Why Virtual Firms Don't Fret Over Losing 'Brick-and-Mortar' Benefits
A Google Maps presence, event sponsorship and billboards may be advantageous for firms hoping to capitalize on locally based clients. But for those focusing solely on corporate business, there's little incentive to move out of the virtual world.
July 22, 2019 at 09:00 AM
3 minute read
There are times when a brick-and-mortar presence can be useful for a growing law practice, especially if it's hoping to nab clients through location-based—and consumer friendly—platforms such as Google Maps.
But where does that leave virtual law firms? Well, depending on the client base they are hoping to build, the answer might be in pretty good shape.
Kevin Broyles, a managing partner at the virtual firm of FisherBroyles, noted that an assistant general counsel at a major company isn't going to use Google Maps, Bing or the internet in general to find a lawyer.
“They're going to go on word of mouth, who they know and legal resources they have. Usually it's going to be the network they have,” he said.
To be fair, FisherBroyles does maintain physical offices in major cities such as Atlanta, Boston and Chicago. Broyles described them as a “pay as you use the resource” setup.
Those locations weren't chosen less because they would make a splash on Google Maps as because the cities themselves carried a certain amount of prestige and would provide easy access for clients traveling in or out. “We used to say, if [the city has] a professional sports team, we'll be there,” Broyles said.
Like in real estate, location can still be important to ongoing health of a law firm, especially if that firm relies on business from walk-in clients who think their case might benefit from representation with intimate knowledge of the jurisdiction in question.
Of course, if a firm's business model isn't geared toward clients who turn to search engines in their time of legal need, that problem most likely doesn't apply. Like FisherBroyles, the virtual firm Potomac Law Group concentrates primarily on corporate clients who aren't consulting Google for legal services.
Marlene Laro, a partner and COO at Potomac, said that their clients are generally indifferent to where an attorney might be based.
“I think that the way we spread the word and get our name out and have our lawyers become known is very similar to the way it's done in traditional firms, frankly, by our lawyers publishing interesting articles or client alerts, by presenting at various professional conferences,” Laro said.
To be sure, the firm does maintain flex offices in several major U.S. cities, but those locations were selected for their proximity to legal talent pools, not with an eye toward any kind of an online marketing agenda.
In some ways, the business model favored by a virtual firm like Potomac—which Laro said has attempted to divest itself of many of the fixed costs impacting other law firms—seems to suit an approach to marketing that is less dependent upon location-based search optimization, event sponsorship or billboards.
Rather than engage in those practices, Broyles has distilled the formula down to relationships and warm referrals.
“I keep telling people you're wasting your money. You're better off becoming an expert in a field and writing about it. That may be how you get hired by someone who doesn't know who you are,” Broyles said.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Samsung Flooded With Galaxy Product Patent Lawsuits in Texas Federal Court
- 2How Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
- 3On the Move and After Hours: Brach Eichler; Cooper Levenson; Marshall Dennehey; Archer; Sills Cummis
- 4Review of Ex-parte orders by the Appellate Division
- 5'Confusion Where Previously There Was Clarity': NJ Supreme Court Should Void Referral Fee Ethics Opinion
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