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.