Advertisements

Double Jeopardy for Law Firms: Jewel v Boxer


Double Jeopardy for Law Firms: Jewel v Boxer.

Advertisements

Double Jeopardy for Law Firms: Jewel v Boxer


Seal of the United States District Court for t...

Seal of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jerome Kowalski

Kowalski & Associates

July, 2012

 

In the last month or so, BigLaw was jarred by two disruptive events:  First, there was the tragic collapse of Dewey & LeBoeuf and the second, the reasoned decision issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Coudert bankruptcy holding that the “unfinished business” doctrine, commonly known as Jewel v Boxer, applies to New York law firm partnerships and that it does so with equal weight to both matters billed on an hourly basis as well as contingency fee work.  Both events have chilled the lateral partner market.

Added to that is the fact that liquidators of imploded law firms are also desperately seeking recoveries for creditors and are therefore anxiously investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against former partners of the law firms, and, like Jewel claims, the reach of these claims is likely to put the law firms these former partners subsequently joined into their cross hairs. Deep pockets and all of that.

These events are occurring in the open for all to see. Unfortunately, too many managing partners, lateral hiring partners, law firm general counsels and risk managers have neither taken note nor taken adequate steps to protect their firms.

In light of recent events, law firms will be woefully remiss if they fail to include in their standard agreements for lateral partners language protecting and indemnifying the firm from Jewel v Boxer and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  If the firm has hired a lateral partner from a firm that is going through the throes of imploding, a la Dewey or if a lateral partner comes from a law firm that subsequently unwinds unexpectedly, there is some reasonable likelihood that the hiring firm will be targeted as a defendant should the liquidators of the defunct law firm form a reasonable basis to assert such claims.  The issue is that there is almost always a likelihood that such claims are lurking about. These skulking claims are all of the more problematic because they are typically not asserted for a couple of years after a law firm implodes.  When the pain comes, law firms should preserve the right to share some of that pain in a reasoned and rational way.

Law firm liquidators typically spend the first several months of their tenure tending to the gargantuan tasks of shutting down the law firm.  They simultaneously undertake a “sources and uses” analysis to determine what potential sources exist for payment of administration expenses and obligations due to creditors.  Because expenses and creditor typically far exceed the amounts available from monetizing accounts receivable and works in progress, successor law firms are more frequently found to be routinely available resources for adding to the honey pot. And nobody is more motivated to add to the honey pot than law firm liquidators whose fees are often contingent on maximizing recoveries; a primary resource for them has been pursuing clawbacks and claw forwards.  They are unrestrained by market place considerations which dampen the appetite of viable law firms to  go after other competing law firms who have hired laterally from its ranks because they would inevitably subject themselves to the very same claims, as they continue to drink the Kool Ade and hire laterally.

The problem is that it takes law firm liquidators an extended period of time to get their hands around the behemoth of the law firm that once was and is no longer. For example, one of the tasks typically undertaken by the liquidators is recasting the firm’s balance sheet and profit and loss statements retroactively, to among other things, determine when the law firm was first insolvent from a technical bankruptcy point of view.  Any payments made to partners during the insolvency period are gratuitous transfers and are subject to clawbacks. Determining the date of insolvency is both art and science and often requires extended analyses. Similarly, determining where former partners went and which firm assets (in the form of client files, other partners and associates) also takes time. Thus, we most often see that these claims are filed en masse upon the expiration of the statute of limitations, which is two years from the date of filing.

Here is the rub:  Law firms typically prudently pay new lateral partners in whole or in part during the course of that partner’s initial tenure at the law firm on a performance basis. One of the key drivers is most often cash generation and the metric law firms use in calculating the new partner’s entitlement is the law firm’s historical profit margins. To be sure, those margins do not include clawbacks. Thus, the typical scenario is that the new lateral partner is timely rewarded for production, with the law firm completely oblivious to the very real likelihood that two years or more down the road, law firm liquidators will be sending the law firm a due bill for all of the profits earned by the law firm (not just the new partner’s distributions) for unfinished business based on either Jewel v Boxer or breach of fiduciary duty claims. Successor law firms have not yet been the target for recovery of voidable transfers made during the insolvency period made to the new partner during his prior tenure at the now defunct law firm.

Thus, the new firm is in the unenviable position of having to pay twice for the same revenue generation: First, to the lateral partner and thereafter to the estate of the former law firm.

