Three former federal prosecutors created their own litigation shop five years ago and have made a name for themselves, sometimes by keeping their clients' names out of the news.

Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro initially brought together Jeff Marcus, Jeffrey Neiman and Daniel Rashbaum, and the firm has expanded to seven attorneys focusing on high-stakes litigation since 2014.

Marcus was an expert witness for the court-appointed receiver in securities fraud litigation following the collapse of Allen Stanford's banking Ponzi scheme. While at Justice, Neiman prosecuted UBS and U.S. clients for tax fraud as Switzerland's famous bank secrecy rules disintegrated. Rashbaum never lost in more than 30 jury trials as a federal prosecutor. Michael Pineiro is the latest name partner.

The attorneys take roles for both plaintiffs and defense, and represent Fortune 500 companies and employees as well as whistleblowers.

Marcus and Pineiro answers questions offering insight into the law firm's operations and practices.

Firm: Marcus Neiman Rashbaum & Pineiro

Count: 7

Locations: Miami and Fort Lauderdale

Practice Areas: MNR specializes in sensitive and high-stakes litigation matters. We defend individuals and corporations who face government scrutiny by the Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission, Internal Revenue Service and Health and Human Services. We handle high-stakes business disputes and complex litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants. We have a growing plaintiff's practice, which includes federal whistleblower actions, business torts and high-stakes commercial disputes. Last year alone, we recovered more than $50 million for our clients.

Governance structure and compensation model: Our structure is informal and collaborative and more similar to entrepreneurial start-ups than traditional law firms. We believe in creating incentives for the lawyers who work with us, and we provide semiannual bonuses based upon merit and firm profitability that can become a substantial portion of compensation. We also have a profit-sharing plan in which all employees participate in after one full year with the firm.

Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes. Many of our fee arrangements with clients involve hybrid or flat-fee models that suit our client's business and-or personal preferences. We are client-focused, and clients often prefer alternatives to the billable hour model.

What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats? There is a growing awareness in the business community that skill is more important than firm size when choosing counsel for high stakes matters. Our lawyers have extensive trial and prosecutorial experience that has served us well in both civil and criminal litigation. Our goal is to provide the highest level of litigation expertise, on par with any national firm, but in a more personal and cost-effective manner. Our willingness to try cases, even difficult ones, also creates opportunities to leverage that skill into excellent pretrial settlements for our clients.

As a relatively young firm and one started by former federal prosecutors well known in the white-collar defense space, one challenge we face is publicizing our reach and success in civil litigation. Probably 50 percent of our litigation matters are civil in nature and run the gamut from business torts to professional malpractice to False Claims Act cases in both federal and state court.

We tend to be hired for cases that involve complex or sensitive subject matters and where something more than the conventional approach is sought. We spend a lot of time at the beginning of representations strategizing where we want to be positioned for the endgame. We also use our former prosecutorial experience to apply investigative and proactive resources in both our criminal and civil cases which we view as a key part of our case strategy. We believe in making our own luck. By regularly handling both plaintiff and defense side cases, we also have a good feel for the tactics of our opponents.

Additionally, our subject matter versatility and our small size (we have few conflicts) gives us the opportunity to take a small number of hand-picked matters that we can devote full attention to.  We are not a volume litigation shop. That fact allows us to dive deep on behalf of our clients. The flip side is that we need to be creative with technology and co-counsel arrangements to match the resources of large law firms. We regularly litigate against the top national firms, and we like to think we give at least as good as we get.

The legal market is so competitive now — what trends do you see, and has anything, including alternative service providers, altered your approach? It is an exciting time to be practicing law in South Florida as we are seeing more friends leave government service or large firms to start boutique law firms. This gives us more opportunities to work with friends in matters. We often co-counsel with other firms to leverage our respective resources in high stakes civil matters.  We also work hard to utilize low cost technology platforms that save our clients' money in case discovery and document review. All of our lawyers are tech savvy and self-sufficient.

Is your chief competition other mid-market or small firms, or is your firm competing against big firms for the same work? We compete against the other good trial lawyers in town —regardless of whether they are at a large firm, mid-market firm or a boutique. At the same time, because we generally do not maintain repeat clients and are "conflict-free," we have positioned ourselves as a firm that does not compete with other firms for clients, but that instead can assist other firms when a conflict arises or when their clients need special counsel for a trial or other sensitive matter.

There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do midsize and small firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials? As a litigation boutique, our more junior attorneys wear many hats. They are in many ways the heart of the team, and because we don't have dozens of bodies, we rely on them in every matter every step of the way. They have the opportunity to take depositions, cross-examine witnesses in trial, give a summation, and understand the business of law. Working with millennials presents different challenges, but our more informal approach to office structure helps foster a friendly and collegial atmosphere.

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? We do not have nonlawyer professionals in high level positions. We are mindful of keeping our overhead within reason, which allows us to offer our clients more favorable fee rates or alternative fee structures. Instead, we associate with professionals and consultants to help us along the way.

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.? Law is notorious for being slow to innovate. We model ourselves like a business startup and use a collaborative small team approach on all of our cases. Our associates are expected to know the case as well as the partners do, and we often brainstorm as a team without regard to firm hierarchy.  We constantly look for creative, out-of-the-box solutions to case problems. And we are available. Every client has our cell phone number for better or worse.

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? We don't. We are all in our mid-40s or younger. We like to think that we are part of a transition to the next generation of great South Florida trial lawyers. And we hope that we don't need to worry about a succession plan for at least 20 years.