To The Legal:

Many years ago, I started my own practice. I had no particular thoughts then of growing the firm, of getting bigger than my competitors or of getting bought out. I intended to compete with other attorneys, to offer clients “me” and to make a living, even a good living. I felt and still feel I'm the best at what I do. Even today, when I see someone else representing a client in my field of expertise, I think that client would get better representation from “me.” I not only think that, I know that. Is that ego? No, I think it's just fact.

But I write this to express a concern about the business side of the profession and how the individual representation of a client has become so secondary. I read The Legal every day and it seems to me that there is a certain advocacy for “big,” that small is “out,” that lawyering itself is not even relevant. Here are some recent headlines:  THE WILLIAMS FIRM TAKES TEN PARTNERS FROM THE DONLEY FIRM, CHICAGO FIRM EXPANDS TO PHILADELPHIA, THE PERKINS FIRM OPENS SMALL OFFICE ON MARS. OK, but you know what I mean. The headlines are about business, not just business, but big business, and not law. Something has changed. Growth is one thing; a headline such as “The Earl Firm Hires Two Law Grads” is about growth. But instead the headlines are about swallowing, absorbing, perhaps even conquering, but not about lawyering.

In court, I speak to solo practitioners and attorneys in small firms who express how much harder it is to compete than it was years ago. They don't mind competing on how good they are, they welcome that (even though I happen to be better than them). But they complain about how the playing field is getting more and more uneven to the point where they feel like Muhlenberg having to line up against Alabama. They feel like second-class citizens; they feel that their very existence is being threatened. They don't like the idea of having to pay for expensive commercials they can't afford, but they feel they have no choice because that “other firm,” the firm that somehow can afford those slick commercials, would otherwise “swallow” up all the business and leave them with nothing.

I recognize this is the way the world is headed, but I don't have to like it. For instance, I see health organizations swallowing up hospitals and medical practices and the actual practice of medicine and the physicians themselves are secondary to business and profit. If I get cancer, should I decide where to treat based on which commercial is the most convincing? Obviously, I wouldn't, or at least I don't think I would, but the point is that I shouldn't. It should come down to finding out who is the best doc. That's pretty obvious if you think about it.

Anyway, what does this all mean and why am I writing this? Moreover, why am I anonymous?  I'm writing to express concerns which don't ordinarily get expressed in The Legal, or at least I don't get that concern from reading about the latest takeover. I'm writing to try to remind us Philadelphia lawyers that it should not be all about acquiring other partners and law firms and grabbing all the business there is out there. I'm writing to remind you how you used to feel when you cared about practicing law. And as far as the anonymity, I don't worry about what people will think of me and my opinions. In fact I am confident that any potential client reading this would logically want to hire me that much more. But I write anonymously because if I didn't and this got published, I worry that there could be pushback which could negatively affect the people I work with. Maybe I shouldn't worry about that, but I can't afford not to. I'm on a tight budget.