A Midsize and Boutique Go-to-Market Checklist
Midsize and boutique firms can significantly increase their chances of competing with large "Goliaths" by building the right systems and processes to streamline pitches and awards, increase realization rates/partner point values, and reduce staff turnover.
August 19, 2024 at 11:46 AM
6 minute read
Law Firms - Mid SizeWhat You Need to Know
- Midsize and regional firms can vary in their maturity — some may have robust marketing departments, while others may solely operate in a responsive and event-driven manner.
- It's imperative to identify and build scalable systems and strategic improvements that give you confidence, reduce staff turnover, and enable your attorneys to focus on what they do best.
- This article lists samples of some of the operational marketing process and system questions that midsize and boutique law firms should be asking.
Midsize and regional firms can vary in their maturity — some may have robust marketing departments, while others may solely operate in a responsive and event-driven manner. Irrespective of where your firm sits in the maturity phases, it's imperative to identify and build scalable systems and strategic improvements that give you confidence, reduce staff turnover, and enable your attorneys to focus on what they do best. (Of course, these processes must be contextualized within the cultural lens of your firm!)
Below is a sample list of some of the operational marketing process and system questions that midsize and boutique law firms should be asking. After all, the correct answers to these questions help firms to win business and new pitches, and, of course, the systems that are created now will scale up as your firm grows top-line revenue. While many of these seem readily apparent, many of these low-hanging operational/"blocking and tackling" issues are slipping through the cracks in most firms — and they are the biggest key to winning mandates.
The cascading effect of having the right systems/tech in place creates more time to complete high-value tasks (think pitch rehearsals, client targeting, and deep customization) and saves potential embarrassment and reputational damage to the firm (not to mention potential bleeding of roughly $400K annually for firms who pitch 100+ times).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPartner Pay Transparency Is Eroding, Even if 'Black Box' Systems Haven't Caught On
6 minute readTexas Lawyers and Campaign Fundraising: Which Presidential Candidate Is Leading?
3 minute readCampaign Finance Records Show Lawyers Have a Clear Favorite in Pa. Attorney General Race
4 minute readLong Island Midsize Firm and Managing Partner Sued for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250