Three of the biggest deals were in the final quarter of the year, and Altman stated that "the pace of mergers could accelerate in 2012." Obviously, all the travail of the Great Recession did not convince firms that getting bigger at all costs was a bad idea.
Yet the question remains: Is bigger always better for clients? Often clients may not be better served if the expected economies of scale and enhanced collaboration of a merger do not materialize. And if they don't, where should clients turn?
Clients of smaller firms typically expect to receive more personal service as the attractive trade-off to a large firm's massive reach. But even in a small firm, that rapport does not happen automatically. To accentuate this most attractive positive, the small firm must:
Big law firms are not inevitable. Look at another time of massive change, the 1960s, when companies like IT&T and Gulf & Western faltered because they became too large to operate. They had to break up; the survivors had to develop new customer bases in order to start growing again.
The same thing could happen in the future legal community. Big law firms could well falter (like many did in the Great Recession), as technology better enables sole practitioners and small firms to meet the needs of "the 99 percent," the consumer-oriented clients and small companies.
The work is there for those firms that have the cost flexibility and technology to be competitive.
© 2024 Edward Poll & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.