"More Lawyers Flee Megafirms" is the intriguing headline from The National Law Journal, which sounds like an invitation to an article exploring the commonly-received-wisdom that the AmLaw 200 are consolidating–and debunking it.
Guess again.
The article is replete with entertaining anecdotes from BigLaw refugees complemented by "no comments" and "unavailable to respond" from the firms they’ve departed.
Nevertheless, some insights can be gleaned:
"The movement of attorneys from huge to smaller law firms is becoming more common, said Harrison Barnes, chief executive officer of BCG Attorney Search, a recruiter. As big practices get bigger and pursue hefty clients to match that growth, many attorneys who service smaller clients find their careers at odds with their firms’ strategic plan, he said."
And there’s this:
“‘Whenever you change the character of a firm’s platform, lawyers inside the firm and outside the firm make decisions based on that new reality of the market,’ [J. Terence] O’Malley [co-managing partner of Piper Rudnick’s US offices] said."
Both Barnes and O’Malley make economically realistic comments: Almost by definition, mega-mergers and the sudden shocking (well, at least not-bargained-for) shift in a firm’s profile for a home-grown partner can be disorienting and, at least for some people, suboptimal going forward. For them, it’s not irrational to leave.
But the article misses the ripe chance to analyze the larger consolidation trend among the AmLaw 200 and to truly delve into whether it’s reality: Inevitable, desirable, or lamentable? And whether if it’s not reality, why: Conflicts, insurmountable complexity, negative economies of scale?
But the question is out to the "Savvy Blawgers" panel: What will the AmLaw 200 look like 10 years hence? For some interesting perspectives on that, you’ll just have to stay tuned.
