ABA Section of Business Law

Business letters

So long small firms?
Not so fast . . .

It comes as no surprise that lawyers from historically large firms, or firms that have just merged into that rarified world, hang around the water cooler and predict the demise of smaller, regional firms. That would be Michael Bedke's "What will happen to your law firm? Choose one: a) castaway, or b) survivor." Business Law Today, May/June 2001. As the saying goes, "you've got to dance with the one that brought you."

The financial economies of scale will ensure that large firms remain attractive to some lawyers. To be blunt, it's a safe bet that certain full partners at megafirms earn more than most partners at regional shops. But the megafirm system has flaws and many lawyers will opt for different systems with different flaws that are more palatable to those particular lawyers.

For example, those high per-partner profits at megafirms depend on the good, old-fashioned pyramid model. That, in turn, requires that a large group of new hires be ruthlessly weeded out over time so that only a few remain to be considered for partner.

It's much easier to think of associates as faceless cogs in a large machine and to objectify/rationalize their "inevitable" moving on when your office has a starting class of 30 to 90, of whom you've only really gotten to know one or two. You can't blame "the system" when the decision is made by just you and 15 or 50 of your colleagues, all of whom have gotten to know each associate quite well over the past seven years.

I agree that the multidisciplinary practice debate is not over and the effect of the ABA House of Delegates' vote simply will be to require firms in this country to be more creative in finding ways to provide the variety of services their clients demand. I disagree that this will be the exclusive province of the megafirm. The agility needed to respond to a rapidly changing world is more likely to be found in a smaller place. Ever try to turn a battleship? And what about the risk-averseness of so many larger shops, or of a few within those shops who wield the political clout? Many of these creative responses will demand much risk.

The pundits are not always right. Brick-and-mortar businesses were not all destroyed by the Internet economy. We now understand that some conversations just can't be conducted effectively over e-mail. And remember that old joke, "the paperless law office?"

Each person's opinions are affected by their vantage point. Mr. Bedke works for a large firm and should be expected to sing its praises. I work in a smaller shop, so my bias is clear as well. The moral of the story is simple - when someone talks about the "inevitable" demise of something, remember that it's natural for a business to claim its model is better than the one chosen by its competition. I don't take it personally. I also don't think Mr. Bedke is right. --Rosemary Daszkiewicz, Seattle

Yes, we'd like to hear from you

As you can see on this page, from time to time Business Law Today gets letters to the editor. We're always glad to hear from our readers.

We invite you to send applause or maybe even take issue with an author.

As with any other content in the magazine, prospective editorial material (such as your letter) is subject to tightening and editing. Publication is not guaranteed.

But we'll sure try to get it in.
Send your comments to:

Ray DeLong, Editor, at bltarticles/letters@abanet.org.