The issue with breach of fiduciary claims is far more devious and invidious. Among other things, we know full well that the rule is that a partner may not solicit a client, associate or partner to join him or her at a new firm until he or she has given notice. Nor can a partner share with another law firm confidential billing and collection information of his or her current law firm, Yet, we can all take judicial notice that no sane partner on the prowl will accept an offer from a new firm before he or she has received adequate assurances from his or her clients will be following him or her. Similarly, every hiring law firm demands assurances that the clients will indeed be coming along. By the same token, when a group leaves a law firm simultaneously to the same new climes, it is readily apparent that a partner, typically the group leader, has engaged in actionable recruiting of partners and associates prior to giving notice. The new law firm is clearly complicit, since it almost always interviews partners in the group at length before an offer is extended and even where associates are first interviewed after the partners give notice, it is more often the case than not that these associates were advised by law firm partners to start packing – again, actionable conduct. Even where the successor law firm gives a potential lateral recruit written admonitions not to violate any fiduciary obligations or partnership agreements and somehow feigns ignorance of any fiduciary breaches, at best, it is most often clear that it has simply engaged in willful (and often dubious) blindness and may be subject to some serious claims.

Dewey broke the mold in oh so many ways

Dewey’s implosion was unprecedented in too many ways to count.

One unique aspect of the Dewey collapse was its failure to hold a formal dissolution vote. One Dewey law firm leader, when asked about a formal vote of dissolution as the firm was plainly at the tail end of its death spiral, blithely and rather incredibly denied that the firm was going to vote to dissolve, even Quixotically asking his interlocutor, “why would he do that?” even as he presumably was actively looking for a new home and subsequent to the time that he issued an email in his official capacity to other partners encouraging them to leave. The answer to the question sort of seems obvious:  The reason you would take a dissolution vote is because the law requires you to do so and the firm’s managing partners, as fiduciaries of other partners as well as of the firm’s other creditors, have a duty to call for such a vote as the firm, in fact, is actually in a state of very real dissolution.

The issue may well be that Dewey’s leaders, very smart lawyers one and all, may well have wanted to protect their colleagues and themselves from Jewel v Boxer claims. You see, these claims arguably first arise once the partnership votes to dissolve.  In Coudert, the only partners (and their new law firms) sued for unfinished business profits were those who left after the dissolution vote. I certainly have no information to support the notion that this was the reason for the failure to formally vote to dissolve Dewey.  But, if this was the reason for the ploy, it seems unlikely that it will succeed.  First, it may be that a court of equity may determine that Dewey went into formal dissolution as it stumbled through various critical paths:  For example, when Dewey leadership tried to auction off pieces to other law firms, when those efforts failed, when the firm’s then sole managing partner advised the partnership in January 2012 that the firm was basically insolvent in that it couldn’t pay its debts when due, the date of the bankruptcy filing or some other earlier date. We are in largely uncharted waters here, folks.

But, the refusal to take a formal dissolution vote solved nothing and protects nobody. Every former partner and most of their new law firms are still subject to breach of fiduciary claims, violations of the partnership agreement and violations of the Revised Uniform Partners Law. Those in management are presumably more at risk.

Simply arguably eliminating Jewel v Boxer claims still leaves the door wide open for breach of fiduciary duty claims. We do not suggest that Jewel claims preclude breach of fiduciary duty claims. They are all still out there.  In short, it doesn’t matter whether you call it a “tax” or a “penalty”.  A clawback is still a clawback.

Protecting law firms who hire partners laterally

In light of all of the foregoing, it is critical that any law firm which hires laterally must include indemnities from new partners from both Jewel v Boxer and breach of fiduciary claims.  The full nature, scope and content of these indemnities must be left to the sound business judgment of law firm leadership.  It is likely that the amount of the precise amount for particular indemnities will first be the subject of negotiation after issue is formally joined on the claims.  Those indemnities should be standard issue in every lateral partner agreement. Every single one.

All such agreements should require binding confidential mediation and arbitration.

