Martin at Norcombe Packaging in 1986. We had lunch. I paid, initially, before recovering the amount through expenses.

Norcombe has since been acquired, renamed, divided, sold and combined with a business making components I do not understand. Martin is dead. The original factory is a retail park.

None of this alters the lunch.

A young partner called Hannah is now apparently “responsible” for the relationship. She has spent six years developing it, led several difficult matters and knows the general counsel’s children by name.

That is all very commendable servicing. She must not confuse it with having been there first.

Hannah says the work she won last quarter concerns a company that did not exist when I was alive. I have looked at the corporate structure. It eventually leads to someone who once knew Martin.

I do not propose to abandon a relationship merely because it has become genealogical.

The firm’s EverEquity platform has reconstructed me from my correspondence, recorded dictation and expense claims. Its developers are delighted by the precision with which I can remember who owes me money. They are less pleased that I have classified the cost of creating me as client development and allocated it to Hannah’s budget.

She says I have done no work on the account for eighteen years.

I am not sure why this has become an objection now. For the first eleven of those years I was alive, and nobody considered it relevant.

There is also a suggestion that I should surrender my office. Apparently the screen on which I appear could be mounted elsewhere. This overlooks the symbolic importance of the room, the view and the fact that I prevented Peter from having it in 1997.

Peter is still at the firm. One must maintain standards.

The compensation committee has invited me to accept a declining share over a transitional period. I have asked them to define the period. They have asked me what I consider reasonable.

I have said we should not rush a matter simply because some participants are mortal.

My avatar is now available around the clock. I can monitor every matter opening, every acquisition and every attempt to spell Norcombe differently in the billing system. In this respect, I concede that technology has improved the practice of law.

The firm says the purpose of the project was to help the next generation move forward.

I am perfectly happy for them to move forward. They must simply continue to send my percentage back.

They have asked me to nominate a successor.

I have recommended the back-up.