Trust Should Be the Default, Not the Reward
I believe in trusting people.
Not after they've worked for me for five years.
Not after they've proven they can handle every possible situation.
Not after they've earned some arbitrary level of seniority.
From the beginning.
My philosophy is pretty simple:
Hire adults. Treat them like adults. Hold them accountable like adults.
That doesn't mean giving people unlimited freedom with no expectations.
It doesn't mean ignoring performance issues.
And it certainly doesn't mean avoiding accountability.
It means hiring carefully, setting clear expectations, measuring results—and then trusting people to do the jobs you hired them to do.
Because if trust only comes after years of proving yourself, what you're really starting with is distrust.
And that's a difficult foundation on which to build a great culture.
Trust and Accountability Are Not Opposites
One of the biggest misconceptions I see in law firms is the idea that trust means lowering standards.
It doesn't.
In fact, I think high-trust cultures should have incredibly high standards.
People should know:
what's expected of them
what success looks like
what they own
how performance is measured
what happens when expectations aren't met
Then give them the autonomy to deliver.
That's not a lack of accountability.
That's accountability without micromanagement.
Professionals Should Be Treated Like Professionals
Law firms employ highly educated, highly skilled people.
Attorneys.
Paralegals.
Legal assistants.
Administrators.
These are professionals who are trusted with:
confidential information
client relationships
significant financial matters
complex legal work
critical deadlines
Yet sometimes the same organizations that trust these employees with enormously important responsibilities don't trust them to decide whether they can work from home on a Tuesday.
There's a disconnect there.
If someone is capable of managing a multimillion-dollar client matter, they should probably be capable of exercising reasonable judgment about their workday.
Flexibility Doesn't Mean Lower Expectations
This comes up constantly in conversations about remote and hybrid work.
Some leaders worry:
"How do I know they're working if I can't see them?"
My response is usually:
How do you know they're working when you can see them?
Physical presence is not performance.
Someone can sit at a desk for eight hours and accomplish very little.
Someone else can work remotely and be one of the highest performers in the organization.
The question shouldn't be:
"Can I see them?"
The question should be:
"Are they delivering?"
That's where strong performance management becomes essential.
Measure Results, Not Visibility
If you're going to create a high-trust culture, you need good data.
That means understanding things like:
utilization
productivity
responsiveness
client satisfaction
deadlines
quality of work
profitability
When expectations and metrics are clear, flexibility becomes much easier to manage.
You don't need to guess whether someone is performing.
You know.
This is one of the reasons I place such a heavy emphasis on reporting when I work with law firms.
Data doesn't just help you make better financial decisions.
It allows you to lead with more trust.
One Person Abuses the Privilege. Now What?
This is where many firms get into trouble.
Leadership creates a flexible policy.
Most employees handle it responsibly.
Then one person doesn't.
Maybe they abuse PTO.
Maybe they're consistently unavailable while working remotely.
Maybe deadlines start slipping.
Leadership's first instinct is often to reconsider the entire policy.
Suddenly everyone is back in the office.
PTO becomes more restrictive.
Schedules become rigid.
Approvals multiply.
I think that's usually the wrong response.
Manage the Person, Not the Privilege
If one person abuses flexibility, address the person.
If one employee isn't productive remotely, address their performance.
If someone can't exercise reasonable judgment around PTO, address the behavior.
Don't automatically take something away from the rest of the team because one person couldn't handle it.
That's not accountability.
It's collective punishment.
And your best employees notice.
Your Highest Performers Usually Need the Least Oversight
The irony of overly restrictive policies is that they often frustrate the people you most want to retain.
High performers typically don't need someone watching them every minute.
They need:
clear goals
the right resources
meaningful feedback
autonomy
They want to be trusted.
And because they're high performers, they usually have options.
If your culture communicates:
"We don't trust you unless we're watching you,"
another firm may be perfectly happy to offer something different.
Trust Is a Recruiting Strategy
The legal talent market has changed.
Top candidates increasingly evaluate more than compensation.
They're looking at:
flexibility
autonomy
leadership
technology
career development
culture
A high-trust environment can be a significant competitive advantage.
Especially for firms that can't—or don't want to—win every recruiting battle by simply offering the highest salary.
Sometimes the employment experience is the differentiator.
Trust Has to Go Both Ways
Of course, trust is reciprocal.
Employees who are given autonomy have a responsibility to use it appropriately.
That means:
being responsive
meeting deadlines
communicating
maintaining quality
delivering results
Trust doesn't mean there are no consequences.
If someone repeatedly violates that trust, leadership should address it.
Directly.
That's where accountability comes in.
Don't Confuse Trust With Avoidance
There's an important distinction here.
A high-trust culture is not a culture where anything goes.
I've seen leaders say they "trust their people" when what they actually mean is they don't want to manage them.
Those aren't the same thing.
Trust requires clear expectations.
It requires visibility.
It requires feedback.
And sometimes, it requires difficult conversations.
You can trust someone and still hold them accountable.
In fact, you should.
Hire Carefully. Then Trust Your Decision.
Ultimately, this philosophy starts with hiring.
If you don't trust someone to exercise professional judgment, why did you hire them?
If an employee requires a detailed policy for every possible situation...
If they need constant oversight...
If they can't be trusted with flexibility...
Then you may not have a policy problem.
You may have a people problem.
Strong hiring creates the foundation for high-trust cultures.
Hire carefully.
Then trust your decision.
The Real Question
Instead of asking:
"Has this employee earned our trust?"
Try asking:
"Have they done something to lose it?"
Those questions create very different cultures.
One starts from suspicion.
The other starts from trust.
I know which one I'd rather work in.
And I know which one most high performers would choose, too.
Trust Should Be the Starting Point
Trust isn't something employees should have to earn through years of compliance.
It should be the starting point.
Hire good people.
Set clear expectations.
Measure results.
Give them autonomy.
Then hold them accountable when they don't meet the standard.
It's really that simple.
Hire adults. Treat them like adults. Hold them accountable like adults.
That's not just a nice philosophy.
I believe it's one of the foundations of a high-performing law firm.
If your law firm is trying to create a culture that attracts and retains high-performing professionals, more policies and oversight may not be the answer.
I help law firms build operational structures that combine trust with accountability—giving talented people the autonomy to perform while giving leadership the visibility needed to manage the business effectively.