Moreover, as we continue to watch even an already bankrupt Dewey continue to fall, law firm risk managers must be engaged in active discussions with its insurance carriers to see what insurance might be available with regard to potential future Deweys and partners who leave those sinking ships to join new law firms. It may be too late to insure Dewey-related claims, but it isn’t too late to seek coverage for the next generation of imploded law firm refugees. These claims are certainly outside the scope of standard issue malpractice claims, but may well be within the scope of fiduciary insurance coverage or errors and omissions policies.  The real problem here is that most often, these claims specifically exclude work done by a partner at a former law firm.

I leave it to professional liability professionals to craft an insurance based solution.  But be forewarned, time is short; the next law firm implosion may be around the corner.

An important note: Those law firms which carefully assesses its likelihood of liability, includes the amount of exposure into its calculus (and may even have appropriate insurance) and then eschews the need for an indemnity, while extending a viable offer, puts itself at a competitive advantage for a desirable candidate. However, it does so at some risk and eliminates the ability to tell all comers that these indemnities are required of all lateral partners. At the same time, if a law firm picks and chooses which lateral candidates should be required to provide indemnities, there may be some explaining to do of and when it comes to pre-trial discovery in the inevitable Jewel or breach of fiduciary duty claims rears its head.

Is this a fight you really want to get into?

 

It isn’t very surprising that every Jewel v Boxer and breach of fiduciary duty claim previously brought under these circumstances involving BigLaw has settled prior to trial. Many settle before the first pleading is served. The balance settle well prior to trial. Several are still pending in the pleading phases in Thelen and in Coudert with the antagonists vowing to fight on to trial and through the appellate process, never to give in. Never. We’ll see.

The real problem here is the fact that pretrial discovery will be brutishly invasive and certainly expensive.  Remember, that the Jewel v Boxer rule is that the plaintiff has an entitlement to recover the profits not the gross fees from unfinished business. Thus, discovery will necessarily include minute details of a law firm’s most sensitive and confidential pricing and profitability information, stuff that even in the most transparent of law firms do not regularly share even with partners.

Sure, we all love confidentiality agreements and protective orders and advocate for them all of the time both to the courts and to our skeptical and justifiably paranoid clients. But, today, the shoe is on the other foot: Do you really want this information disclosed to your key competitors even under a protective order?  Can you, dear advocate, feel safe with a protective order? Bear in mind that at trial, the veil of confidentiality comes off and should any of these cases ever come to trial, the world at large will be informed of your most sensitive information, with journalists, bloggers and pundits at the ready in the courthouse to report information never previously having seen the faint light of day.

Is it time for some rule changes?

 

While getting the American Bar Association and fifty-one agencies to change extant provisions of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility is a Herculean task, which, at best, would proceed at a glacial pace, it is time to at least begin to consider those issues.

First, since the skein of precedent and statute in the area of fiduciary laws governing partnerships is a foolhardy a mission hardly imaginable, let’s for the moment, at least, forget about undoing Jewel v Boxer under the rubric of amending a century or more of common law and statutory mandates and suggesting that we are simply modifying rules of professional conduct. Instead, an initial focus should be on the question of lateral partner movement. We all know what the rules say and we all concede that these rules are far more honored in the breach.  A new set of rules are critical and should, even reluctantly, yield to the realities created by the marketplace: Partners are free agents, just as law firms freely de-equitize partners and otherwise treat them as employees at will. Market realities create lateral movement.  The marketplace also has required client solicitation before partnership withdrawal, disclosure of historical billing and collection history and even solicitation of associates and other partners. The ethical rules need to be amended to yield to these market realities. The issue here is not those fiduciary rules of partnership described in the Jewel line of cases and in the Coudert decision. Rather, the rules that need to be addressed relate to those fairly unique to the profession; namely, those rules primarily regarding client solicitations in a free agency market.

More significantly, given the likelihood of a torrent of post Dewey Jewel v Boxer and breach of fiduciary claims, as well as a next round of similar claims from the inevitable next BigLaw failures, the rules should require that all disputes between law firms and their successors and assigns be arbitrated before a panel of those appointed in each jurisdiction to review lawyer conduct.

Until the rules are actually amended, BigLaw should consider acting on its own: I would propose a compact by and among the nation’s largest law firms under which any disputes among the signatories of the compact, inter se,  be finally resolved through mediation and then arbitration by a designated panel of arbitrators,  consisting of retired jurists as well as present and past BigLaw partners.  This compact should specifically bind the signing law firms as well as their successors and assigns.  It would take only a relatively small number of numbers of law firms to seize such an initiative and then some prodding to get other law firms to join in.

