Why Do Lawyers Micromanage, Even When Knowing It Is Unhelpful?
Why Do Lawyers Micromanage, Even When They Know It Is Unhelpful?
Lawyers may micromanage, despite best intentions, for several different reasons. These can include feeling under pressure, feeling ultimately responsible, perfectionism, difficulty trusting other people’s judgement, thoughts of being an imposter, wanting to protect the team, or being overloaded. Often, more than one reason is involved. Understanding what is driving the behaviour matters because the most helpful response will differ accordingly to learn how to stop micromanaging.
When Does Supervision Become Micromanagement?
Good supervision matters. Teams need support, structure and feedback.
The difficulty is recognising when you stay overly involved in work that no longer needs your level of input.
You might notice it through:
- repeatedly checking progress or asking for updates
- approving routine decisions
- rewriting work that already meets the brief
- wanting oversight of communications that someone else is responsible for
- tackling the task or responding before letting the other person complete it
- struggling to allow someone to approach a task differently from how you would
The Wider Impact, Even Without the Intention to Micromanage
The individual’s intention is rarely to micromanage, but when it does happen, the impact can be much wider than people realise.
Senior lawyers may stay overloaded with work because they remain involved in too much. They also become the bottleneck for work and decision making, leading to limited productivity for the team, and further adding to their workload. At the same time, team members can become less confident and proactive, become demotivated, have a reduced drive to make decisions, become more hesitant, and become increasingly dependent on approval.
Ironically, the more control we hold onto, the more work and pressure we often create for ourselves. We often want to change but may struggle to do so sustainably.
Why Awareness Alone Does Not Change the Pattern
Many are already aware that they are over checking work, struggling to delegate, or staying too involved in tasks their team could probably manage on their own. They often recognise that it is creating pressure for everyone, including them.
They notice having more interruptions and being the bottleneck to work being completed in an efficient and timely manner.
Yet despite that awareness and their good intentions to reduce it, the pattern continues.
It is understandable. There are different reasons why people may continue to micromanage, and this may be generally, or only with certain types of tasks or work. People often focus on delegation skills without considering why they might be uncomfortable with delegating in the first place.
Letting go of control does not feel straightforward. In a profession where mistakes can carry significant consequences, stepping back can feel uncomfortable and risky. There can also be other influences. Below are some factors that can influence that behaviour. Some may be relevant to you, some not.
The Weight of Responsibility in a Law Firm
When you practise law, there is, of course, a strong sense of responsibility sitting behind everything you do.
Client expectations, reputational concerns, regulatory pressure and the possibility of things going wrong can make it difficult to step back when reviewing other people’s work or letting them run a case themselves. Under pressure, many lawyers may become more controlling because it feels safer in the moment.
A useful initial test is to name the specific fear driving the reluctance to step back on this task or with this person. What exactly do you think will happen if you release a small piece of control here? Choose one lower-risk piece of it to hand over fully, then watch what happens rather than what you predicted. This gives you real evidence for how much oversight this type of task needs, rather than the amount that feels safe under pressure. Further options are covered below.
Carrying the Consequences as a Partner
As a partner or firm owner, you may take the view that ultimately everything comes back to you if something goes wrong. Some of that concern may be realistic, particularly where client care, supervision, regulatory duties or firm reputation are involved. However, the level of perceived impact may still become overstated.
If you notice you are holding onto work because you worry about having to find the time and energy to deal with that potential outcome, or want to avoid conflict, this is unlikely to be realistic or sustainable.
For example, you may find yourself checking every file that a team member is handling because you are thinking, ‘If I do not monitor all of their files, they will miss a deadline, a claim will be brought, the firm’s reputation will be tarnished, I will be blamed, and I will have to sort it out.’
One question is whether all of those steps are realistically connected, whether they are all your responsibility, and whether your level of checking is proportionate to the actual risk or the most effective way of managing it.
One way to test this is to use a responsibility pie chart. Think of the total responsibility as 100%. Write down the outcome you are afraid of, then list the other factors or people that also contribute to it, such as the team member’s own competence, existing checks or processes within the firm’s case management system, supervision arrangements, deadline systems, client expectations, or general workload pressure. Assign each factor a percentage of that pie, so your own share of the responsibility is set against the whole picture, rather than assumed by default to be the whole of it. Consider also how realistic it is that this particular piece of work would significantly affect your reputation or the firm’s reputation.
From this perspective you can consider what first step you could take to strike a balance between letting others learn to analyse the risk and produce work that takes that into account, rather than you being the default risk analyser and deciding what the team member should do next. It may also be a good opportunity to introduce new check lists or other case management backups.
For some lawyers, these concerns are a significant influence. For others, the concern is more about nothing being wrong.
Are High Standards, Perfectionism or Preference, Impacting Supervision?
Legal careers reward high standards, attention to detail, and the ability to spot risk. Those strengths matter.
