Stop Bashing BigLaw?

My friend Eric Cooperstein over at Lawyerist wants us to stop bashing BigLaw.

Why?

He says : "I am a solo and if large law firms crash, I am going to end up covered in dust."

He acknowledges "biglaw has a reputation for some qualities that give the law a bad name — high fees, leveraging associates to increase partner salaries, huge billable hour requirements, and lousy work / life balance, to name a few of the popular gripes."

"But biglaw suits some lawyers," he rightly states.

He notes that small firms/solos have their good and bad:

The smalls, in contrast, love to tout their personalized attention to clients, reasonable fees, individual autonomy, and great work / life balance. But not all smalls are good at bringing together the myriad of skills it takes to run a law practice. Most smalls practice some form of “retail” law: criminal, family, personal injury, workers comp, small business, real estate. Often the clients are high maintenance and the income stream equally unstable.

Eric is right that "individual clients; these folks need smalls," and that:

"A large company with millions of dollars on the line looks for a brand name, the vetting of associates and partners, and the ability to quickly put together a team of lawyers to tackle major litigation or a huge transaction."

Then he tries to put this all together in a tied with a small bow on why "we need each other."

He says Biglaw has conflicts and needs to refer out clients and cases. He also says that:

"Biglaw’s corporate clients are managed by people — who get divorced, have too much to drink before driving home, get into accidents, etc. Many of those matters need to be referred out. Smart lawyers refer clients to good lawyers they know who are reasonably priced and will treat the client well — like smalls."

He also says we need each other because:

"Biglaw attorneys are a great source of referrals for smalls. Also, when a case comes in that is to big for a small to handle, the small firm needs to bring in some muscle. Obscure questions may arise in a client’s case that need special expertise that can be found only at a large firm. Relationships with biglaw are a two-way street."

I've written about Biglaw here countless times. I never worked in Biglaw. They weren't hiring law students that wanted to be criminal defense lawyers (still aren't) because they tend to have that one "white collar" lawyer who mainly has associates review documents (bashing). Biglaw doesn't practice "street level" criminal defense, as Eric correctly notes," and they're not interested in law students who want to go to court (bashing). My 3 years in the public defender's office was worth more than 10 in Biglaw.

Biglaw is not all that old. The first big firms didn't come around until the mid-twentieth century. Now they're all in debt, trying to survive. (bashing)

I agree with Eric that law exists on two levels - there are those that need Biglaw and those that need small law. But I think Eric misses the reason Biglaw gets bashed.

Biglaw, as an institution, looks down on small law. (bashing) They tell their new associates that "this" is the way you practice law. They call us "some solo practitioner," and for the most part do everything they can to convince a client to stay with the firm even for the smallest matter. Why? Because they are scared that if one of their clients goes to a small firm or solo, they may understand that they don't need 4 associates on their case. (bashing)

When I write about Biglaw, some anonymous commenter (same idiot) always says it's because I have Biglaw envy. Anyone who knows me, my practice, my 3 rejections of merging with Biglaw, and my referral sources (Biglaw firms) knows that isn't the case.

The truth is that I think Biglaw as an institution does a disservice to the young lawyer. Disagree? How many laid off Biglaws are out there that after a few years in the firm, have no idea how to practice law? This is how Biglaw rolls. Don't teach the lawyer too much about start to finish type practice so they feel they can't leave and go out on their own, or go anywhere else.

So I agree with Eric, he makes some great points.

But I don't feel bad for what's happening now in Biglaw. Clients are becoming more frugal, smarter, and those firms have to come down to earth. No more french maids ironing napkins (true story).

So no Eric, you won't collapse along with Biglaw. There will always be a client who needs a good lawyer to help them.

Regardless of what Biglaw thinks. (bashing)

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com

Former BigLaws Have Pinnacle Level Knowledge, Maybe

This "Solo is the new Soho" post is making it's way around the blawgosphere. Lawyers are passing it on as a "must read." I wonder if some of them read the article, or just the title. It's always nice to jump on a trend.

I guess some of those passing it on arehappy to be passive in watching the former BigLaw PR machine get to work, to the detriment of solos everywhere.

The post is written by Bob Ambrogi, a man I well respect as an author and blogger.

His "Soho" theme is described as:

"If solo practice was a neighborhood, trendy restaurants would be opening next to long-established pizza parlors and coffee shops. A small art gallery would be setting up shop next to the old corner bar. Apartment buildings would be turning into co-ops and young urban professionals would be snapping them up. As big firms slice jobs, solo is suddenly hip, it seems.

Bob goes on to say what we all knew would happen:

"The National Law Journal reports this week that starting their own firm is becoming layoff option number one for many lawyers who see pink slips coming their way."

Then I'm stopped dead in my tracks:

Technology consultant Ross Kodner has come up with a name for this new breed of large-firm refugees who start their own firms -- the BigSolo. "These folks aren't ordinary solo practitioners in the way we've come to think of the category ... BigSolos have pinnacle level substantive knowledge in their single chosen practice area," Kodner says.

What? Is this the beginning of the former BigLaw PR machine? "Hire us as solos, we're better than what's out there."

I'm all about survival, but this continuation of lawyers eating their own does nothing for our reputation in the world.

Anyone who thinks there is an advantage to hiring a former BigLaw-turned-solo-out-of-desperation, who has never even made their own coffee, put paper in the copy machine, set their own deposition, interviewed a new client, negotiated a fee, written a letter, is, well, probably a typical gullible potential client all caught up in the wonder of it all. "Ooooh, you used to work in one of those big firms?" "I want you!."

After a few hours of outrage over this asinine comment, comments to the post confirming my perception of what was said, Ross Kodner explains he was taken out of context.

And he was, kind of.

Ross explains:

".....the quote doesn't accurately present my view and definition of BigSolos, as is evidenced by some of the comments to your post. The full "SmallLaw" column from Technolawyer.com is at http://blog.technolawyer.com/2009/02/smalllaw-bigsolo.html. At a minimum, it's critical to finish the thought you posted - where I said that while a BigSolo might have "pinnacle" level substantive knowledge, most have little or no knowledge of running a law practice as a business. And to address one of the commenters, I did NOT mean to imply that ALL BigSolos have "pinnacle level knowledge." The ones I've worked with do seem to be at that level, however."

Ross, I'm still confused.

What is "pinnacle level knowledge?" How does one get that at BigLaw and not in solo practice, or is that not what you are saying either?

Are you saying that a 10 year solo practicing in a specific niche is not at the level of the 10 year former BigLaw who practiced in a specific area?

I understand your full comment was not printed in Bob's post and the important point that former BigLaws have no idea how to run a practice was left out. However, I am still wondering about this "pinnacle level knowledge."

The way I see it, this is just the beginning of the former BigLaw PR machine that is directed at trying to convince an unknowing public that now that the former BigLaws have arrived in our world, we are blessed.

Finally blessed with lawyers with "pinnacle level knowledge."

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. Read his free ebook The Truth About Hiring A Criminal Defense Lawyer. Please visit www.tannebaumweiss.com