Page 8 - The Handbook - Law Firm Networks 2018
P. 8
The traditional law firm networks have also changed; many are more than 20 years old. Though as entities
they represent by far the largest segment of the legal profession, their relevance has been questioned.4
Their membership is under attack by the vereins that can poach their members by offering a recognized
name brand.5 Despite many firms’ status as the largest in their states or countries, they are commonly
referred to as mid-tier, second-tier, or even third-tier. It is these factors and others that have led to a
number of the leading networks forming AILFN.
Throughout the book the accounting profession will be referred to as a reference point. They have been
elevated to a higher position as a comparative model for the legal profession. Accounting networks and
associations are already the future of the accounting profession. There are no large accounting firms that
are not members of a network or an association of independent firms. This is very different from the legal
profession, where more than 100 of the largest law firms do not belong to any network or association. As
globalization continues, this may change through consolidation and by outside forces that will require
membership. These factors and forces will be analyzed.
The clash and redefinition of models has produced issues in the legal profession beyond cosmetics. It
affects how clients perceive those from whom they are purchasing services. This is not the case in
accounting and consulting, where the Big 4 are networks of independent firms. Being a network has not
limited their ability to provide services; on the contrary, two of them have annual of revenues of more
than $30 billion. The Big 4 are proud of their network status, referring to themselves as “professional
services networks.”6 In the legal profession, the traditional business model for being recognized has been
the law firm. This is reflected in terminology, rankings, ethics, and the media. In the legal profession
networks are still seen as being a less robust model than a law firm. As demonstrated by the Big 4,
providing services through a network is no different than through an integrated firm. Network status does
not detract from being a firm in terms of the broad definition.
Because each law firm or network is unique, the terminology has led to misunderstandings and
mischaracterizations as to the nature of the various models.7 This has in a sense limited any discussion
about innovation. For this reason the Handbook will analyze the fundamental structural components of
the models for providing legal services, rather than focusing only the descriptions that have characterized
firms in the past.8 In other words, the focus is on the operations and activities of the organizations. The
network model itself has no limitations in terms of how it can be designed and operated, even with some
systemic issues that are cultural and economic. It is simply a model reflecting that the members are
independent legally and at the same time can operate as a cohesive unit, provided they are well managed
and have a strategic direction. This is why networks are the ideal model for global business.
This book discusses in detail how networks function, either in their traditional form or with new models
that are being developed. Underlying the analysis is the fact that global practice requires agility that is not
inherent in large law firms. Agility is not possible with the command and control9 of integrated law firms
because economic and management challenges are effectively too great.
Professional services networks are already the future. The objective of this Handbook is to be a detailed
guide to networks. Law firm networks seeking to go to the next levels in their evolution can use it as
4 Norman Clark, Does Your Network Deliver External Value? WORLDVIEW BLOG (April 27, 2014), www.walkerclark.com/worldview-
blog/previous-worldview-posts/123-does-your-network-deliver-external-value.html; Michael Hatchwell, Legal Networks Should Not Be
Considered Antiquated, GLOBAL LEGAL POST (April 15, 2015), www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/management-speak/legal-networks-shouldnt-be-
considered-antiquated-43962985/.
5 Julie Triedman, Dentons Ups the Ante in Global Growth Gamble, AMERICAN LAWYER, Nov. 3, 2015.
6 Accounting Networks and Associations, WIKIPEDIA, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_networks_and_associations (last visited
Jan. 27, 2016).
7 Brian Dalton, About Time Too….World’s Biggest Law Firm Wants To Blow Up The Whole Am Law 100 Rankings, PRACTICE SOURCE,
practicesource.com/about-time-too-worlds-biggest-law-firm-wants-to-blow-up-the-whole-am-law-100-rankings/.
