White and Williams: An 'Agile' Midsize Firm Competing with Big Law
"We can be more agile than a lot of larger firms," managing partner Patricia Santelle says.
February 01, 2019 at 02:02 PM
7 minute read
Firm Name: White and Williams LLP
Firm Leader: Patricia Santelle, Managing Partner and Chair, Executive Committee
Head Count: 240 attorneys
Locations: Philadelphia, Lehigh Valley and Berwyn, Pennsylvania; Boston; Cherry Hill and Newark, New Jersey; New York and Westchester County, New York; Providence, Rhode Island; Wilmington, Delaware
Practice Areas: Full-service
Governance structure and compensation model: The firm has a partnership structure that is governed by an executive committee, chaired by the managing partner. We have a hybrid open compensation system.
Do you offer alternative fee arrangements? Yes, and we have an Alternative Fee Committee which frequently evaluates alternative fee opportunities that benefit both our firm and clients.
**The following answers were completed by Santelle and edited lightly for style.**
What do you view as the two biggest opportunities for your firm, and what are the two biggest threats?
We compete with firms that are much larger than ours, which can be both an opportunity and a threat. Because of our size, we can be more agile than a lot of larger firms, which allows us to creatively staff matters and be competitive on price. In addition, in the last five to 10 years, the firm has focused on growing our presence in New York, Boston and North New Jersey, which has helped expand the talent pool, deepen our bench and bring on new and more diverse clients. We have a lot of cross-marketing opportunities with our client base within the industries we serve.
Clients continue to “insource” legal work traditionally done by outside law firms, which could be viewed as a threat but which I also view as an opportunity to collaborate with our clients to find new and better ways to deliver legal services and help them solve problems.
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?
We compete against all types and sizes of firms. We know that it is essential for us to develop strong and meaningful relationships with our clients (which is not a new concept). The competition in the marketplace inspires us to continue to be dedicated to understanding our clients' businesses, staying on top of developments in our clients' industries as well as the legal marketplace, and providing innovative solutions in the delivery of legal services. Now more than ever, it is critical to nurture client relationships to ensure that we are working with them to achieve their business goals.
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?
There are so many advantages to working at a firm our size, including the ability to get hands-on experience sooner, direct exposure to senior attorneys as well as clients, and better work-life balance. Overall, a younger (or newer) attorney has more opportunities for engagement at a midsize firm. We are all competing for the same talent pool, however, so it is essential to be committed to and invested in the development and future of our younger (i.e., newer) lawyers.
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 operate the firm as a business and therefore employ a number of business professionals with diverse backgrounds as part of our leadership team. This is critical to addressing the myriad of issues that we face in the legal marketplace today. By functioning this way, we also allow our attorneys to focus on what they do best, serving our clients.
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.?
We are implementing design thinking into our strategic planning, client relations and overall firm management/governance. It was the focus of a recent strategic planning session for all of our partners and counsel and will be utilized at our upcoming annual partner retreat. The impact has been immediate and very positive.
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?
In terms of firm management, we have management committees, which consist of partners who are elected and/or appointed firmwide or through a department election process. The 10-person executive committee (which I chair) oversees the process for succession of the managing partner as well as the other partners who sit on that committee.
In terms of individual partners, we have a procedure for transitioning to retirement, which is overseen by the executive committee. Starting at least three years before retirement, the partner submits a transition plan, which is updated annually, to address and ensure a smooth transition of client relationships, practice group responsibilities and administrative responsibilities.
The challenges in executing succession plans, as with other important administrative tasks within the firm, include (a) finding the balance between the practice of law and administrative responsibilities, and (b) making sure the appropriate successors are identified and developed along the way.
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 AllThe Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readMatt's Corner: Contributory Negligence Can Be a Bar to Legal Malpractice Recovery
2 minute readTo Ease Partner Pay Tensions, Some Law Firms Are Seeking 'Middle Ground' in Transparency
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 2Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 3From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 4Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
- 59th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
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