In this session, Ronald Given (Moderator), Nikolaus Paul (Partner, Finance, Wolf Theiss), and Erik Steger (Partner, Real Estate, Wolf Theiss) explored coaching from the perspective of the coachee and the firm. The discussion formed part of Platforum9’s broader coaching series, shifting focus from theory to lived experience inside a leading Central European law firm.
Both Paul and Steger shared candid reflections on their personal journeys with coaching, the cultural barriers within the legal profession, and how structured coaching can shape leadership, performance, and firm culture.
The Lawyer’s Mindset
A Structural Barrier
Steger reflected on his initial scepticism towards coaching. Like many lawyers, he approached it cautiously, conditioned by a professional training that prioritises analytical detachment. Lawyers are taught to separate emotion from judgment, to provide answers rather than explore uncertainty. This mindset, while essential for legal practice, can create resistance to coaching.
He observed that coaching differs fundamentally from legal advisory work. A good coach does not prescribe solutions; instead, they create the conditions for self-discovery. For lawyers accustomed to being the expert in the room, this shift can be uncomfortable.
Paul echoed this view, noting that lawyers may perceive coaching as signalling weakness. However, he emphasised that coaching is not remedial; it is developmental. It broadens perspective and enhances performance rather than correcting deficiencies.
Coaching as Personal Investment
Paul’s first experience with coaching came during preparation for a partnership. The firm offered coaching support as part of the process. He later sought coaching independently, particularly around stress management.
For Paul, effectiveness depends heavily on credibility. Coaches who understand how law firms operate, transactional pressure, client demands, and commercial realities are more readily accepted. Generic advice such as “just say no” does not resonate in the context of live transactions.
Steger described three distinct uses of coaching in his own career:
- Situational coaching during periods of uncertainty in leadership roles
- Formal coach training as a developmental investment in himself
- Using a coach as a sparring partner before difficult conversations
Both partners agreed that coaching need not be continuous. It can be episodic, project-based, or aligned with specific career phases.
Should Younger Lawyers Seek Coaching?
Both speakers were clear: earlier exposure would have been beneficial.
Paul encouraged junior lawyers to consider coaching proactively, rather than waiting for firm-sponsored opportunities. He acknowledged that cultural perceptions may deter younger professionals, but emphasised that the benefits outweigh the hesitation.
Steger drew a simple comparison: professionals seek medical advice for physical issues without stigma; mental or behavioural development should be treated similarly. Leadership challenges begin early, often before lawyers feel fully equipped to manage them. Coaching provides a confidential space to navigate those transitions.
Cultural Context
Central and Eastern Europe
The discussion turned to regional differences. Both partners observed that coaching is generally more established in the United States and Western Europe. In Central and Eastern Europe, uptake has historically been slower.
Two factors were identified:
- Cultural hesitation around discussing weaknesses
- Sensitivity around confidentiality
Given the historical context in parts of the region, assurance of strict confidentiality is essential. Coaching must be clearly positioned as private and separate from firm evaluation processes.
Terminology also matters. Framing coaching as performance enhancement rather than corrective intervention increases acceptance.
The Firm’s Role
Structure, Safeguards, and Signal
Wolf Theiss has institutionalised coaching at specific career milestones, particularly around partnership. The firm maintains a curated list of coaches with appropriate training and, importantly, familiarity with law firm environments.
Key structural elements include:
- The coachee selects the coach
- The firm funds the engagement
- Objectives are agreed solely between coach and coachee
- No substantive feedback is shared with the firm
- Confidentiality is formally documented
Participation is voluntary. Some lawyers decline, which both partners described as a missed opportunity but not a requirement.
The broader strategic rationale is clear: leadership quality drives talent retention. In a competitive market, firms that invest in developing leaders will outperform those that rely solely on technical excellence.
From Remedial to Strategic
The conversation concluded with a shift in framing. Coaching should not be seen as a corrective tool, but as an investment in future leadership. As Paul noted, coaching sits alongside legal training and wellbeing initiatives as part of a broader development ecosystem.
Steger reinforced that few are natural-born leaders. Structured development is essential, particularly in an environment defined by the “war for talent”. Firms that embed coaching into career pathways strengthen both performance and culture.
The message was consistent: coaching is not about fixing weaknesses, it is about unlocking capability.
