In an era of lawyer bashing,NJ Columnist Warren Boroson’s piece Why Every Middle Class Family Needs a Lawyer could have been an important educational reminder why lawyers still matter. And while in truth, Boroson’s article makes that case, Boroson does a far greater disservice by advising readers to “avoid solo practitioners” when hiring lawyers.
Boroson’s reasons for steering clear of solos are two fold. Citing an unidentified lawyer expert (note to Boroson: if a source isn’t willing to give a name, he ain’t worth quoting), Boroson notes that “solos specialize in fairly narrow fields and opt to be independent.” Specialization, however, is all the more reason to bring in a solo – earlier in the column, Boroson himself recommends seeking out a lawyer who “specializes in what you need.” Moreover, because many solos do specialize, they’re forced to build relationships with highly skilled lawyers in other practice areas to whom they can refer cases. When clients go to a general practice firm, the real estate partner is going to send a case down the hall to Mr. Divorce, irrespective of whether he’s ever seen the inside of the courtroom – because the client and his dollars will stay in the firm. By contrast, a solo real estate lawyer is more likely to refer clients to a first rate divorce lawyer based on merit since most jurisdictions don’t allow referral fees for these types of matters.
As for independence, why’s that a negative? Do you want a criminal defense lawyer who’s afraid to argue assertively for a client because he doesn’t want to offend the judge? Do you want a PI lawyer who’s afraid to sue the major restaurant and corporate donor in town because it may cause the PI lawyer to lose business? Only a big law attorney would criticize independence in a lawyer.
But Boroson’s other reason for avoiding solos is far worse: he claims that “solos have lower ethical standards” than lawyers in partnerships. Say what?
For starters, it’s well documented that bars disproportionately go after solos for ethical breaches (either perceived or real) while treating big fry more leniently. I’ve blogged about that problem here and it’s even the subject of a law review piece But what really burns me about Boroson’s comment is that solo and small firm lawyers, yes, Greenfield, Tannebaum , Bennett and Turkewitz are single-handedly patrolling the ethics of the blogosphere. Along with these four big guns, I and solo colleagues like Jamison Koehler, Wells Law Office and no-longer-solo-but-still-small Eric Mayer and others are co-defendants; sued by one of New Jersey’s finest because we called him out on ethics and he sued us for defamation!. Yes, you’ll find big law firms in the case, but only on retainer, defending some of the larger media players. You won’t find any big law firm defendants because none felt it worth their while to comment on the ethical practices of a lawyer who jeopardized the liberty of a criminal defendant.
So, Mr. Boronson – the next time you tell members of the public not to hire solos, please do your research first. Because nowhere in the legal profession will you find lawyers as independent and dedicated and heroic as the solo.
Boroson’s article is the dumbest thing I’ve read all year. Many solos are simply good at what they do, so they figured “Why deal with all the drama and overhead of a firm when I can do this for myself?”
I’ve worked for a big firm and a small firm. One of the things I love about my two person partnership is that our overhead is low enough that we can provide middle class individuals legal services at a cost they can afford. Thanks to new technology, we can do a lot of the stuff my former firms can do – and often we can do it more efficiently. As for ethics, wasn’t it biglaw who was trying to lobby the ABA to relax ethical standards for sophisticated clients…?
Your letter is the dumbest thing I’ve read all year.
It also seems to be the only thing you’ve read all year.
Introducing the New Phrase, The Rochester Fallacy
By Warren Boroson
I’d like to introduce a new phrase into the English
language.
The new phrase: The Rochester Fallacy.
It means focusing on the case rate and not the base rate.
Focusing on what may be misleading exceptions rather than the broad historical
picture. Seeing black swans and ignoring
all the white ones.
You see this a lot in the way people invest. They buy a hot
stock—although it has an utterly abysmal long-term record. Okay, whatever’s
happened recently may BE more important. Maybe a stock is more valuable now
because a lawsuit has been settled, or the company’s idiot in chief has
retired. Still, remember the old saying: Trees don’t grow to the sky. Hot
stocks cool off. They regress to the mean.
Why Rochester?
When I was a kid—many years ago—people would say that blacks
are poor. They don’t enjoy the financial benefits of living in rich America.
And I, along with the other kids, would scoff. “Hey, look at
Jack Benny’s Rochester! He must make a ton of money! He must be a
multi-millionaire! So, how can you claim that black people aren’t wealthy? And
what about Joe Louis? And Paul Robeson?”
Well, Rochester belonged in the black (!) swan category.
Blacks in general were much poorer than whites. They still are.
Today I told a group of people that young beautiful women
generally don’t amount to much. They get praise and attention and rewards in
general just by looking so pretty. They don’t have to become famous writers or
famous scientists. (I’ve actually seen a study that claimed to prove this.)
Nonsense! replied one woman. Hedy Lamarr was beautiful and
invented something or other! Madame Curie was smart as well as good-looking!
(Well, I would venture to say, not quite in the same class as Hedy.)
Well, I replied, something should be considered true, at
least tentatively, if it’s true at least 60% of the time. That means it’s
statistically significant—statisticians tell me. In giving me these unusual cases of
good-looking women who have achieved something, you’ve fallen victim to the
Rochester Fallacy…. No, I didn’t actually say that. I hadn’t invented the
phrase, the Rochester Fallacy, yet.
A few years ago, I wrote an article urging people to have
lawyers on call, and in choosing a lawyer to look for a large firm, not a solo
practitioner—other things being equal. One reason: You want other lawyers
looking over the solo practitioner’s shoulder.
A bunch dumbass solo lawyers then came down on me like a ton
of pricks. (That’s not a typo.) All of them knew this poor schlub who consulted
a big law firm and got into trouble—when a solo would have been so helpful. The
Rochester Fallacy.
I’ll actually name one dumbass lawyer: Carolyn Elefant of
Washington, D.C. I’ll single her out
because 1. she used “who” instead of “whom” in her email, 2. she misspelled my
name, and 3. she keeps posting and re-posting her reply, so that it’s high up
whenever anyone checks out my name.
By the way, I’ll
bet that she’s not good-looking.