Dube Law Office

THE SMALL FIRM ADVANTAGE

It's difficult for a business manager or litigation manager to be criticised if he or she selects a large, well-known law firm to assist with a litigation matter. After all, the attorneys at such firms are the best-of-the-best, right?

It's true that most of the attorneys at national law firms graduated from top-tier law schools at or near the top of their class. That academic achievement, however, does not guaranty high competence in the real world of litigation, and should not be the only factor considered when choosing a law firm. For most, though not all clients, cost is and should be a factor too. An assessment of the potential exposure and results of litigation should be done, and then look to what the total cost of representation by a large law firm will be. Does the matter warrant the large law firm approach of using a substantial team, often including 3 to 4 attorneys (1 or 2 partners and 1 to 3 associate attorneys), and 2 or more paralegals, each billing time for tasks that often overlap each other, or is that approach like using an elephant gun to kill a fly?

Large law firms are big business for the partners, and they profit from the billable hours of the associate attorneys in the firm. I know certain large firms who charge over $400 per hour for an associate who has just graduated from law school having no experience other than summer clerkships! The cost of large law firms has been studied and reported in numerous places. Here's an excerpt from one such article:

Government and corporate clients of law firms should closely examine their attorneys’ billing practices to reduce the serious problem of overbilling in the legal field. Those types of “deep-pocket” clients, in particular, are attractive targets for overbilling . . . by . . . lawyers.

One cause of the problem is that many large law firms evaluate their attorneys almost exclusively on the number of hours billed to clients. And they often expect their young associates to bill at least 2,000 hours a year.

Experienced bill auditors state that to meet such a requirement legitimately, a lawyer must work virtually without break for six or seven days a week.

According to [former] U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, attorneys in the 1960s billed an average of 1,450 hours per year. He sa[id] he’s concerned that the intense pressures of meeting the current billing requirements may cause some attorneys to, as he puts it, “exaggerate the hours actually put in.” . . . [¶ ]

Serious remedial actions are needed, because the overbilling plague is widespread. Harry Maue, a member of a St. Louis legal audit firm, says many attorneys in large law firms face a dilemma: “You either work 60 or 70 hours a week and have no personal life or you’re going to synthesize those bills. Most bills [I see] are padded, whether intentional or not.” . . . [¶ ]

In their book No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America, Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith describe the problem in chilling terms. They say the overemphasis that many large law firms place on billing “sometimes leads to egregious billing abuses and even outright fraud, at the expense of corporate and, particularly, government clients, who rarely take the time to effectively monitor their legal bills.” . . . [¶ ]

Therefore, business and litigation managers should at least consider smaller firms or even sole practitioners, because they may provide a level of satisfaction and value that you can't get with the large firms. Here's another excerpt from the an article that discusses client satisfaction based on the service provided and the relationship attainable in a smaller firm:

The acid test for client satisfaction is whether the client feels that he or she is getting good value for the money being expended on the representation. Since this assessment takes place on an ongoing basis, attorneys need to bring value to all stages of a representation. To take client satisfaction to the next level, attorneys should think about the services they provide and the clients they represent, and consider how to infuse their attorney-client relationships with even more worth, or value added. Attorneys can add value in countless ways, ranging from 24-7 availability to putting on free seminars on relevant topics for business clients. By adding value in these ways and others, attorneys can differentiate themselves from competitors and underscore their worth.

Satisfying clients is hard work for all attorneys. But, in many ways, small law firms have an edge. With a smaller number of attorneys and support professionals, it is easier to deliver a consistent brand of high-level service and value to current client relationships. Small firms also have the advantage of having an air of intimacy that is more difficult to capture in a big-firm environment; they can build on this atmosphere to maintain and enhance attorney-client communications. And small firms also have flexibility, which can be very helpful to client development in general and value-added efforts in particular. Small law firms should recognize and reap the benefits of this client satisfaction advantage.

I have worked for small and medium sized law firms, and am now a sole practitioner. I've had close relationships with attorneys who have worked for national law firms. Over the years I've had cases in which a large firm worked with us because our clients' interests were aligned, and I've opposed large law firms. Frankly, briefs filed by the large firms, in many instances, did display a higher quality of legal writing than I see from most attorneys with smaller firms (not surprisingly, as most attorneys at the large firms wrote for their law school's law journals). Similarly, attorneys from the large firms often presented very well when arguing a motion. But those factors did not guaranty their success. In a very recent case in which the opposing counsel (froma national firm) brought in specialists from another state to appear on a pro hac vice basis to argue the defendant's motion to quash the summons based on lack of jurisdiction (a Constitutional issue I've rarely seen outside of law school), I was very impressed both by the writing in the brief and the oral argument of counsel. Nonetheless, the trial court denied the motion and in its ruling adopted much of the reasoning from my opposition. (The subsequent writ petition was summarily denied by the Court of Appeals.) My point? Give the smaller firms and sole practitioners a shot -- you may well enjoy the service and relationship, receive competent representation, and save money. If you're worried about whether I have the "horsepower" to handle your case, let's talk about it. I have relationships with many other attorneys and, if necessary, can associate in another attorney, or another firm that has more resources, while I serve as lead counsel.

DUBÉ LAW OFFICE

Results-oriented legal services