Biglaw, Small Law Firms

Beyond Biglaw: Uberizing Biglaw?

What can law firms learn from the disruptive ride-sharing company?

By  
on

We all know that many Biglaw firms want to get bigger at all costs. The rationale is that scale will allow them to capture more market share. When I started in Biglaw, at Greenberg Traurig in 2002, the firm had about 800 lawyers in around 19 offices. When I lateraled out as a partner in 2011, the firm was close to or about double the size, both in terms of lawyers and offices. Similarly, when I joined my second Biglaw firm, Locke Lord, the firm was at about 600 lawyers and ten or so offices. Since I left in late 2013, it has also doubled in size on both fronts. This past week also saw news about two of the largest firms in the world, DLA Piper and Dentons, continuing to take steps towards becoming all things to all clients. For a large slice of Biglaw, it seems that the desire to become a “one-stop shop” for clients is an all-encompassing one, and represents a strategy still being pursued with gusto.

The sheer size of many Biglaw firms has started to impact the traditional notion of a client-attorney relationship, while presenting options for lawyers to consider regarding what type of model they prefer to work in. We all know that the world has been heading inexorably towards business models that use technology to give the “customer” previously unheard of freedom in choosing service providers. Perhaps the leading example is Uber, which has quickly displaced both taxis and traditional “black car” services as a means of getting people around.

Why is Uber so disruptive? Because it puts more power into the hands of customers than the alternative modes of transportation — which provides important lessons for other service businesses, including law firms, and may provide hints as to how the mega-Biglaw firms may eventually try to differentiate themselves. For one, Uber gives the customer control over when to call for a car, which is a significant advantage over waiting on a freezing street corner with your hand in the air hoping an open taxi will show up. Even the act of “calling” for the car is made easier. A couple of taps on the phone you are carrying around anyway, and someone is on the way. I remember the days of getting rides from an airport in other cities, with the cab driver giving me a business card so that I could call directly for a ride back. With Uber, business cards are obsolete, since the customer using Uber has the relationship with the company, not the driver. Uber even saves you from having to make a phone call, which is apparently an advantage in this age of having as little human interaction as possible.

Another advantage with Uber is that you get to see when the services will be provided, as you watch your designated driver’s little car avatar drive around on the virtual map. Likewise, you get to see who will be providing the services, and have the choice of ordering the level of service you want. Heading on a family vacation with a trunkload of Christmas toys to bring along? Uber XL is for you. Taking a client back to their hotel after a dinner out? Uber Black sends the right message. Just looking for the cheapest option? Uber X is ready to serve. You even have the option, when using the “cheap” option, of choosing not to ride with a certain driver. This offers a huge advantage over the randomness of hailing a taxi, where you may be picked up by a driver who is in the middle of enjoying a heaping plate of smelly street food.

Just as Uber makes it easy to interact on the front end, in terms of calling for services, it also makes it easy to complete the transaction on the back end, in terms of both payment and feedback. You do not need to remember to carry cash, or a credit card, as your payment information is stored. Stops at the ATM for some emergency cash to pay off the driver are a thing of the past, as is the need to fight with the driver over cost. Have a payment concern? Just take it up with Uber afterwards. No need for a semi-sober exercise of your advocacy skills outside of your home late at night, as you haggle over a tip with the driver. Even surge pricing is tolerable, since you as the customer know in advance that you are asking for services in a high-demand environment. Spending more is easier when there are no surprises, and when the service provider makes payment seamless. Leaving and receiving feedback on Uber works just as well.

There is another advantage that Uber has. It can, and does, incentivize referrals, while continuously assuring customers that “network effects” will be of benefit to them. The more people use Uber, the more cities it is in, the more drivers it has — all have the potential to benefit customers. There is no doubt that a segment of Biglaw is trying to tap into the same potential that Uber has actualized. Will those firms have to become more advanced technologically? Sure. But there is no reason that algorithms can’t be developed to handle things like (1) conflict checks; (2) suggesting lawyers based on availability, expertise, and desired payment rate or structure; or (3) billing “on demand” — in ways that benefit both law firms and clients. Honestly, I can see the day coming where clients will be able to use an app to “order up” on-demand legal services from their preferred firms, with cost certainty, and the ability to decide which lawyer or group of lawyers they desire to handle their matter. The firms most likely to develop and roll out such technology? The mega-firms, with lawyers across many practice groups and time zones, and the ability to fluctuate pricing based on demand and scope of work.

Many lawyers may like practicing in such an environment, where a client dials up for immediate service, and the “customer relationship” is with the firm as a whole — relieving the burden on many to develop their own books of business. Yes, it may be a stretch to consider such a firm a partnership, but in all honesty there are not many Biglaw firms today that still espouse a true partnership model. There will be clients that will enjoy the cost certainty and increased responsiveness that such a model promises, especially for routine matters.

Sponsored

At the other end of the spectrum? Lawyers like myself, who find more satisfaction practicing in a true partnership, and building direct (and hopefully lasting) relationships with clients in a very specific practice area. In some ways that approach is more traditional, and it surely has its challenges. I can understand the appeal of becoming the Biglaw equivalent of an Uber driver, but at least for myself I would much rather try and meet the challenge of providing bespoke services to a much more limited, and perhaps demanding, client base. One thing for certain is that the legal profession has seen change that has democratized access to top-tier legal services for a broader swath of companies and individuals — on a global scale. We may not yet have our Uber, but we are quickly driving in that direction.

Gaston Kroub lives in Brooklyn and is a founding partner of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC, an intellectual property litigation boutique. The firm’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and related counseling, with a strong focus on patent matters. You can reach him at gkroub@kskiplaw.com or follow him on Twitter: @gkroub.

Sponsored

Topics

, , , ,