The June issue of Chicago Lawyer (not related to American Lawyer) contains the publication’s annual list of the largest firms in Chicago, as well as an interesting story on some top-notch small (by Chicago standards) firms that are not giving in to merger-mania. Each of the firm leaders quoted in the article spoke about the relationship they are able to have with their client, the special attention the client receives and the speed with which they are able to serve the client.
On the flip side, one lawyer relates a story of a deal lost because someone wanted a “name” to handle the deal. Clearly when it comes to branding, big firms are in an enviable position to spend resources creating and supporting a brand. Fortunately, not everyone hires based on this type of thinking. Many people talk about hiring the lawyer, not the firm. Still others value their relationships with small and mid-sized firms because those firms are able to respond faster to the client’s needs, have fewer conflicts, and so forth. What is left unsaid in all of this is that the quality of lawyering at top small firms equals or exceeds that found in big firms. Not to say that there are not terrific lawyers in many big firms. There are. In fact, many of the finest lawyers in small and mid-sized firms grew up in big firms. But because of big firm bureaucracies and the tendency toward group think, those lawyers with an willings to take risks moved on. Many clients find that the ability to assess risk is better in people who take measured risks in their own practices. Likewise, the business savvy one develops running a small business provides collateral benefit to clients as well.
There is no right answer every time for everyone. Fortunately.