The difficulty comes when maintaining standards becomes less about producing quality work at a level appropriate for the task, and more about avoiding criticism, preventing anything from going wrong, or being perceived as less than perfect.
That can show up as:
- rewriting work that is already good
- checking work repeatedly because you are worried that you have missed something
- avoiding completing work at all, or only at the last minute when the deadline is considered mandatory
- struggling to trust someone else’s judgement
- staying involved far longer than necessary
Many lawyers describe themselves as having ‘high standards’. Typically, that is true.
But high standards still allow room for flexibility and judgement based on the nature of the task and its aims. Perfectionism tends not to. The latter can be less about striving for high standards and more about concerns about making mistakes, failure, and how performance will be judged.
For example, you may have checked an email several times and know it is legally correct, but still feel the need to read it again because you are worried that you have missed one small point that could come back to you later or the tone might be misinterpreted.
There is a difference between identifying a genuine risk that needs addressing and continuing to check because you are trying to achieve complete certainty that a mistake cannot happen.
From a supervision perspective, this can then influence your willingness to let people take on work, it can make you overly critical, and can lead to the same rechecking-and-rewriting cycle, all potentially resulting in low morale.
There is also an important distinction between perfectionism, genuine errors and preferences. A preference being when something has been done differently from the way you would have undertaken it, but it is not wrong, unclear, or inappropriate for its purpose.
For example, if your edits to a letter are more about putting it into language you prefer, rather than correcting logical flow, overly casual language, or legal correctness, this typically needs to be reconsidered.
If you notice any of these habits, the steps to support change and to stop mircomanaging will depend on how strong the influence of those thoughts and feelings is. To start, consider the following:
- Does this work meet the specific standard required? For example, would a client understand it, and is it legally correct? If the answer to both is yes, then the question is: do you want it changed only because you would have approached it differently?
- A direct way to test this is a small behavioural experiment. Choose one lower-risk task where you would normally recheck or rewrite work that already meets the requirements, and deliberately leave it as it is. It may feel uncomfortable. Note what actually happens. If no meaningful problem follows, that becomes evidence against the belief that your involvement was necessary, rather than only reassurance you have given yourself. Start small, avoid trying this on contentious or high-risk work, and keep appropriate supervision in place.
When It Might Be Impostor Phenomenon (Syndrome)
Some lawyers harbour an underlying worry that they are not as capable as others believe. This can remain despite ongoing external evidence of competence and achievement.
Depending on how strong this worry is, it can be hard to believe you are truly competent in your role.
This is different from simply feeling less confident when starting a new role, such as after a promotion. Being new to a role can reasonably create uncertainty because you are still learning what is expected of you.
Thoughts of being an imposter are more about the discrepancy between the evidence of your competence and how you see your own competence. You may think, ‘They think I know what I am doing, but I am not sure I really do. Eventually they will realise I am not as good as they think.’
The thoughts do not necessarily disappear simply because you have been in the role for longer either. Someone can have substantial experience and evidence of competence and still experience these thoughts.
When thoughts of being an imposter exist, delegation can feel exposing. You may find yourself struggling to allow someone else to take ownership. There can be a worry that they will discover the ‘truth’ of you, or that you will be replaced, even when you know logically this is unlikely based on the knowledge you do have.
For example, you may have successfully worked on complex matters for years. Still, when someone else takes ownership of an important piece of work, you feel a strong need to check it because part of you is thinking, ‘If they do it better than me, perhaps I am not as capable as people think I am.’ Or, you may not think you are of the level to be checking other work, despite your experience.
A useful first step is to recognise when the imposter thought is being triggered. Rather than trying to convince yourself that the thought is untrue, look at the evidence you are using to reach that conclusion, and whether there is evidence you are discounting.
You can then test the specific fear rather than waiting until you feel completely confident. Delegate one piece of work and notice, afterwards, whether the outcome actually matches what you feared, such as being seen as less capable or replaceable, rather than assuming the feared outcome will happen. Ask someone outside your immediate professional circle, such as a coach or a trusted contact at another firm, for their honest view, since it is easy to discount evidence that contradicts your own fear.
You may also find Kate Atkin’s book on the Imposter Phenomenon a useful practical resource.
For some lawyers, the difficulty is not about the standard of the work at all. It is about wanting to protect other people from difficult situations or negative consequences.
Protecting Your Team, Potentially at Their Loss
Most senior lawyers genuinely care about their team. They want to protect junior colleagues from mistakes, difficult clients, or negative feedback.
Your intentions may be positive, but constantly stepping in can prevent people from developing confidence and judgement for themselves.
That does not mean you have to abandon standards or supervision. It means allowing enough room for growth.
If protection is a strong driver, it may be useful to remember that stepping back does not mean you are abandoning them. They are still supported.
For example, you are unsure if a junior solicitor could handle a difficult (but appropriate for their level) client call. One option is to support them with preparation and appropriate supervision. However, if the default is to step in because you do not want them to receive criticism or struggle with the client. Whilst the intention is to protect them, but they do not then have the opportunity to develop the judgement and confidence to handle these situations for themselves.
