• Home
  • News
  • DLA Piper Partner Moves to Smaller Firm Over Clients’ Cost Concerns

Law Practice Management

DLA Piper Partner Moves to Smaller Firm Over Clients’ Cost Concerns

Posted Jul 20, 2009 2:51 PM CST
By Martha Neil

As a partner of 3,700-attorney DLA Piper, Thomas Durling could promote the megafirm's international platform and deep capabilities on major corporate matters.

The problem was, a number of his intellectual property clients were local Pennsylvania businesses more interested in how much he charged for his services as an intellectual property lawyer, reports the Legal Intelligencer. So a week ago Durling moved to a partnership position in the Philadelphia office of 72-attorney Flaster Greenberg.

"My experience was it was difficult to engage local businesses with a higher rate structure. There were people down the street that could do the same thing I could at a cheaper rate," he tells the legal publication. "Somebody from Lansdale didn't necessarily care that I had an office in Kuwait."

Lawyers moving to another firm right now are looking, first and foremost, for a law partnership on solid financial footing, says consultant Frank D'Amore of Attorney Career Catalysts. Shifting from a big firm to a smaller one, however, is definitely a trend.

Additional related coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "6 DLA Piper Lawyers Leave Megafirm for Mid-Sized Phila. Practice"

Updated on July 23 to link to subsequent ABAJournal.com post.

Comments

1.

B. McLeod
Jul 20, 2009 6:12 PM CST

Exactly.  Now his clients can pay their lawyer, rather than the firm’s staggering overhead.

Flag this comment

2.

LegalLady
Jul 21, 2009 7:35 AM CST

I am always surprised at the amount of overhead clients appear to be willing to pay for.  I’ve walked into law offices and thought:  “this” is what I’m paying for?  I’d much rather pay for real legal work than a fancy lobby, kitchen, and unnecessary office space.

Flag this comment

3.

Jason
Jul 21, 2009 9:26 AM CST

I work at a 5 person firm and would never leave to go to a bigger firm.  Life is great.

Flag this comment

4.

Jeff Johnson
Jul 24, 2009 4:40 AM CST

No surprise.  I am a partner with small-but-highly-effective forensic/e-discovery company (Alphalitigator) and I am continually amazed by how much less expensive we are compared to other companies in our space (Kroll, Fios, FTI, Huron, etc) - yet (IMHO) we often offer greater value and responsiveness.  At the end of the day, it is the individual lawyer that gets the work done at the law firm.  For us, it is the engineer that gets the work done.  Not a lot of overhead is required.

Flag this comment

5.

Dan K.
Jul 24, 2009 5:38 AM CST

Love working for a 40-attorney firm.  How many 1st year associates can say they’ve been to the named partner’s house and drank beer/played poker with many of the other partners, outside of some fake “summer associate” wooing program.

Flag this comment

6.

ServiceOriented
Jul 24, 2009 6:50 AM CST

I left DLA Piper because I got tired of seeing my clients paying for the firm’s management to jet set all over the world, staying in 5-star hotels, and eating at top restaurants, all under the guise of “touring” the firm’s 26+ offices.

I got tired of seeing my clients pay for marble floors, marble walls, and chandeliers.

I got tired of seeing my clients pay—not for a Director of Diversity—but for REGIONAL Directors of DIversity.

I charge my clients way less than I charged at DLA Piper.  I make a little more money.  It’s a win-win.

Except for DLA Piper.  They kinda took it in the shorts.

Flag this comment

7.

tim
Jul 24, 2009 7:00 AM CST

$295 an hour for a 30 year corporate partner in the midwest.  Why pay $350 an hour for a first year at BigLaw.  Anything over $300 an hour and your just pissing money down the drain.

Flag this comment

8.

BMF
Jul 24, 2009 7:40 AM CST

#7 Anything over $200 to $250—depending on location—is too much for a first year associate.

And for that price, I would expect them to be put through intensive “boot camp type” training for a month where they actually learn to do all basic relevant federal and state trial procedures. A bigger firm should, in theory, cost less per attorney due to the inherent efficiencies of being able to divide work among people suited for various tasks.

Flag this comment

9.

