Are we harming the legal profession, and more importantly the clients, by incentivizing young lawyers to narrow their practices into increasingly esoteric categories?
Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? It depends, as columnist Mark Herrmann explains.
Specialization isn't an absolute requirement for business development, according to in-house columnist Mark Herrmann. But in certain situations, it can help -- a lot.
An in-house lawyer’s work environment turns in part on the structure of a corporation’s law department, and outside counsel can better serve clients if counsel know how a law department is organized….
There’s been a lot written about niche practices, but Brian Tannebaum will tell you the truth about the danger and pleasure of having one.
The future looks bright for small law firms and their partners. But what about small-firm associates?
Share your insights in this brief survey.
When you're at a law firm, it's likely that you sell in part substantive expertise. When you move in-house, you're no longer selling anything. Will you lose your expertise?
One lawyer offers to represent you for $1000 an hour. Another lawyer offers to represent you for $400 an hour. Who’s more expensive? The correct answer is: You don’t know....
Tom Wallerstein's firm, like most firms in California, has a series of Rutter guides on its shelves. And even though he runs a virtually paperless office, he still loves his printed Rutter guides. Wallerstein even has a joke about Rutter. Whenever a colleague questions his ability to solve a particular issue, he jokes, “I’m sure there’s a Rutter Guide for that.” The joke has a serious point, namely, that the basics of most practice areas can always be learned. And if it’s easy enough to learn a practice area, why shouldn’t a lawyer forming a small firm become a true generalist; handling everything from family law, wills and trusts, civil, criminal, and essentially whatever walks in the door?
