How One Law Firm Planned for Growth
“We don't want our lawyers to think of themselves as belonging to a particular office but to view themselves as being in the employment law section, for example, and happening to work in the Los Angeles office.”
January 19, 2018 at 12:19 PM
5 minute read
Twenty years ago, three lawyers got together and founded Freeman Mathis & Gary. “I'm not quite sure how we decided to do it—so you can see how well thought out it was,” says founding partner Ben Mathis. In the years since, the firm has grown from three attorneys in one Atlanta office in the Galleria to nearly 130 lawyers in 14 offices across seven states.
Looking back, Mathis says the firm's growth was the result of a disciplined focus, as well as a response to clients' needs. Part One of the plan was for the founders to establish a reputation as top civil litigators. Part Two was to look for easy alliances—bringing into the firm lawyers the founders knew and respected. Part Three—and this was the most challenging—was to use its hard-earned reputation to attract laterals and mergers with other firms.
The firm quickly established itself as a leader in civil litigation. Mathis concentrated on employment litigation. His co-founding partners, Ted Freeman and Bart Gary, focused on government and construction practices, respectively. Twenty years later, the firm is still strong in its founding practice areas.
The firm grew organically at first. Its first merger (Mathis doesn't use the word “acquisition,” because it doesn't convey the cultural fusion that occurs) was in 2008 with the firm of Jack Hancock, who represented Clayton County. He is still the primary outside lawyer for the county and works out of the firm's office in Forest Park.
FMG continued to hire more attorneys as it monitored the business environment. About five years ago, the firm determined that it needed to hire lawyers in more geographic regions. The decision was driven by national insurance carriers seeking to consolidate their work among fewer firms. FMG developed a strategic plan to merge with firms that shared its primary practice areas. Expanding also would help with recruitment and retention.
The first merger under the strategic plan was in 2013 with a small, San Francisco employment firm. It gave FMG its first West Coast office. The firms were acquainted before the merger. “It was really driven by personalities,” Mathis explains. “We were very familiar with the lawyers and mutually referred clients to each other. It was a perfect fit for our foray into that expansion.”
The cultural connection is extremely important, Mathis says. “We have tried to be thoughtful. We have some real strengths and want to do what we do well,” he says, describing his firm as a specialty litigation firm that will only take cases in certain practice areas.
“We wanted to put ourselves in the position to protect our existing practices while expanding our reach,” Mathis says. The goal of the firm, he says, is to strike the elusive balance between the advantages of a large firm, such as the ability to service a single client in multiple states, with the cultural feel of a small firm, where everyone knows each other. They have walked away from mergers with excellent attorneys who worked in silos and wouldn't fit into the FMG management structure.
FMG was successful with its initial mergers with attorneys it knew well. Eventually, though, they were looking to grow more substantially. As Mathis puts it, “In a perfect world, you want to merge with people who you have long-established relationships with—but that may not work for a long-term strategy.”
Other firms were reaching the same conclusion—they needed to be part of a national group to compete. FMG already had a San Francisco presence and wanted to expand its California offices. It reached out to Gilbert Kelly in 2015, a legacy California firm with deep roots in the state that had been in operation for 76 years. Proof that cold calls work: The firms merged almost two years after that initial call. The merger was the firm's largest to date, expanding it by 25 percent and adding 31 lawyers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento. And earlier this year, FMG merged with a 12-lawyer financial services firm in Hermosa Beach, Calif. With nearly 60 lawyers in California, FMG has successfully made itself into a bicoastal player.
The key to the firm's management strategy is focusing on practice areas. “We don't want our lawyers to think of themselves as belonging to a particular office, but to view themselves as being in the employment law section, for example, and happening to work in the Los Angeles office,” Mathis says.
While the practice areas work together across the country, a firmwide culture based on the founders' principles pervades the firm. Mathis points to the compensation structure as an example. Unlike most large law firms, it doesn't demand specific billing goals to make equity partner. Mathis believes distilling things down to a number dilutes the old school partnership that underpins the firm's culture and recognition of professional obligations.
Shared values—sometimes an overused and hollow word in law firms and businesses—shouldn't be discounted when building a law firm, Mathis counsels. “We believe our partners have embraced that working together as a true team is better for everyone's success. A lot of people say that, but fewer actually mean it,” Mathis advises. “We are fortunate to have attracted lawyers who really have bought into that approach, and our future growth will be dependent on continuing to find attorneys who share this belief.”
Robin Hensley's column is based on her work as president of Raising the Bar and coaching lawyers in business development for more than 25 years. She is the author of “Raising the Bar: Legendary Rainmakers Share Their Business Development Secrets.
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 AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readGeorgia High Court Clarifies Time Limit for Lawyers' Breach-of-Contract Claims
6 minute readSoutheast Firm Leaders Predict Stability, Growth in Second Trump Administration
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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