« U.S. stocks make strong and cautious return. | Main | Manchester, England: Name's Oliver. Buy you a drink? »
July 07, 2010
Do BigClients need BigLaw more than 10% of the time?
Put simply, (a) your firm is more efficient, (b) your overhead is likely lower, and (c) your work in any event is better. You still need up to 5 lawyers and professionals for some stages of some projects--but you don't need 10 or 15. There is no "piling on".
It's here, from back in 2006 (modified 2007), and a favorite post of ours. Even uber-feisty international trade lawyer and fellow transplanted Midwesterner Dan Harris at China Law Blog liked it.
The piece is actually pro-BigLaw (over 1,000 lawyers), but lawyers and their marketing people connected with all sorts of firms--mega-big, large, medium and tiny--can find something they don't like about it.
The point is this: 90% of the important corporate legal work being done right now by firms between 500 and 3000 lawyers can be done by boutiques and smaller firms. If it has the right people, your firm can land Fortune 500 companies and keep them.
Managing Partner, Astana branch, Big, Clumsy and Talent-Diluted
And remember to get off your knees. Don't forget to maintain or raise your rates. Competing on price for higher-end work is for chumps and will only hurt you in both marketing and client retention. Remember, in this "model", your lawyers and services/products are first-rate, and your client service is superior.
Put simply, (a) your firm is more efficient, (b) your overhead is likely lower, and (c) your work in any event is better. You still need up to 5 lawyers and professionals for some stages of some projects--but you don't need 10 or 15. There is no "piling on".
So find out what the "BigLaw" rate or price is--and match or exceed it. You are ultimately competing on Value--and, congratulations, Jack, you just won that one.
Posted by JD Hull at July 7, 2010 12:01 AM