« The Self Interest of Bloggers Drives The Blogosphere | Main | Counting Hourly Pennies Spoils Client Relationships »




Sometimes the litigator's "need to fight without any sense of what they are really fighting for" is client-driven. I recently received an inquiry from a spouse involved in a protracted divorce fight, who was patting herself on the back for having dragged out the case for three years - and who wanted to know if it was feasible to drag it out until she had been married for twenty years, at which time she believed that she would automatically qualify for permanent spousal support. The divorce was filed after seven years of marriage.

But the more typical example would be the defense firm hired by an insurance company to fight even clear-cut cases of liability. Most insurance companies have apparently concluded that it is cheaper to engage in protracted, unnecessary litigation prior to settling a case, than to simply settle the case for a fair value without involving the courts. Malpractice litigation is almost comical, in regard to the number of hurdles placed between the legitimate malpractice victim and recovery - a tragic comedy, which unquestionably drives up cost and delays justice.

Peter Olson

What other profession or industry other than medicine has as high of barriers to entry as three years of education for each individual which might cost $50k - $100k? As a recent sole practitioner I agree that the costs to actually set-up a practice are relatively low but that initial hurdle is steep.


Moe: I appreciate your comments. We have no size limit here.

You note: "The simple fact is that individuals and small businesses in America are declining in real income and cannot become an a source of new business for law firms of any size."

By reducing the overall cost of legal services using technology, I have increased the size of my market. What used to cost $10,000 (with an appropriate margin for profit) can be done for half that price (with the same margin). By reducing costs, I have gained access to a much larger market for services.

By the way, I was a partner at one of the largest law firms in my town of 50,000 people. In my first year in my new practice as an independent practitioner, using alternative billing methods and focusing on delivering quality rather than shear quantify of hours, I will make more than I ever did before. My overhead is low. My ability to deliver services is way beyond what it was at my old firm (largely because of our unique use of technology). And I'm not paying for other partners who did little work and got paid a lot.


Moe: If you had to make one book recommendation for me to read this new year (that I can purchase on Amazon.com), what would it be?

Interestingly, I started my new firm because what I saw in the legal profession was a lack of inspired capitalism. I saw power. I saw control. I saw grasping. I saw holding on. But what I did not see was much true or inspired innovation. And following up on your comment above. I saw little differentiation.

When I listened to clients, I heard some troubling things. They had no real information to make a decision about what law firm to hire or why. They had no real metrics from which to make informed judgments (except the old staid and true "I heard they were real bastards"). They had no real measurements from which to judge whether their attorney was doing a good job, or delivering hours of work in an efficient manner.

Clearly, the mainstream legal market has not asked for much more from lawyers than what lawyers have been delivering for the last two decades. But I see lawyers and law firms as capable of much more than they are doing.

You could not be more correct about technology and lawyers. Technology will never make a bad lawyer a good one. And you certainly don't need technology to be a good lawyer. But a lawyer who is able to harness the incredible efficiencies of technology without being subsumed by the distractions of technology will have market advantage.

You and I have struck a nerve in each-other because I think we are essentially talking about the same thing, not law but capitalism. When I talk about my firm, I am really talking about all sorts of businesses. I am talking about the shift of power from corporations to individuals, from people who simply have power to the people whose talent drives mankind forward.

So I am interested in your book recommendation, because you come at this topic with the knowledge of an academic who has studied its economic principles. I come at it as a street smart fighter who has worked in the highest ivory law towers and from the raw cold streets. I come at it in part as an anarchist who believes he can be a factor which helps change/evolve the world. But my views don't come from or accounts for the books you have listed in your various posts. My instincts tell me what capitalism is and is not. I believe capitalism is as innate in mankind as is our search for God. Perhaps it is time I started studying the science of the beast I am battling?

And thanks for causing us all to pause on this important discussion. Have a safe and happy new year, Moe.

Loretta Crum

Moe: I hear what you're saying about capitalism, but does that mean that all the talk in law school we heard (me three years ago, you and GAL much longer ago than that) about the law being a "noble calling" and a quest for justice was just so much self-serving hot air? Do you mean that we're in the legal business only to make money, not help people? If so, why not get an MBA and go the corporate route, since you can make so much more money as an MBA than as a lawyer? Do those couple of pro bono cases a year take care of your ethical obligations as attorney so you can spend the rest of your time billing your clients to death?

GAL is correct that the current billing model of "not guilty until proven broke" (something of a non sequiter but it's correct and any lawyer who's been out there doing civil defense work knows exactly what it means) has created a parallel opportunity for him to differentiate himself from the pack by delivering better services at less cost to the client. Moe, what could be more Wal-mart than that?

But GAL might not like what's in Pandora's box once it's open. Because if this profession gets deregulated into a business in place of a guild, the public is going to find out that a lot of what we do can be done cheaper and just as well by people who aren't in the guild. Look at what Nolo Press and LegalZoom are doing. Or CPA firms who provide ancillary legal services to their clients. If we give up our monopoly, somebody else is going to be pulling the strings. GAL will probably do fine because he's a top-flight litigator, but those of us who are competent and thorough but not legal geniuses aren't going to be real happy to be shunted into the legal equivalent of working for Wal-Mart.


Maybe I'm reading too quickly... okay, I'm skimming... so I may have missed something, but... Microsoft is in a different labor market than BigLaw. A law firm doesn't have to deliver more profits per employee than Microsoft, any more than does a McDonalds franchise. And Microsoft doesn't have to keep up with the salaries paid to the athletes in a successful sports franchise. They're hiring different people. (Also, profits per employee are not uniform across an enterprise, so it's okay that a janitor is less "productive" than a biochemist, even if both are employed by the same pharmaceutical research firm.)

Also, if anything but hourly billing is so easily defeated by delay, why are so many of the wealthiest lawyers in the nation billing clients almost entirely (or entirely) on the basis of the contingent fee?


I would add also that it is much easier for Microsoft to continue to profit from past employees' work than it is for a law firm. Brief banks are great, but can you imagine if you could patent a legal argument?


Loretta: I hear you loud and clear on the profession issue. Rest assured, while my toolbox is filled with instruments of capitalism, my motive is to inspire attorneys to recall that they are a profession. Luckily, my business model of focusing on the client rewards the profession as well. This discussion has evolved into one focused on capitalism. My point is that you don't have to be a pauper lawyer or bill every hours to make a very good living.


Sure. They recruit the same Ph.D.'s out of the same technological institutes, after all.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Virtual Job board

GAL Radio

  • GALRadio

Twitter Updates


  • ..

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner