Practice Management

GAL raised an interesting question about the future and use of "of counsel" by law firms.  I think the argument could go further and say, what about a law firm of only of counsel relationships, where one attorney acts as the contact or the hub through which the legal traffic follows.  This attorney could be the coordinating center of the operation.  All other lawyers are of counsel.

Are we, in reality, on the verge of creating single project Basecamp centric law firms, or something similar to it?

I guess what I am suggesting is instead of having a law firm that goes out and finds compatible cases on which feed the firm, that an ad hoc law firm will form around a case or a client with a particular need.

Ad hoc, as you know, is Latin and it means "for this purpose".  It is a group of lawyers or law firms that comes together to craft a legal solution for a specific problem or task.  The ad hoc law firm does not have to adapt to other purposes.  It would represent a tailor-made solution to a legal issue.  Everybody would be of counsel.

It would have a lot of benefits, really, for the firm would be an adhocracy, meaning that it would antonymous to bureaucracy.

Many lawyers and law firms are moving home or drastically cutting overhead in a number of ways.  What these are really doing, whether they have thought about it or not, is setting themselves up as free agents.  These lawyers and law firms will have the dexterity to move from one professional relationship to another.

Maybe it is like the movie-making model.  Actors, directors, producers, legal, accounting, editors, cameramen, and really the whole technical staffing of a movie, come together for this one big event.  It is a temporary company.  It is not that they might not work together in the future or on a different movie, but that is not the goal or the objective.  The movie is done, and each party moves on to whatever other project awaits.

A suggestion of how such a thing would work might be the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy filing.  Many think it is the biggest bankruptcy in history.  There are a lot of very qualified people out there that can work on and handle such a large case, but their firms and lawyers just cannot handle such a thing alone.  In the old days a couple of Big Law firms might have gotten together to share the work.  And, that does not count the firms that needed to represent the various classes or committees of creditors.  Today, what is possible is for an attorney or small group of attorneys to dissect the need and start building a team of lawyers and staff, from diverse backgrounds and locations, to handle such a bankruptcy together.  The same is true for the various creditor committees.

Such a thing would spell the death of Big Law, or at least Big Law as we know it.

What it really says is that the future belongs to the rainmakers and those attorneys with the unique skill of finding clients and building teams.  Team building is not a task that is taught well in law school.  It fact, it is probably discouraged.  And, it is the one thing that has probably slowed this evolution to ad hoc law firms.  But, as the ranks of JD/MBAs continue to rise, so will the possibility of the ad hoc law firms.

Can we see the future now?  I think so.