Does Size Really Matter?

Reputation Dilemma

For trial attorneys, going small / solo can cause perception issues.   The local bar often presumes competence and success is somehow related to firm size.   The most prestigious law firms are presumptively the ones with the largest number of attorneys.  The least prestigious are presumptively the smallest firms and the solos.

Does size really matter?  I once had a high school friend who was often heard to say, “It is not the size of the wand, but the magic in it.”  As I venture deeper into non-solo practice, I am beginning to think he was he was indeed a wise beyond his years.

At LexThink, there was discussion about the difficulties imposed by common stereotypes attached to solo law firms.  These stereotypes can affect client decisions concerning representation, the settlement positions of adverse counsel and insurance companies, referral networks and related issues.

Prospective clients sometimes favor large law firms for no other reason than that they are large.  What they fail to realize is that they are the ones who pay for the overhead of the gorgeous lobbies and big shiny buildings.

What clients may not realize that they may be trading a small firm business model based on competence for a large firm business model based on billing as many hours as possible. I am going to start a link section to solo success stories which will include lawyers and law firms have broken through the stereotypes to become dominant market players in spite of (and in fact because of) their small size. We need to add to these success stories, and market our advantages so that the stereotypes slowly dissolve and competence is judged on quality and other objective measures.