Charles Kramer, The Levison Group
I’ve been an American male for 57 years and a licensed attorney for 32 of those years. I figure enough time has passed. It is time to answer the age-old question, “Does Size Matter?”
After a stint as a law clerk to a federal judge, I joined Riezman Berger, P.C., and the firm at which I am now one of the senior principals. Throughout my thirty plus years at the firm, we have ranged in size from eleven to thirty-two attorneys, and currently stand at twenty-four (plus support staff). We’ve been in the upper twenties for most of my career — a solid mid-sized firm. Unlike larger firms, we do not have myriad specialized departments, but instead are generally organized as “transactional attorneys,” “business litigation attorneys,” “domestic/family law attorneys,” “creditors rights/bankruptcy attorneys,” and “personal injury/workers comp attorneys. The transactional attorneys handle everything from mergers and acquisitions, to tax and real estate matters, to contract and employment, trademark and copyright registrations, general business counseling and negotiation, and anything else that comes their way. The business litigators handle cases ranging from construction law, to intellectual property, to real estate, contract, securities law, employment law, and every other type of business dispute. Transactional attorneys often contribute to litigation, and litigators often contribute their perspective to transactional deals. I actually have a divided practice, doing both business litigation and business transactional work. As a result of our multidisciplinary knowledge, a lawyer at my firm has more experience in more areas than the people we tend to go up against. This is a bigger advantage to our clients than any advice the other side may receive from the “specialist” they are so happy the large firm provided.
Our firm has written constitutional amendments and has changed the law through litigation victories. We have handled high profile cases and have changed the world for the better. The reason is not because we are larger, but because we have experience.
Being mid-sized is not a bad thing. I have been told we are able to spring to action quicker and more easily. I know we also are more attentive to the needs of our clients. We are more concerned about our clients than those with supposedly larger resources, who seem preoccupied with their own overhead. We are more able to, or at least seem more willing to, focus our attention where it is needed. Working harder is working better. As a result of our approach, diligence and sensitivities, we provide more satisfaction to our clients, and fulfill their needs. Because of our smaller size, we have had to learn more and have conquered more options and approaches than firms who simply rely on their “we’re bigger” reputation. Our lawyers also don’t limit ourselves with respect to location. I am as comfortable plying my trade in the boardroom, the courtroom, or wherever. I’ve even finished off projects in airports and on airplanes. Midsized firms also, I find, are more conscientious about bringing personal touches, to every encounter — all to the benefit or our clients. Finally, we are also less likely to reject situations which involve other parties due to conflicts. If everyone attempting to make a multiparty merger work is on board with the idea of us helping everyone involved, we can also usually make that work.
Admittedly, there are some projects that just can’t be completed alone. Solo practitioners don’t achieve the same outcomes. Really small firms also can’t necessarily bring deals or more complex actions to fruition. Although at some point, size becomes an impediment as noted above, there is some minimum size that is required to achieve maximum results. Once you reach that size, however, you should focus on experience and technique, rather than greater size.
So, after many years of experience and observing the practice of law, I can confidently conclude that, when it comes to the practice of law at least, as long as you are not too small, bigger is not necessarily better. Size matters, just not in the direction that many would think.
CAUTION: THE CHOICE OF A LAWYER OR LAW FIRM IS AN IMPORTANT ONE, AND SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SIZE ALONE.
—————
Under analysis is a syndicated column of the Levison Group. Charles Kramer is a principal of the St Louis based law firm, Riezman Berger. PC. Comments or criticisms about this column may be sent c/o this paper or direct to the Levison Group at comments@levisongroup.com.
© 2016 Under Analysis