8 The common names are Big Law, Magic Circle, White Glove, Big 4, vereins, mid-tier, and other variations.
9 R. E. Miles & C. C. Snow, Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms, 28 CAL. MGMT. REV. 62, 62-73 (1986).
vii
they represent by far the largest segment of the legal profession, their relevance has been questioned.4
Their membership is under attack by the vereins that can poach their members by offering a recognized
name brand.5 Despite many firms’ status as the largest in their states or countries, they are commonly
referred to as mid-tier, second-tier, or even third-tier. It is these factors and others that have led to a
number of the leading networks forming AILFN.
Throughout the book the accounting profession will be referred to as a reference point. They have been
elevated to a higher position as a comparative model for the legal profession. Accounting networks and
associations are already the future of the accounting profession. There are no large accounting firms that
are not members of a network or an association of independent firms. This is very different from the legal
profession, where more than 100 of the largest law firms do not belong to any network or association. As
globalization continues, this may change through consolidation and by outside forces that will require
membership. These factors and forces will be analyzed.
The clash and redefinition of models has produced issues in the legal profession beyond cosmetics. It
affects how clients perceive those from whom they are purchasing services. This is not the case in
accounting and consulting, where the Big 4 are networks of independent firms. Being a network has not
limited their ability to provide services; on the contrary, two of them have annual of revenues of more
than $30 billion. The Big 4 are proud of their network status, referring to themselves as “professional
services networks.”6 In the legal profession, the traditional business model for being recognized has been
the law firm. This is reflected in terminology, rankings, ethics, and the media. In the legal profession
networks are still seen as being a less robust model than a law firm. As demonstrated by the Big 4,
providing services through a network is no different than through an integrated firm. Network status does
not detract from being a firm in terms of the broad definition.
Because each law firm or network is unique, the terminology has led to misunderstandings and
mischaracterizations as to the nature of the various models.7 This has in a sense limited any discussion
about innovation. For this reason the Handbook will analyze the fundamental structural components of
the models for providing legal services, rather than focusing only the descriptions that have characterized
firms in the past.8 In other words, the focus is on the operations and activities of the organizations. The
network model itself has no limitations in terms of how it can be designed and operated, even with some
systemic issues that are cultural and economic. It is simply a model reflecting that the members are
independent legally and at the same time can operate as a cohesive unit, provided they are well managed
and have a strategic direction. This is why networks are the ideal model for global business.
This book discusses in detail how networks function, either in their traditional form or with new models
that are being developed. Underlying the analysis is the fact that global practice requires agility that is not
inherent in large law firms. Agility is not possible with the command and control9 of integrated law firms
because economic and management challenges are effectively too great.
Professional services networks are already the future. The objective of this Handbook is to be a detailed
guide to networks. Law firm networks seeking to go to the next levels in their evolution can use it as
4 Norman Clark, Does Your Network Deliver External Value? WORLDVIEW BLOG (April 27, 2014), www.walkerclark.com/worldview-
blog/previous-worldview-posts/123-does-your-network-deliver-external-value.html; Michael Hatchwell, Legal Networks Should Not Be
Considered Antiquated, GLOBAL LEGAL POST (April 15, 2015), www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/management-speak/legal-networks-shouldnt-be-
considered-antiquated-43962985/.
5 Julie Triedman, Dentons Ups the Ante in Global Growth Gamble, AMERICAN LAWYER, Nov. 3, 2015.
6 Accounting Networks and Associations, WIKIPEDIA, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accounting_networks_and_associations (last visited
Jan. 27, 2016).
7 Brian Dalton, About Time Too….World’s Biggest Law Firm Wants To Blow Up The Whole Am Law 100 Rankings, PRACTICE SOURCE,
practicesource.com/about-time-too-worlds-biggest-law-firm-wants-to-blow-up-the-whole-am-law-100-rankings/.
8 The common names are Big Law, Magic Circle, White Glove, Big 4, vereins, mid-tier, and other variations.
9 R. E. Miles & C. C. Snow, Organizations: New Concepts for New Forms, 28 CAL. MGMT. REV. 62, 62-73 (1986).
vii
