DOES SIZE MATTER? – THOUGHTS BEFORE YOU CHOSE YOUR LAWYER
Ladies are not just trying to be considerate to your ego when they say “size doesn’t matter”. What actually matters is what you are able to do with the resources you have. That probably is true; I can at least confirm that with great certainty, that “size doesn’t matter”, when it comes to law firms. With my experience and exposure spanning from practising as an attorney in a big law firm, being a client to both big and small law firms as an in-house lawyer in my previous life and currently as an owner of my law firm, I think I should be adequately knowledgeable to shed some light on the myths and facts around what clients get when working with either big or small law firms.
Without entertaining the fictitious and assumed “prestige” and the misconceived appearance that you’re taking your case seriously when you brief big law firms, the intention of this piece is to embark on a non-biased exploration of whether, considering quality, costs and longevity, when does it make sense for you to work with either a small or big law firm.
At the outset, I should quite swiftly reject any myths around differences in quality between a big law firm and a small law firm. Often clients assume that if you brief a big law firm, then you’re guaranteed high quality work, and the “flip side” is that if you brief a small law firm, then the quality drops. That can hardly ever be true. I have worked with small law firms (even the so called “one-man-shows”) and the quality has been as good as it can ever be. The other side of the coin is also true it must be said, I have worked with big law firms, and along with a high standard of professionalism and work ethic, I have also experienced, with all due respect questionable quality of work. I note that some colleagues in the industry have argued that because a document is proof read by 2 or 3 other lawyers in big law firms, then quality is bound to be excellent. I’d naturally concede to this point although not conceding to this always being the case. A factor that should be considered when instructing big law firms is the likelihood of terrible cost implications for client, as a letter would be drafted by a candidate attorney, re-drafted by an associate, amended by senior associate, and settled by a partner or director, this “standard practice” in big law firms consequently leads to the increase in costs to client. Quality is not different in my view, as lawyers in small and big firms may have attended the same universities, trained by and have gained experience by the same renowned legal professionals and actually in some instances, lawyers who open small law firms were typically trained by big law firms.
I acknowledge that previously and rather erroneously, I too subscribed from the same school of thought which held the view that briefing big law firms often resulted in winning cases and getting high-quality output. However, I have witnessed, to my surprise, very small law firms running circles around big law firms and in many instances actually winning – but that often won’t get any media airtime. From a quality perspective, I turn to side with my former in-house boss who used to say, she works with a lawyer, not with the law firm. This notion captures the pertinent essence of this piece, highlighting that clients should be looking for lawyers they can trust, who charge fairly and provides solutions timeously, not so much the law firm. Clients should therefore take time to investigate specific lawyers they work with regardless of whether they work for a small or big law firm, because it is that specific lawyer that will provide or fail to provide quality, never the law firm.
On the sensitive topic – fees or costs. It would be quite awkward to argue that clients do not pay for the law firm’s rent, electricity, support staff, vehicles, canteens etc. So, with the “glitz and glam” that comes with the state-of-the-art corporate offices, is a slightly hefty legal invoice for the client due to this factor only. The advantage of instructing a small law firm is that it operates on very small over head costs. It is therefore natural that on that factor alone, they should be able to give clients a reasonably affordable quote compared to big law firms.
What also ultimately affects fees is how much a matter/case is resourced from a personnel perspective. In certain instances, it is justifiable to heavily resource a matter given its magnitude (and also to educate candidate attorneys), but in other instances it is not. In observing the obvious advantage of greater scale in capital and human resources, I’m easily persuaded to agree that clients may look towards the direction of big law firms for “very big” complex transactions and litigations, however in a world of technology and joint ventures for specific projects, small law firms have been seen to hold their own in very big complex transactions especially in transactions where they are considered specialists such as technology and outsourcing to mention a few. There are instances where there is no need to heavily resource a matter as it may be simple in nature, and where a firm is not cognizant of this component and subscribes to a culture of working in “packs”, the client may find themselves paying more than what may actually be necessary as a result of the inflexible resourcing structure. The flexible nature of small law firms is greatly advantageous for clients, but do acknowledge that resource and capacity can at times be a challenge because they may not have sufficient resources to stack on a matter, adversely impacting quality and turn-around-times, not at all the costs however.
From a longevity (durability) perspective, i.e. how long a firm will stay in operation, I’ve heard colleagues argue that the value of working with big law firms is that they will remain open “forever”, and that small law firms close and open every day hence posing a risk to clients’ matters. This is not completely correct, most lawyers respect the oath they have taken and in the event the firm needs to close, one would assume a handover process would take place to trusted colleagues in the industry, although this is an inherent risk for all small firms but greater for newly commencing firms, we should be transparent about it, but mature small firms (small firms who have remained small over a number of years) have a lesser risk in this regard. Longevity of any law firm is very important to clients, be it from a transaction or litigation perspective as clients always want to have access to their matters even after some many years. This is not only from a
document storage perspective, but also from an intel perspective as clients might want to know more
than where a certain document is in the matter.
There is some notable stability if one looks at least at the so called big five law firms in South Africa over the past 20 years as they have almost stayed the same, with one or two mergers or alliances in a few of them but for the most part, it has really been the same picture. The same cannot really be said about small law firms in this space, as some either go under, get swallowed in mergers or the director explores other ventures leaving clients in disarray when it comes to their matters in very few instances. This is not to say that all small law firms struggle when it comes to longevity as we have quite a number of small law firms that have survived the test of time.
In conclusion, in these “unprecedented times” where businesses are looking to scrutinise costs, clients should certainly re-look their briefing abilities with the above points in mind. Your lawyer must make it make sense to you as a client from a quality, finance and longevity perspective. I hope I have managed to appear objective in my attempt to “umpire” this piece.
Sakumzi Langa
Director
Sakumzi Langa Attorneys Inc.