Moderated by executive coach Ronald Given, with executive coach Lane Vanderslice as guest speaker, the live session formed part of Platforum9’s ongoing coaching series—building on previous summaries available on the platform—and closed with a preview of the next live discussion on 17 February (16:00 Vienna time) with senior partners from Wolf Theiss, focused on coaching from the coachee’s perspective..

The Core Problem: “I delegate… and it comes back wrong.”

Vanderslice framed a common coaching pattern: senior lawyers feel overloaded, yet hesitate to delegate because (a) delegation “takes too much time” or (b) the returned work product disappoints—leading them to redo the work themselves. He linked this directly to time management: leadership and business development often stall not from lack of intent, but from an unmanaged plate and inefficient workflow.

Delegation as a Rhythm, Not a Handoff

Vanderslice challenged the idea that delegation is a clean transfer of work. In most matters, especially with junior lawyers, it is better treated as a collaborative workstream: the junior does production; the senior provides direction, context, supervision, and rapid clarification. The goal is to create a predictable communication channel and cadence.

He identified two common delegation failure modes:

• The minimalist handoff: a thin email with “call me if you have questions”. It saves minutes upfront, but tends to create confusion, hidden assumptions, and poor outcomes.
• The maximalist handoff: the senior tries to pre-empt every question, overloading the junior with detail and still not guaranteeing clarity.

His practical “middle way” was a five-minute handoff that covers: purpose, key facts, timeline, and the desired work product. Then—crucially—replace “call me if you have any questions” with a more honest contract: you will have questions, so let’s schedule when we’ll answer them (an hour later, tomorrow, next week—whatever fits). That normalises curiosity and reduces anxiety for junior lawyers, while also protecting the senior’s diary by batching questions into a defined slot.

Time Management: Weekly Planning to Stop “whack-a-mole.”

Vanderslice described legal work—particularly in firms—as a constant “whack-a-mole” environment: multiple bosses (clients, partners, stakeholders), none coordinating priorities, and urgent requests crowding out strategic work.

His most consistent intervention in coaching is weekly planning: a deliberate moment (often Friday afternoon) to map the week ahead and decide how to “land the planes”. He stressed that it must be:

• Written down, not held in your head
• Built with white space, because the plan will change
• More than a to-do list: it is a sequencing exercise across competing matters.

A key consequence: without weekly planning, delegation happens too late, shrinking turnaround time, raising stress, and preventing the iteration juniors need to learn and deliver quality.

He also surfaced the urgent vs important distinction (after Covey) as not just personal discipline, but a leadership language tool: seniors need to communicate urgency and importance explicitly, rather than defaulting to “everything is urgent”.

Feedback: Clear on Issues, Respectful to People

On feedback, Vanderslice noted a frequent resistance to developmental conversations in legal cultures—often expressed as reluctance to “mark someone down”. His framework borrows from negotiation theory: be clear on the issue and respectful to the person (facts/actions rather than character judgements).

Two techniques he emphasised:

1. Start with inquiry, not critique. Ask: What was hard? Where did you struggle? Where should I focus? This surfaces the real blockage and can be a time-saver: the junior often knows what went wrong and is ready to fix it.
2. Use forward-looking language. Move from “here’s what you did wrong” to “here’s what I need next time”. This shifts the interaction from grading to teaching and is easier to give and easier to receive.

Audience Discussion: Developing Delegators and Managing Access

During the Q&A segment, Kara Irwin asked about how lawyers are supported when transitioning into delegation and supervision roles. Vanderslice described provision as uneven by firm, often skewing towards one-off training rather than in-line teaching. He added a provocative counterpoint: delegation training may be more effective for senior lawyers than mid-levels, because true delegation requires “seeing around corners” that juniors may not yet be able to do reliably.

Jasmine Karimi, a global legal executive with 20+ years advising Boards and senior leaders across Asia, Europe, and North America:

• In-house teams can swing too far towards access; if juniors can message constantly, “I’ve got a minute” becomes a crutch and encourages over-checking.
• In parts of Asia, hierarchy and deference can suppress questions initially—until the culture shifts and the “floodgates” open.

Vanderslice’s response offered two small, high-leverage tactics:

• Ask juniors to answer first: “What do you think?” (problems plus a proposed solution, not problems alone).
• Calibrate uncertainty: “Are you 10% uncertain or 90% uncertain?”—a fast way to decide whether they need reassurance or deeper guidance.

Practical Takeaways to try this Week

• Replace “call me if you have questions” with “you will have questions—let’s book 15 minutes tomorrow”.
• Use a five-minute handoff: purpose, facts, timeline, output—then schedule the questions slot.
• In feedback, begin with “what was hard?” and end with “here’s what good looks like next time”.
• When juniors seek approval, ask “What do you think?” and “10% or 90% uncertain?” before you answer.