If you notice this pattern, consider what small steps you could take to help team members build their own skills through experience. It may also be useful to ask yourself whether they have asked for your help, whether they genuinely need it, and whether training, such as conflict or negotiation training, would be useful to build competence and confidence.
This leads to another difficulty for supervising lawyers as their role develops: the habits that work well initially need to adapt to the new role commitments
When Your Role Changes but Your Habits Do Not
You may have spent much of your career being rewarded for knowing the answer, spotting the problem and then being the person others turn to. It feels good.
As your role develops, your contribution needs to change. You cannot always be the automatic source of answers and decisions. It can add pressure, a sense of rushing and falling behind, and make it harder to complete the rest of your workload.
You may need to move from being the person who knows, or does, to being the person who helps other people develop their own judgement.
It is also not about leaving people without support or becoming less responsive. It is about striking the right balance so that it feels more comfortable to make the changes you know will help you deliver quality work, complete important tasks, and remain responsive to your clients and team.
It may feel less pleasant to not be needed as much but eventually your time can be spent on your own work and growth, and the growth of the firm.
When You Are Simply Too Overloaded to Delegate
Sometimes none of the above is the real driver. Many lawyers are overloaded with too much work and under pressure, and staying involved is quicker in the moment than coaching someone through the learning process.
We know that, in the long term, stopping and focusing on teaching will reduce the overall time required. However, we often keep hoping for that ‘one day’ when we will have more time, which is unlikely ever to come.
Until supervision and delegation are more fully structured, it can also be hard to know whether team members are genuinely underperforming, whether there is a training gap, or whether they have learned that coming to you is the easier option.
A feedback loop can also form. They ask you because you usually answer quickly. After all, for you it is quicker than training them, and for them it is quicker and easier than researching the answer themselves. For both of you, the immediate problem is solved. However, the next question comes back to you again.
Breaking that pattern may take longer initially. But repeatedly answering the question yourself can maintain the dependency you are trying to reduce.
Releasing the habit of turning to you can mean that training needs its own allocated time, likewise limiting when you are available for questions during the day. Both need to be weighed when considering your workload, time allocation for supervision and training, and delegation decisions.
To make changes here, it may be useful to start small. Avoid suddenly stepping back fully, as it is often less sustainable, and your team will not necessarily know what has changed or what the new ‘rules’ are.
If you are trying to step back more, it can help to ask yourself:
- What genuinely needs close supervision?
- What only needs a check-in at key stages, and what should those stages be?
- Do I want to instigate that check-in, or do I want them to update me?
- What could someone else reasonably take ownership of?
- What types of questions will I directly answer, which will I talk through the learning of and ask them what decision they would make, and which ones will I ask them to research more initially?
- When will I be available for questions?
Then pay attention to how you feel emotionally when you try to let go during the week, and what happens when you keep setting the new ‘rules’ or boundaries.
Understanding the thought pattern is often far more useful than simply telling yourself to ‘delegate better’ or ‘stop interruptions’ and berating yourself when it does not work.
A Final Reflection
With any change to help stop micromanagement, there will be a learning curve for everyone as the new approaches are implemented and tested. Some will need tweaking, and one-size-fits-all will not always work.
Maybe you have also already tried to change these patterns. You may have attended management training, read about delegation, or consciously tried to step back. But under pressure, which most lawyers are, people often revert to familiar behaviours, particularly where the drivers behind the behaviour may be unclear, or the benefits of change are untested.
The reason you are staying involved matters.
Are you checking because you are worried about mistakes? Because you feel ultimately responsible? Because you find it difficult to trust someone else’s judgement? Because you want the work done your way? Because you are protecting someone from a difficult situation? Or because you are too overloaded to take the time to train them?
The answer matters because the solution will be different in each case.
It can also be useful to look at what is actually happening in your team once stronger habits are in place. Are people genuinely unable to work independently? Do they need more training? Are expectations unclear? Or have you both become accustomed to you checking and them asking rather than researching?
When supervision is structured differently, it often helps supervisors to become clearer as to whether there is a performance issue that needs tackling. Until then, performance conversations may be less effective or may stall whilst there is uncertainty about where the issue lies.
Micromanagement is therefore not simply about how often you check someone’s work. It is about whether your level of involvement is necessary and proportionate to the risk, the person and the task.
The aim is not to stop supervising or to lower your standards. The next step is to notice what has become the default, identify what is driving that pattern, decide what you want to change, and then consider how to implement and communicate that change in a way that is proportionate to the person, the task and the risk.
If you recognise some of these patterns in your own approach to supervision and delegation, and you want further support in changing your worries and approaches, then coaching can help you identify what is driving the behaviour and find a way to change it that works for you and in your law firm. You can find out by booking an exploratory call here.
