As a solo, maintaining solvency, let alone predominance, in an ever-changing market necessitates a candid evaluation of what your firm offers and how it can better adapt to meet client expectations and increase the likelihood of a favorable resolution of each case. In a profession where disclaimers abound and where prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome, each client nevertheless demands results and requires tailored advice. However many times you may have seen a similar case before, each client has individualized concerns. Priorities may shift as the case develops: What may have started as a blank check from the client may be curtailed by sudden budgetary limitations. Additionally, what had been an effective outlook or approach for one client may falter when facing different personalities running different corporate clients. While much depends on what is in your realm of professional competency and the strength of your legal arguments, you may find yourself isolated from opportunities to expand your client base and services. You might feel the urge to merge.
At what point and when does it make sense to sacrifice autonomy? There are no easy answers. Careful attention must be given to whether or not merging makes sense. Increasing market share in uncertain economic times is tricky enough; the uncertain political times make it even trickier. Whatever the uncertainties are or may be, trusting yourself and relying on your legal training is paramount.
Maintaining your autonomy with respect to who to accept (and reject) as clients has its advantages. Every client is owed fiduciary duties and competent representation, and there are only so many hours—and only so many billable hours—in the day. Merging adds an additional layer to the already complicated analysis of which clients to retain and which to remove. A delicate balance must be struck. Business development and the bottom line are important considerations, but requisite ethical conflict checks may decrease efficiency and undermine your ability to take on clients with the ease with which you have become accustomed.
In a solo practice, success might be easier to define, clear goals easier to establish, investing in personal growth simplified, and staying accountable to core values more straightforward, but none of this might be translating into attracting business.
One reason to merge is to differentiate yourself in a crowded market. A new name may help. There is a town in Wales named Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. This town did not always have this name; it added some extra syllables specifically to lengthen it. What draws people here is the name and the novelty—in a word, differentiation. What differentiates a law firm in a crowded market are the quality and caliber of advice, turnaround time, degree of affability, and the facilities in which these services are provided.
Merging can introduce you to different methods and means to increase efficiency—from adopting an AI assistant, such as Harvey at A&O Shearman or Athena at Troutman Pepper, to incorporating new (human) staffing arrangements and personnel. Exposure to different ways to ethically and competently practice law via a merger could be the vehicle that transports your practice to where you would like it to be.
Merging can also broaden your firm’s areas of competencies. Lawyers operating in different practice areas and settings develop different skill sets. The game of Battleship is comprised of a number of different pieces for a reason. A fleet of varied skills can better address distinct needs.
The true extent of the reach of your practice is never fully known, but certainly, much depends on attracting and retaining clients. And of this set, the subset who pay bills in full, on time, and without bemoaning appropriate fees for previously agreed-upon legal services are the gold standard. Your urge to merge may be predicated on your desire to secure more of these latter kinds of clients.
Ultimately, determining whether to merge stems from the weight given to countervailing priorities. Every practice area, region, sector, and business model has different needs at different times. Market research to identify trends and best practices is a useful step. Your rationale for merging or entering a market should be clear.
A merger necessarily involves combining different entities to form a new, separate one. When you merge, consider why, when, and how. The importance of protecting your clients as well as your own reputation cannot be underestimated. Timing is critical, as is an effective marketing team.
The urge to merge cannot be halfheartedly entertained or passively considered. Much depends on who you are and what you want. This, however, is tempered by where you are and who you’re up against. A frank self-assessment may lead you to the conclusion that your background, training, and skill set can contribute more meaningfully to clients when aligned with similarly minded attorneys. Your inclination to merge may be exactly what the market needs to function more efficiently and effectively—and for the justice system to be more fairly and adequately administered.