Waves of litigation brought by law firm liquidators seem inevitable.  A uniquely qualified panel of arbitrators are perhaps the most efficient way to handle these issues. At the same time, this panel could also be designated to be the forum in which disputes among partners inter se, as well as between a partner and his or her former law firm can be most efficiently finally resolved.

Jerry Kowalski is the founder of Kowalski & Associates, a consulting firm serving the legal profession exclusively. Jerry is a regular contributor to a variety of publications and is a frequent (always engaging and often humorous) speaker to a variety of forums. Jerry can be reached at Jerome_kowalski@me.com or at  jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com or at 212 832 9070, Extension 310

 

© Jerome Kowalski, July, 2012. All Rights reserved.

What is the Fair Market Value of a Full Service Commercial Law Firm?


What is the Fair Market Value of a Full Service Commercial Law Firm?.

Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year


Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year.

Trending for Law Firms in 2012: What to Expect This Year


United (States) Parcel Service.

Image by matt.hintsa via Flickr

                                                                                      Jerome Kowalski

                                                                                      Kowalski & Associates

                                                                                      January, 2012

 

Thirty items affecting the legal profession that are guaranteed to dominate the headlines in 2012

It is that time of year when you are entitled to know what to expect for this new year.  Accordingly, here is what the hot trends for 2012 will be:

  •  Continuing decline in legal spend on outside counsel.
  • As law firms continue to more efficiently and timely bill for matters and, the trend of law firms whittling away at their inventories (WIP), while not being able to replace that inventory because of the lethal combination of  reduced headcounts and  reduction in the legal spend, lenders to law firms will require more stringent reporting and will in some instances, reduce available credit lines.
  • Deleveraging of work with partners and other senior lawyers billing increased hours and the trend towards the inverted pyramid model continuing.
  • Law firms establishing subsidiaries to engage in services complementary to their services, including e-discovery, document review, legal staffing services, investment advisory services for high net worth clients and the like.
  • Congress, the courts and the judicial conference will make serious progress about modifying e-discovery rules, bringing down their current gravity defying costs as well as dampening down the torrent of spoliation claims and the attendant Herculean tasks companies need to take to avoid these claims.
  • Given weakening retail sales and decreased demand for most commercial real estate, buyers will emerge to take advantage of attractive pricing on some properties, perceiving real value opportunities.  Private equity funds will move in to this arena in a big way.
  • Increased  focus on collaboration, within the law firm, vertically with clients and horizontally with vendors of support services and co-counsel. Extranets will be enhanced and new technologies will emerge to provide greater transparency and real time feedback and collaboration.
  • More paperless offices.  With the bulk of communications now being electronic and the expected decline in timely services from the United States Postal Service likely to increase the trend of communicating electronically, law firms will be incentivized to go completely paperless. Incoming snail mail will be scanned and digitized. The huge cost of storing paper documents will evaporate.
  • Increased use of outside facilities management companies for mail, fax, reproduction, IT, bookkeeping and legal records departments.
  • Law firms will make more investments in technology than in people. The IT hotspots are knowledge management, software to farm information for the purpose of responding to RFP’s, making an AFA proposal, based on prior similar work handled by the firm and for project management purposes.
  • Every lawyer will tuck an IPad under his or her arm and no lawyer will attend a meeting without opening one. Continued development of apps for lawyers will simply make this tool not only essential, but a lawyer not having an IPad at the ready, risks a serious loss of credibility.
  • Tough times often brings out the worst in some folks.  Last year’s small spike in BigLaw partners and even other law firm personnel who engaged in defalcations of client funds will sadly probably continue.  Look for more headlines of such tales.  Law firms will be well served to now tighten controls and checks and balances regarding client finds.
  • There will be periodic announcements by a partner at a BigLaw firm stating “after 25 rewarding and wonderful years with my former firm, I have decided to open a solo practice so that I can work more closely with my clients.”  Sometimes these announcements will be sincere and genuine.  Sometimes these announcements really mean “I’ve been on the job market for almost a year since I was asked to leave my former firm.  I haven’t been able to find a new slot and my firm wants me out right now, so I may as well give this a try.”
  • Virtual law firms, such as Clearspire and Rimon will continue to grow and gain real traction and increased market credibility.

