Biglaw, Federal Government, Partner Issues, Privacy, War on Terror

Pathways To Partnership: To Specialize Or Not To Specialize

What are the advantages and disadvantages of focusing on a niche practice area?

By  
on

In my line of work, I sometimes end up as a career counselor of sorts. People talk to me about what’s going on at their law school or law firm and ask me for advice about what to do.

I recently had occasion to speak with a lawyer who was laid off by his Biglaw firm. He remains on the website, but he hasn’t been to the office in months; that was part of the deal they negotiated with issued to him. He has been looking for a new job for months but has been having difficulty. He blames this in part on a lack of specialization — he’s a generalist, not really marketable as an expert in a particular type of litigation or transaction.

This reminded me of a chat I was having with an old friend from my high school debate days, who has found great professional success in a focused practice area. I contacted him again and our chat turned into a full-blown interview about how to become (and remain) a partner at a major law firm by establishing expertise in a particular field of substantive law.

Meet Brian Finch, a partner in Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman’s Public Policy practice and co-leader of its newly formed Global Security practice. Over the past few years, Brian has received several honors, including recognition by Washingtonian magazine as one of the top 40 federal lobbyists under the age of 40, by Law360 as a “Rising Star” for Privacy Law, and by the National Law Journal as a “Rising Star” in Washington, D.C. As Brian told me, his most thriving practice areas involve counseling companies on how to minimize their liability in the event of a major security breach, as well as on how to manage the inevitable flood of cyber-attacks. While those might seem like “niche” practice areas, his clients — which include Honeywell, utility trade associations, real estate companies like Brookfield Office Properties, and Major League Baseball — reveal how one can thrive in a law firm by focusing on unique areas of the law that affect practically every company in America.

I spoke with Brian about how he developed an expertise in security issues and how it has served as the foundation of his practice. We discussed, among other subjects, the advantages and disadvantages of working in a niche practice area. Here’s a (lightly edited and condensed) write-up of our conversation.

ATL: Can you tell our readers a little bit about your path into the legal profession?

Sponsored

It’s been quite a journey. I entered law school with zero intention of becoming a practicing attorney. My goal was to go into the FBI and perform counter-terrorism work. I worked at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in law school and enjoyed the kind of work I was doing. During law school I pursued a master’s degree in Security Policy Studies, which is basically counterterrorism studies. The pressure of taking a job at a corporate firm got to me and I decided to take a few years to work at a firm and pay off law school and then enter the FBI. Shortly after completing law school I was married and blessed with the arrival of the first of my three children. A job at the FBI seemed “too dangerous” for my family and I remained in the law firm world.

ATL: So that’s how you got drawn into Biglaw. What was your practice like starting out, and how did it evolve over time?

I started out as a litigation associate, working in both the construction and insurance coverage practices. These practice areas were not my first choices for a practice specialty, so when my firm [at the time] indicated that they were going to start a homeland security practice, I immediately immersed myself into that evolving practice. The firm appreciated my educational and work background and the pieces fell into place.

ATL: How exactly did you get yourself into that practice? Did you just reach out to the partners who were going to be launching the practice and try to pitch yourself, given your prior work for the DEA and your master’s degree and other related experience?

I reached out to both senior associates and partners who were starting up the practice. I let them know about my background and deep interest in this new area of law and was persistent about seeking out project opportunities. Initially much of the work was non-billable, but I viewed this as an opportunity cost and took the time to learn as much as I could in an attempt to be considered a resource and valuable addition. The opportunity was unique because the concept of a “homeland security” practice was not well-defined. The fact that everyone was trying to figure out what this field would look like gave me the chance to be an integral part of the core team despite my relative inexperience as a lawyer.

Sponsored

ATL: Tell us a bit more about what the homeland security practice entailed.

The homeland security work primarily focused on assisting security contractors manage their liability in the event of a terrorist attack, which was fascinating. It also opened the door for lobbying. Clients needed help with Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, which inevitably put me before those bodies on a regular basis. Lobbying helped me develop a skill set that few people had: familiarity with an entirely new area of law that lacked anything resembling legal clarity and the ability to apply policy, politics, and fundamental legal principles to new problems that were multiplying daily. In time I learned about the legal gaps that needed to be filled through policy decisions, creative applications of existing authorities. I also developed a clear understanding of the intricacies of issues like tort liability following a terrorist attack and the exercise of reasonable care in the face of cyber, conventional, and unconventional attacks, and how significantly administrative rules and regulations could impact everyday business decisions.

ATL: Your practice sounds quite specialized. How important do you think specialization is for success in the legal profession today?

Personally I’m not a fan of practicing in an area where you can be easily replaced. There will always be a great amount of work in general practice areas such as litigation, and that usually equals greater career security due to the volume of work that will typically be available. However, it makes it difficult to stand out when there are a myriad of lawyers who share your skill set. Younger lawyers face the risk of being fungible, which I do not find particularly comforting. So, specialization helps you by giving you a more unique skill set. Still, one has to consider whether the specialty is one that has enough work to sustain a career. “Niche” practices can be so narrow that it becomes difficult to find steady work.

ATL: What advice would you give to young associates starting out at large law firms today about how to manage their careers if they want to make partner?

Associates should understand that lawyers exist to solve a client’s problem or help them head off future problems. I firmly believe the latter is a critical skill — the ability to foresee problems before they arise and help a client prevent that problem is invaluable. Forward thinking like that builds a positive relationship with clients, and that helps with generating your own book of business. Associates who demonstrate the ability to add value to the firm beyond simply billing hours inevitably receive positive attention and wind up being the kind of indispensable lawyers that firm leaders want as partners. That’s the path I took — finding an area of the law that not many lawyers were familiar with but had clients who needed help. Getting in on the front end of new work areas will put you in a good position to make partner and avoid being known only as the associate who bills a lot.

ATL: Congratulations on all of your success so far, and thanks for taking the time to chat!

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,