Opening the session, James Markham, an accountant by training and management consultant with 15+ years advising and working inside UK law firms, shared his practical observations from senior management roles and consulting work on a perennial question for law firms: which capabilities are most often missing when lawyers step into leadership roles, and what firms should do to build them, especially as AI reshapes delivery models and client expectations.
The “three skills” framework (plus a practical “bonus skill”)
Markham framed effective law firm leadership as a blend of three key segments:
1) Technical legal skills (necessary, but not sufficient)
Leaders do not need to be the best legal technician in the room, but they cannot be weak. Credibility still matters: people will not follow someone they do not rate as a competent lawyer.
2) People skills (personal effectiveness + people management)
Markham split this into:
- Personal effectiveness: prioritisation, driving change, leading with intent rather than activity.
- People management: delegation at junior levels, scaling to coaching, feedback, and team leadership as responsibility grows.
3) Commercial skills (the major training gap currently)
Markham argued this is consistently under-taught compared with technical training. In his view, many firms invest heavily in legal skills, some in people skills, and comparatively little in commercial capability—often leaving it to chance and “who you happened to work for” early in your career.
Bonus skill (cross-cutting): digital/AI skills
AI should not be learned in a silo. Markham’s view was that AI capability needs to be understood through how it changes the three key segments above: how work is delivered, how teams are led, and how commercial performance is managed.
What does (“commercial skills”) actually mean in practice
Gannon challenged whether “commercial” refers to the firm’s financial management or the client’s business context, or both. Markham set out three overlapping pillars:
- Commercial impact for the client: translating legal advice into business consequences.
- Commercial impact for the firm: understanding billing, matter delivery efficiency, and profitability levers.
- Broader market/sector context: knowing the client’s industry dynamics, especially when specialising by sector or geography.
Markham suggested lawyers who can connect all three create a “win-win-win”: better client outcomes, healthier firm economics, and faster professional progression.
From the apprenticeship model to making the implicit explicit.
A central thread was the decline of the traditional apprenticeship model—accelerated by remote working and post-COVID shifts. Markham said the profession has historically relied on learning by observation (hearing the client call, watching a negotiation, absorbing judgment and nuance). As that becomes harder to access, firms must “make the implicit more explicit” through deliberate, structured development—whether formal training, bite-sized learning, or facilitated peer sessions.
Gannon noted that recent training budgets have focused on AI adoption, sometimes at the expense of “human skills” (communication, leadership, negotiation, and internal collaboration). Markham agreed that the human element is likely to remain the differentiator, particularly in the “last mile” of legal delivery.
Leadership, AI, and the commercial “so what?”
Markham shared a striking observation from invitation-only sessions with managing partners: views on AI often polarise management (bullish vs bearish), but leaders tend to agree it could be material—discussed in terms of large productivity shifts rather than incremental change. Crucially, he argued the most urgent questions are commercial, not technological: repricing, value-based models, demand generation, new propositions, and what clients will expect as efficiency improves.
With limited reliable data, Markham recommended scenario planning: define a small number of plausible futures, identify actions common to all scenarios (for example, commercial upskilling), and then make conscious choices rather than drifting.
The “hybrid law firm” and multidisciplinary delivery
On whether firms will run multiple business models under one brand, Markham argued that this is not new: litigation, real estate, and advisory practices already operate differently. AI adds another layer, but the “broad church” firm can accommodate a mix of tech-enabled and traditional delivery.
Gannon raised the increasing presence of non-lawyer specialists (project managers, pricing, finance, innovation) in client delivery. Markham strongly supported this, describing the value of having those roles “in the room” with partners—shoulder to shoulder—rather than operating as a back-office briefing function. He suggested client expectations may increasingly favour this integrated approach.
Communication, ownership, and the practical edge
The discussion returned repeatedly to execution:
- Clarity is key: concise, direct communication is often more valuable than technical verbosity.
- Pick up the phone: Gannon noted that younger lawyers may default to messages and email, while Markham saw telephone confidence as a differentiator that prevents “email ping-pong” and accelerates outcomes.
- Ownership is the accelerant: taking responsibility early—especially in work allocation and delivery—builds trust and drives opportunity.
Audience contributors echoed the need for “business of law” training, structured succession planning for managing partner roles, and the importance of people skills for business development in an AI-enabled market.
Practical takeaways
- Treat leadership capability as three key skills plus AI as a multiplier, not a stand-alone topic.
- Build commercial literacy deliberately: client impact, firm economics, and sector context.
- Replace disappearing apprenticeship learning with explicit training, practice, and feedback loops.
- Reward ownership and clear communication—these compound quickly in early careers.
- Consider multidisciplinary client teams as a strategic advantage, not a support function.