I am quite sure that we have been fairly thorough and inclusive. If you think we left anything off the list, please let us know by commenting below. Similarly, if you think we are wrong about any of the above, post a comment.

It’s going to be a challenging year.  Please fasten your seatbelts, hold on to the handrail and make sure that your arms and legs do not extend outside your car. We are in for an interesting year.

© Jerome Kowalski, January, 2012.  All Rights Reserved.

 Jerry Kowalski, who provides consulting services to law firms, is also a dynamic (and often humorous) speaker on topics of interest to the profession and can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com .

The Coming Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Are Offshore Law Firms Going to Invade the United States?


The Coming Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Are Offshore Law Firms Going to Invade the United States?.

The Coming Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Are Offshore Law Firms Going to Invade the United States?


English: The United States Esperanto: Loko de ...

Image via Wikipedia

                                                                             Jerome Kowalski

                                                                             Kowalski & Associates

                                                                             December, 2011

 

They’re coming.

The coming months and the coming years will mark an increased invasion of foreign based law firms and other providers of legal services into the United States.  They will likely be coming from all corners of the world. And, they will be looking to snatch your business.

First, we have the acknowledged intention of UK based behemoth Herbert Smith (1,500 or so lawyers) to re-open a United States office, after an absence of two decades. The new office, expected to open within the year will be populated by both United States and foreign qualified lawyers. Jonathan Scott, a senior Herbert Smith lawyer announced that the new New York City office focused on dispute resolution, including international arbitration and investigations.  Following the Watergate era admonition to “follow the money,”   the premium fee yielding dispute resolution and internal investigation practices seem extremely likely areas for firms like Herbert Smith (and AmLaw 100 firms) to continue to exploit.  The issue, of course, is that as the supply of high end law firms having the capacity to deliver quality dispute resolution work and internal investigations on a global scale and the competition for this work  continues to grow, price competition will ineluctably come in to play.

The British invasion is not new, nor will it end soon. British Magic Circle firms have invaded and have taken an increasingly dominant role in the US market for almost two decades.  London, which seems hell bent on being the Imperial home for the lawyers to the world, has already sent formidable firms here, including Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Allen & Overy, Freshfield, and Lovell Hogan. The last British invasion on these shores began with the Beatles in 1963 and last I heard, Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney are still playing to sell out audiences. The point is that, based on my count, fewer than 20 of the UK’s 100 largest law firms have taken to the US stage at this writing.

As the market in the Euro Zone continues to stagnate, law firms in that market will likely look to the American market as new sources for revenue. One recent example is Ireland’s A&L Goodbody, which long had a single lawyer outpost in New York, announced just yesterday ambitious plans to open a Silicon valley branch and reinvigorate its New York operations.   The Germans may not be far behind.

From the other side of the globe, the real game changer may well be the announced merger of   China’s King & Wood and Australia’s Mallesons Stephen Jaques. As announced in The Asian Lawyer , “[t]he combined firm will number some 1,800 lawyers, and is positioning itself clearly as an alternative in the region to the large U.S. and U.K. firms that have traditionally dominated major cross-border deals.”  It matters little if the combined entity will soon open a US office (although my raw guess is that they eventually will), the combined firm will be competing directly with both AmLaw 100 and Golden Circle firms for core cross border work.

As I previously observed,  “the profession must be mindful of the Chinese business model, which seems to be the Chinese asking foreigners to come to China and perform a service or build a product, followed by the Chinese saying “let me see how you do that.” That in turn is followed by “teach us how to do that,” and ultimately “okay, we now know how to do that on our own, so you can leave and we will do so on our own.’”

The West has not only taught Chinese law firms how to practice law in the Western style, but, the West has also taught the Chinese to operate globally and on the global expanse. Indeed, the two largest law firms in China, Dacheng and Yingke, are preparing to open bases in London. The United States will not be far behind.   Broad & Bright, one of China’s leading law firms with 60 lawyers,  is set on moving to the West.  It is now in merger talks with 2,900 lawyer Clifford Chance.    Since you have by now read the Broad & Bright web site through the link above, you know that Broad & Bright has acted as counsel in China for some of the world’s largest corporations and on its surface, does not need Clifford Chance to funnel more work to its offices. Broad & Bright is one of those rare firms that can easily be a net exporter of legal services. Thus, should the Clifford Chance talks fail, it would not come as much of a surprise that Broad & Bright (or a similar sized and placed Chinese law firm will simply say “okay, we now know how to do this on our own and we don’t need a Western law firm to open our own international law firm.”

