Greenberg Traurig Chair Takes Aim at What Makes a Truly National Firm
A national firm should be both national and a firm, Richard Rosenbaum argues in response to recent efforts by Dentons to forge ahead with a U.S. expansion plan.
October 15, 2019 at 05:30 AM
4 minute read
In today's competitive, disruptive and often confusing legal landscape, it is difficult to see through branding and marketing to facts. This could be amusing except that the primary purpose of our profession is to consistently deliver excellence and value to clients, in whatever practices and locations a firm chooses to cover. Clients, lawyers and staff, and even entire law firms, are struggling to decipher the true nature of the (so-called) "law firm" structures being presented to them.
How do you share and collaborate? Is there any defined culture, or any common standards of excellence and ethics? How will conflicts of interest be cleared or are they ignored between and among constituent parts? Why will a client benefit by a firm's name being on an office when that office may be disconnected from the firm it knows and which may not deliver services at a similar level, and which may ultimately not be the best choice for their overall need?
The easiest to digest and trust is a truly unified and well-integrated law firm. These ultimately share a common culture and value system, maintain a common level of excellence and ethical standards, are integrated and collaborative, and, importantly, share financial benefits and liabilities and a unified conflict and compensation system. However, many of the largest so-called "firms" in the world are not firms. They are vereins, combinations of multiple firms doing business under a common or perhaps a similar name and, subject to applicable bar rules in each jurisdiction, provide for sharing of certain costs and perhaps revenues or profits. Some hope to become unified one day but others have given up that ambition, and others do all they can to have as many bells and whistles as possible to kind of look like unified firms with no expectation to actually become one. Then there are "legal networks," not too different from vereins, where each member firm retains its own name and full independence, usually just referring matters within the network. Finally, we have the wide range of "alternative service providers," usually funded by nonlawyer investors like the Big Four and providing various services.
After many years of being involved in the practice, and especially since joining Greenberg Traurig when we had only three offices and 90 lawyers, I have witnessed tremendous change in the legal profession. But to this day, I continue to believe that the basic core values of a law firm, being the trusted adviser to our clients, and delivering consistent excellence, service and real value to clients on a truly unified basis will always win the day.
Recently there has been a great deal of noise about whether it would be a good idea to create a truly "national law firm" in the United States.
We are certain the answer is yes: We embarked on this mission in 1984 when we first left Miami to spread our wings throughout Florida and continued in 1991 when we opened in New York—today our largest office of nearly 300. We began a march across the United States that continues today, resulting in more U.S. offices (31, coast to coast, plus 10 outside the United States) than any other firm in the Am Law 10—or Am Law 14 if you are counting vereins. And we have done it as one unified firm—but in our case, uniquely competing through empowered lawyers on the ground in every local market and practice.
This is a "people" profession. We are not selling cars or software. People must be carefully selected and make their selections, know and trust each other and become well-integrated and aligned. These things don't happen overnight—the history of our profession is littered with failed attempts to find shortcuts. In the end, the investment of necessary time and hard work cannot be replaced by some new structure or fancy slogans or marketing materials. We took decades to become a strong national firm, and then went global, but we have never forgotten to respect each lawyer and staff member or the critical importance of the U.S. legal market. We are not done getting better, never will be. And we are not done growing where we feel our clients will benefit.
Richard A. Rosenbaum is executive chairman of Greenberg Traurig.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 All'Further Investment in Power' Will Drive Big Law Business—But What About Clean Energy Projects?
6 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readAs Profits Rise, Law Firms Likely to Make More AI Investments in 2025
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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