Waldman Barnett: 7-Attorney Miami Litigation Boutique Is Agile, Results-Oriented
Managing partner Glen Waldman considers the firm's litigation record "unparalleled" for South Florida law firms.
September 20, 2019 at 12:06 PM
5 minute read
Waldman Barnett is a small Miami litigation boutique that takes on complex business cases, many rooted in real estate.
The law firm is accustomed to taking high-stakes cases to trial and reached a post-verdict settlement worth $21.6 million last year for the Aventura developer of Prive at Island Estates.
Managing partner Glen Waldman considers the firm's litigation record "unparalleled" for South Florida law firms.
The firm's small size allows its attorneys to "go to court, hone their skills and have significant client contact and involvement in strategic case decisions," Waldman said.
Firm: Waldman Barnett
Firm leader: Glen H. Waldman, managing partner
Head count: 7
Location: Miami
Practice areas: Commercial, business, real estate/development and anti-development related litigation nationwide in state and federal courts for both plaintiffs and defendants
Governance structure and compensation model: Firm is governed by the managing partner with base compensation less than bigger law firms. However, it has a dual bonus structure, one discretionary and the other based on the amount of business initiated by an individual attorney. This provides an opportunity for our attorneys to out-earn big firm lawyers year in and year out.
Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes, but only for what we consider hybrid structures, not straight contingency matters. We also have significant fee rate flexibility owing to the size of the firm, its low overhead structure (with the exception of salaries) and significant profitability.
What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats? Our consistent success in the courtroom and in major matters (unparalleled, I believe, by any litigation department in South Florida) continues to enhance our reputation and provide us with further opportunities to be engaged for significant commercial matters both here in Florida and throughout the U.S. Also, the continued growth in Florida and our ability to be agile with a team that has been together for years, while providing superior service at below-market rates, makes us uniquely qualified to achieve high-quality results. Our biggest threats are trying to be something other than what we are and overextend with the work we take on, and health. If we avoid these pitfalls, we are extremely well-positioned.
The legal market is so competitive now — what trends do you see, and has anything, including alternative service providers, altered your approach? Is your chief competition other mid-market firms, or is your firm competing against big firms for the same work? We compete against both mid-market and big firms. We almost always win beauty contests against mid-market firms because of our results and rate structure. Our biggest challenge against the big firms is not our ability and results, which far outstrip any of the big firm litigation departments in Miami, but the perception by many general counsel that big firms remain the safe choice for them if things don't end well.
There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do small and midsize firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials? Our advantage is the ability to provide lawyers a platform to actually perform as litigators — go to court, hone their skills and have significant client contact and involvement in strategic case decisions. Because of our two-level bonus structure, our attorneys can out-earn lawyers at big firms and build their own books of business. This is invaluable for their own careers, and so much harder to do at a big firm with its administrative and other demands.
Does your firm employ any nonlawyer professionals in high-level positions (e.g. COO, business development officer, chief strategy officer, etc.)? If so, why is it advantageous to have a nonlawyer in that role? If not, have you considered hiring any? No, keeping our firm at seven lawyers permits us to avoid the significant overhead associated with nonlawyer professionals and pour our revenue into the personnel we have, making everyone happy. What would you say is the most innovative thing your firm has done recently, whether it be technology advancements, internal operations, how you work with clients, etc.? We have become more responsive to clients' desires for us to have "skin in the game" and have gone to more hybrid fee structures with a lower hourly rate and a kicker for success. If we represent the plaintiff, this is usually graduated based on the recovery.
Does your firm have a succession plan in place? If so, what challenges do you face in trying to execute that plan? If you don't currently have a plan, is it an issue your firm is thinking about? Our firm is young, and we do not have to consider such a situation at this time. We will likely revisit this in a few years as we get closer to our firm's 15-year anniversary.
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 AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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