Hadley V. Baxendale
Jul 24, 2009 7:41 AM CST

“Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” cries the Wixard of Biglaw.
“You’re nothing but a humbug!” says Dorothy, general counsel for a small midwestern farm supply company.
Well, Biglaw, the clients have figured it out and are moving business to those who deliver effective and efficient legal service.  Smart lawyers are moving to those firms to be there waiting.

Flag this comment

10.

Greg Wilson
Jul 24, 2009 8:09 AM CST

Lots of bitterness on this board.  And this article is just flat out dumb.  Partners switch firms all the time if the other firm fits their practice area better - even if that is due to less overhead and less capacity.  I don’t use IBM for my tech support because I’m a one man show but that doesn’t mean that IBM tech support is awful and overpriced.  If you have to demean DLA and say how great life is post-BigLaw, I have to wonder if that’s the truth.  I suspect you’re just bitter cause you failed at BigLaw.

Flag this comment

11.

Jorge Angell
Jul 24, 2009 8:35 AM CST

Not all is beautiful in small firms. Even if they have the contacts they simply can’t handle big corporate work (e.g., M&A’s) because they don’t have the critical mass or the brand which will shield management if something goes wrong. All in all, I’m happy to work in a small firm.

Flag this comment

12.

Mike
Jul 24, 2009 9:09 AM CST

There are transactions that only BigLaw firms can handle, which require a lot of support, and they are priced accordingly. Clients who only need the specialist advice thus do not see the use of paying for all the overhead - they want to pay the lawyer who does their work, and pay decently for it (which is less than what BigLaw charges).

Does that mean BigLaw has no place in the workd? No. It just means that they have to orient themselves accordingly, and the same is true for the specialist lawyer.

After I left BigLaw, having successfully run a large office for over 24 years, and decided to practice on my own, giving specialist advice to my clients, I am now able to charge less (only about $600 / hour) for my work. But I still occasionally need the support functions, and have an arrangement with my old firm.

Those who feel they don´t serve their clients best at BigLaw should move to smaller structures. Clients who are happy getting less service should go to the smaller firm. You would not buy a Mercedes if you only drive short distances, and are never seen; a small Chevy will do. Too many clients like to show off their Mercedes - sorry, the BigLaw firm they use - even though they really don´t need it.

There is a proper place for everyone. Don´t say a Mercedes is overpriced, only because all you use it for is showing off, and not driving at 140mph on the Autobahn, and don´t say the Chevy is much better value for money. Each fits a specific need.

Flag this comment

13.

HVB
Jul 24, 2009 9:17 AM CST

Having been the square peg in a round hole at PrettyBigForOurTownLaw, I think the problem is not with the BigCase or BigDeal but with the commodity work that Biglaw stil tries to hang on to, to keep the client.  The firm ends up with de facto tiers or branches, and those doing the important but less profitable work get beat up on numbers requirements. But referring it out to a friendly firm often doesn’t work.  So here’s the solution to change the business model: open several affiliated firms. For example, a seperate collections firm for the hospital and bank collections, another for worker’s comp and basic labor law; another for estate and personal tax. They can be in other buildings or out in the suburbs, and are off the peformance requirements, but have performance requirements that make sense for that type of work.

Flag this comment

14.

Peter
Jul 27, 2009 6:04 AM CST

Mike - I work at a 5 person firm.  90% of the transactions we due are with BigLaw.  We can run with them any day of the week.  We do M&A work, venture capital, securities, international transactions every day of the week.

You would be surprised how many clients we get once BigLaw clients see that a small firm can do the same work.

Flag this comment

15.

Esq.
Jul 27, 2009 11:01 AM CST

Let the market speak for itself.  I go up against BigLaw partners all the time, whose fees for one day of hearings are about a quarter of my annual salary.

Flag this comment

16.

ChicagoLawyer
Jul 27, 2009 8:34 PM CST

I agree that in some cases smaller firms or even individual attorneys may do as well if not better on some matters for some clients (after doing IP prosecution I could never figure out why some corps would ever pay someone $600 hr to file trademark applications with the USPTO). That being said working in-house at a Fortune 100 I can see times where having a relationshihp with a multi-national multi-discipline law firm has absolute benefits. DLA is actually one of my company’s preferred firms and for reason. When you find out you are being investigated in Kuwait and your firm already has someone in the region to deal with it those marble floor expenses seem (almost) worth it.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.