Practice Management

Hunting Bigger Game: There's No Reason Good Boutiques Can't Catch and Keep Fortune 500 Clients

By Dan Hull

No, I don't think of all this as a sport. In many cases, it's akin to "rescue operations".

Color me predatory but I love taking great clients away from "large" law firms (1000+ attorneys). There are 4 large law firms in the world my firm would never "cross". The reason: they are very good at what they do for great clients. There's no reason to fix anything. Those 4 firms--based in Ohio, Illinois, New York and DC, if you want a hint--clearly still care about what they do for clients in our practice areas. And it shows. When "BigLaw" is good, it can be very very good.

Everything and everyone else--and publicly-traded clients generally--are fair game for us. No, I don't think of all this as a sport. In many cases, it's akin to "rescue operations". Sorry if I offend--but sometimes going from "BigLaw" to a high-end boutique is the best thing that ever happened to the client. Even to-die-for clients can get abused or under-served. They do. Go figure.

Note: If you "get" one of these great clients, do NOT lower your rates. Focus on value--but charge at least what the clients paid at BigLaw. Maybe add 10%. Folks, why do higher-end work more efficiently for reduced prices? (Get the net.)

Solos. I have never been sold that solos--as opposed to boutiques with at least 5 lawyers--can obtain and keep good Fortune 500 work. However, I do think that the now decade-old trend of extraordinarily high quality lawyers leaving larger firms and setting up shop in smaller ones--coupled with the right technology, planning and hustle--can take lots of interesting repeat niche work away from large law firms. It's happening a lot.

And maybe I am dead wrong about solos. See The Practice, in a post long ago, commenting on an article by Cheryl Leitschuh.

Full post as published by What About Clients? on September 16, 2009 (boomark / email).