LPO’s, sometimes called “non-traditional law firms”  have watched their gross revenues increase almost ten-fold over the last five years, to an estimated $2,500,000,000 in 2012 with some estimating a doubling of that number by 2015.  As I have said in the past, it is a major mistake to simply think of LPO’s as limited resource providers of ancillary services to law firms and corporate legal departments. Rather, they are alternate providers of legal services, which can provide a full range of legal services to United States consumers of legal services at an enormous price advantage. The only areas in which these entities are precluded from competing directly with United States law firms are appearing in judicial proceedings, signing legal opinion letters or otherwise directly providing advice to a corporation on American law.  A number of LPO’s, particularly on the Indian sub-continent, have affiliations of one form or another with Indian law firms.

The thin barrier preventing LPO’s from grabbing even more slices of the legal spend pie will easily evaporate.   There are a variety of different means for those affiliates to establish or acquire a United States law firm.  Thus, an LPO could easily establish a very real law firm branch office in the United States, populated by US duly qualified lawyers which in term could make eviscerate the thin boundary which would give these offshore entities the ability to offer the full array of legal services – including appearing in judicial proceedings,  signing legal opinions and direct counseling,

LPO’s, owned by offshore entities and owned by either US investors or by US law firms are sprouting United States branch offices like weeds. Those US branch offices already have the infrastructure in place to function as full service law firms, often with technology already in place that is complete state of the art. And there are many a small or medium sized law firm that would presumably welcome the capital and assured revenue stream from a successful well capitalized offshore LPO to buttress its own sagging fortunes.

In 2011, United States law firms met the challenges of reduced legal spends and new competition through reducing headcounts,  merging to create more critical mass and consolidating back office and support funtions, or by shutting their doors. Professor Steve Harper avers that in 2011 there were a total of 43 law firm mergers. Those shutting their doors, often with disastrous consequence to the firm’s individual partners, include the splashy Howrey implosion, Florida based Yoss, LLP as well as Ruden McCloskey (which didn’t quite go down without a fight) , New York’s Snow Becker and Krause, Atlanta based Shapiro Fussell Wedge & Martin, Los Angeles based Silver & Freedman, Denver based Isaacson Rosenbaum,  foreclosure mills Steven Baum and David Stern and150 lawyer Austin based Clark Thomas & Winters.  And there are more than a few commentators who suggest that  Arnold & Porter’s acquisition of the remnants of Los Angeles based Howard Rice and Bryan Cave’s acquisition of Denver based rapidly shrinking Robert Holme & Owen largely staved off the closures of the acquired firms.  A similar suggestion arguably applies to McKenna long’s “acquisition” of Luce Forward, with the former plainly planning on doing a material house cleaning of the latter.

Well then, Ollie, that’s a fine mess we’re in.

Despite admonitions concerning the imprudence of predicting the future by such luminaries as John Kenneth Gailbraith (“the only purpose served in making predictions about the future is to lend credibility to astrology”) and Yogi Berra (“the future is hard to predict because it hasn’t happened yet”), I tremulously suggest that we are certainly likely to see the following over the coming months:

  • Continued merging of middle market law firms to create larger regional or super regional law firms.
  • Further reducing headcount and support staff.
  • Acquisitions by foreign law firms or alternative providers of domestic US based law firms.
  • Some US law firms meeting the invasion of foreign law firms and alternative legal service providers by counter-attacks, landing branches on foreign shores, despite the known risks attendant to that approach.
  • Enhanced collaboration, both vertically between the law firm and its important institutional clients, as well as horizontally with alternative providers of legal services as well as with law firms to which the client may have downsourced work to.
  • Increased price competition for premium work as well as increased commoditization of other lines of work.

We are in for some challenging times.  Most well managed law firms will continue to survive and thrive. Some law firms will inevitably appear on lists published next December of law firms that sadly didn’t make it.

© Jerome Kowalski, December, 2011.  All Rights Reserved.

 Jerry Kowalski, who provides consulting services to law firms, is also a dynamic (and often humorous) speaker on topics of interest to the profession and can be reached at jkowalski@kowalskiassociates.com .

%d bloggers like this: