What do you say to a recent law school graduate?

[crazy canuck]

When you are Pfizer, and there is some problem your in-house team can't fix, you want to go to a lawyer at a big firm, even though they tend to cost a lot more; the feeling is that they have the experience and connections you need.

I think that used to be the case but BB is right.  Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore.  They look to who is best for that particular problem.

[Barrister]

When you are Pfizer, and there is some problem your in-house team can't fix, you want to go to a lawyer at a big firm, even though they tend to cost a lot more; the feeling is that they have the experience and connections you need.

I think that used to be the case but BB is right.  Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore.  They look to who is best for that particular problem.

I think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients.  They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.

[crazy canuck]

I think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients.  They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.

Probably right.  And I am happy to leave those clients to the large firms.

[Malthus]

I have only rarely actually been benefited in some tangible way (other than the name alone)  by having cross-country prescence etc., and that mostly because of the Quebec office. It is nothing compared to the endless conflict hassles. But I could not get the work I get here at a small firm, because the clients would not seek out a small firm.

I think you are selling yourself short, and giving too much credit to the name of your firm.  To a global firm like Pfizer, your firm is a pretty small firm.  Certainly no one in the head office could name it.

But a firm like Pfizer is a very sofisticated in terms of purchasing legal services.  It knows who is good in certain areas.

And, IIRC, your firm is really the only big firm that does a substantial amount of IP law.  I thought most of the other firms in the field were mostly smaller firms.

Again, I don't do IP - I do regulatory work.

The issue is not "head office", it is the Canadian sub - who naturally is better informed of Canadian business and legal conditions.

Most IP work is similar to most family and litigation - large numbers of small files, which can be done very economically by smaller firms.

In regulatory, and business law generally, size does seem to matter. Can't say that it *should* matter, I'm merely saying that it *does*.

[Malthus]

I think that used to be the case but BB is right.  Large clients dont necessarily look for large law firms anymore.  They look to who is best for that particular problem.

Heh. Depends entirely on your field. In litigation, that's probably true. Not so much in many sorts of business law - explaining why big firms are, you know, still around. 

[Neil]

Given the serious changes that are going to take place in the law over the next few decades, it's going to be tough on lawyers.

[Martinus]

The billable hour system is pretty retarded and I predict it will be replaced quickly once something better comes up. The problem is that it is like democracy in the famous Churchill's quote - so far nothing better (on a global basis) has been invented to measure the work.

However, it is more and more common to have hard caps (as opposed to just fee estimates) in the transactions here in Poland, which essentially spells the death of the billable hour, economically, since it is fairly certain up-front that the caps will be easily hit. Plus, the blended rate is very popular these days, which also in a sense upsets the partner-associate balance.

[Martinus]

I saw the writing on the wall 15 years ago and went small.  But some legal services are harder to provide without the benefit of the support of a larger firm.  I dont think big firms are dead for that reason but the big firms that try to do everything are a dying breed.

It really depends on the area, and the client's profile. Though I think that if you are going big, you have to go multinational - that way you can get clients who are also multinational and want that McDonald's/Starbucks experience across the board, rather than having to worry about finding a different lawfirm in every jurisdiction. But a big generalist firm that has no international presence is indeed going down.

[Martinus]

I think it's probably true for wealthy, but largely legally unsophisticated, clients.  They have just been sued, they've never really been involved in litigation before, so they call up, say, Torys because it's a big name.

It's not just that. Bigger firms have better cross-selling capabilities. I mean, at a certain level you do not really compete with quality of legal service per se any more since any competitor can provide pretty much the top notch level of service. So you start competing with either fees and/or marketing you do.

Personally, I think the biggest shift in the recent years is really a move from this traditional "lawfirms-are-special" business model into what is essentially a corporation offering a "product". In that sense, smaller lawfirms are a dying breed, because they have a harder time switching to this new mindset.

[Malthus]

When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common. 

[crazy canuck]

Not so much in many sorts of business law - explaining why big firms are, you know, still around. 

I agree completely and if you go back and reread my posts you will find that is what I have been saying. 

[crazy canuck]

When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common.

And you belong to the group that didnt follow that trend.

[Josquius]

Meh, law is quite a hard thing to study, a law degree will stand them in better stead in the general jobs market than history grads and the like.

There's no reason to get a law degree unless you want to practice law or become a law professor.  Anything else people tell you is bullshit.

And the choice isn't between law or history.  Here, law is a graduate degree.  You'd be getting an undergrad degree and then going to more school instead of getting a job.

True, I didn't consider that its different over there. I was just thinking in terms of European law students.
Most law students I know are wanting to get into politics or working for the government rather than actually taking the bar.

[Martinus]

When I first entered the profession, now more than a decade ago, the talk was all about how the big firm model of practice was on its way out, together with the worship of billable hours. Moreover, lawyers were all going to embrace a more sustainable lifestyle, and part-time practice would become common.

Dream denied.

[Barrister]

The billable hour system is pretty retarded and I predict it will be replaced quickly once something better comes up. The problem is that it is like democracy in the famous Churchill's quote - so far nothing better (on a global basis) has been invented to measure the work.

However, it is more and more common to have hard caps (as opposed to just fee estimates) in the transactions here in Poland, which essentially spells the death of the billable hour, economically, since it is fairly certain up-front that the caps will be easily hit. Plus, the blended rate is very popular these days, which also in a sense upsets the partner-associate balance.

When I was in private practice, and in a small firm, I was doing as much as I could on a flat-rate fee ($1500 to run your impaired trial, which was ridiculously cheap in retrospect).  Seemed to work pretty well for 90% of files.