Midsize Q&A: Why a Cool Vibe Is Important to a Law Firm
Our new space at 444 Madison Ave. will help us to promote a dynamic and contemporary office culture. It does not look like a typical legal office. In fact, the design invokes an industrial New York City aesthetic with a sophisticated and elegant setting.
March 21, 2019 at 04:23 PM
8 minute read
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, managing partner of Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas, a 50-attorney firm that moved a few weeks ago to new offices on Manhattan's east side, said that the office is part of the firm's efforts to create a cool vibe, particularly for young attorneys.
“Even after only three weeks, we can tell that the new space is already improving productivity and, at the same time, helping us attract talented lawyers seeking a well-rounded firm where they can service their clients,” he said.
The move is just one of the ways the firm is trying to enhance the work culture.
“As a mid-sized family-friendly firm, we are flexible with our attorneys. We encourage everyone to originate business, for which they receive additional compensation. This is attractive to young lawyers, and we believe it is a significant advantage in our recruiting, as it enables younger lawyers to grow with our firm,” he said.
The interview was part of a series of Q&As with midsize firm leaders.
Practice Areas (if you consider your firm to be full-service, you may answer full-service): Real Estate, Litigation, Health Care, Business and Corporate, Trusts and Estates, Matrimonial and Family Law, Intellectual Property, Not-For-Profit.
Governance structure and compensation model: Partners, Counsel and Associates
Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes
Q: What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats?
A: The challenge that we, and many other firms (big and small), face is attracting talent. A law firm is only as good as its lawyers. Some attorneys gravitate to a bigger firm while others prefer the greater flexibility, autonomy and opportunity offered by a medium-sized firm like ours. SSRGA has embraced growth and a positive, future-forward firm culture in a dynamic new workspace to address these challenges as we try to achieve the best of both worlds.
On Jan. 1, we absorbed a small matrimonial and family law firm. The addition of this new group substantially expands our family law practice, which previously had one partner. We can now offer clients deeper bench strength in matrimonial and family law, and the matrimonial team can now offer clients services across a broader range of practice areas.
Our new 33,000-square-foot office at 444 Madison provides a more efficient environment that will improve productivity by supporting and accommodating our team. Even after only three weeks, we can tell that the new space is already improving productivity and, at the same time, helping us attract talented lawyers seeking a well-rounded firm where they can service their clients.
Another challenge we all face is created by the increased speed of communication. In an era of pervasive communication technology, and a period of rapid growth and activity in New York City, many clients expect instant responses to complex issues. Our challenge is to deliver responses quickly while also balancing the need for thorough, nuanced analysis and practical, strategic advice.
Q: 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?
A: Alternative service providers have not altered our approach. This might play a larger role in other states. However, in New York, we do not commonly see this issue. Our chief competitors are the larger firms. SSRGA attorneys offer the same skill set and level of expertise as larger firms with a more personal approach and with more attractive rates. This alone makes us more competitive and provides better results for our clients. Larger firms benefit from critical mass, name recognition and deep history in the business. SSRGA is working to level that playing field.
Q: There is much debate around how law firms can foster the next generation of legal talent. What advantages and disadvantages do midsize firms have in attracting and retaining young lawyers, particularly millennials?
A: As a mid-sized family-friendly firm, we are flexible with our attorneys. We encourage everyone to originate business, for which they receive additional compensation. This is attractive to young lawyers, and we believe it is a significant advantage in our recruiting, as it enables younger lawyers to grow with our firm. We expect excellence and hard work, but also value a healthy work-life balance, and work hard to convey this to everyone at the firm.
We have significantly enriched our work culture to attract attorneys. This effort has been very successful, further enhancing the energy, creativity and sense of community with younger lawyers. Throughout the year we have hosted company-wide bowling parties, dinners at client restaurants, an annual holiday party with live music, casino nights and other gatherings to bring everyone together.
This year we hosted our first-ever holiday “darty.” For those unfamiliar with this term (almost any millennial would know it), a darty is a day party. We took the entire team to a ping-pong and pool bar in Lower Manhattan. Two years ago, we may not have considered this, but we recognize, as most employers do now, the extraordinary importance of culture and vibe within a firm.
Q: 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?
A: We do not currently employ nonlawyer personnel in these roles. We are considering bringing in either a CFO or a COO as we negotiate continued growth. As we expand, someone with a financial background, as opposed to a legal background, would be better fit to manage the firm and allow our lawyers to practice law and focus on their clients.
Q: 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.?
A: Our new space at 444 Madison Ave. will help us to promote a dynamic and contemporary office culture. It does not look like a typical legal office. In fact, the design invokes an industrial New York City aesthetic with a sophisticated and elegant setting. We have state-of-the-art, high-end technology, and have begun to enhance the digital document management with E-Doc software. The entire office will store files electronically, which will be more practical while also supporting our planet-friendly sustainability effort. Our attorneys can access electronic files anytime and from anywhere in the world. Our new space is designed to take advantage of continually evolving technology to enhance communication and collaboration within the firm while supporting our ability to service our clients.
Q: 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?
A: Although many of us have been practicing law for more years than we might admit, our firm is only four years old, so we do not yet have a formal succession plan in place. We have all the appropriate structures, such as key-man insurance, a partnership agreement which provides for what happens if people leave, and we have a culture which ensures stability within the firm. We recently absorbed a small firm in a merger and expect to continue this type of growth. We are very focused on the future of the firm and by encouraging what we like to call a “culture of origination” we are, at the same time, grooming for succession, as we feel that is an essential element for the future of SSRGA. More formal succession planning will undoubtedly evolve as part of that process.
|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 AllLitigation Leaders: Quinn Emanuel's Michael Carlinsky on Training Associates to Think and Act Like Trial Lawyers
Innovation Award Individual Finalist: Charlie Hernandez, My Pocket Lawyer
1 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 2In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 3Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 4Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
- 5While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
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