The
Small Law Firm & Strategic Alliances
1996 Houston Bar Association
The Houston Lawyer
Houston Lawyer
FEATURE:
FLYING SOLO: THE SMALL LAW FIRM AND STRATEGIC ALLIANCES
by
Robert S. Bennett
Robert
S. Bennett is the senior litigation partner at
Bennett, Camp, Krenek & Hilder, L.L.P., a small plaintiffs firm
that handles complex civil and criminal matters involving personal
injury, toxic tort, employment discrimination, antitrust, and
federal investigations.
My
legal career began 21 years ago with a very large law firm -- the
United States Department of Justice. Since then, I have been a solo
practitioner, with the last ten years as founding partner of a law
firm with 20 litigation and corporate attorneys. Recently, my firm
dissolved and I formed a new partnership with three litigation
attorneys to concentrate on plaintiffs' contingency work in toxic
tort and personal injury, employment discrimination, consumer law,
antitrust and complex white collar criminal defense matters. In my
experience, the small law firm provides unique and rewarding
challenges in the practice of law.
Other
attorneys share my view. Recently I attended the swearing-in of
Civil District Judge Tad Halbach. In his remarks to the audience,
Judge Halbach talked about the four years he spent as a solo
practitioner before his nomination to the bench. He described those
four years as the greatest and most fun experience of his life. This
description parallels John O'Quinn's career. One afternoon after
John and I successfully completed a joint project, he expressed his
satisfaction, as a member of a small firm, in seeing through a
project from inception to resolution. John also noted that under his
present (and much larger) arrangement, he can concentrate solely on
trial matters and leave the discovery and motion hearings to other
attorneys in his firm.
My
experience in mass tort matters and complex antitrust cases over the
past several years has inevitably led to strategic alliances with
other solo practitioners and small law firms which transcend the
standard "referring attorney," "local attorney,"
or "joint venture" arrangements. These strategic alliances
were formed to share costs, skills, knowledge, and information.
The
development of new technology allows law firms to instantaneously
share information and data through special telephonic links, an
impossibility just a few years ago. Attorneys and staff from
different firms can work together concurrently rather than
sequentially. The use of computer networks allows this sharing and
brings increased power and ability and greater flexibility to the
litigation process. The end result is better service to our clients.
One
of the real advantages to strategic alliances is the perspective and
experience each firm brings to a project. The exceptional skills and
resources of each firm are employed to advantage for the duration of
the project. There are, of course, certain risks when a project is
divided among firms. For example, one firm's attorney may prepare
the jury charge, leaving out key language. If uncorrected, the
consequences could be disastrous to the entire project. Losing
control of part of a case may be anathema to some trial attorneys.
It certainly suggests the need to build trust among those involved
in strategic alliances.
I
recommend the following guidelines to solo practitioners and small
firms interested in forming strategic alliances.
1.
Choose Well.
You
will be working with firms or individuals for an extended period of
time. Their values and work approach will affect the end result. It
is not as important to have someone "in command" as it is
to have an understanding of the separate areas of strength each
individual or small firm brings to the strategic alliance. Decisions
by consensus offer the best outcome.
2.
The Golden Rule.
Every
strategic alliance should offer a win/win opportunity for the
practitioners involved. The interest of the client must be paramount
and each participant must be part of the ultimate outcome.
3.
Responsibilities Defined and Assigned.
There
should be a ready answer to why a strategic alliance is best for the
client and best for the firms involved. Each participant must know
what skills, resources or knowledge he or she is expected to bring
to the endeavor and what his or her specific role in the activity
will be.
4.
Building a Communication Network.
Computer
networks and links must be used to communicate with current and
potential strategic alliance members. The constant exchange of
information will ensure success.
As
lead trial counsel for my old law firm, I obtained a significantly
favorable verdict for my clients against Honda Motor Company, ending
Honda's 34 victory streak in similar cases. Winning the Honda case
has brought a certain amount of notoriety, resulting in nationwide
contacts and strategic alliance opportunities with attorneys and
individuals with complex product liability cases costing over a
million dollars in time and expenses. Very few firms can handle this
type of litigation alone, emphasizing the need for strategic
alliances.
After
the Honda victory, my trial team moved on to other litigation
projects such as cases of exposure to formaldehyde emissions from
wood products used in the manufacture of mobile homes. Our firm
formed a strategic alliance with the well-known technology-oriented
litigation firm, Fleming, Hovenkamp & Grayson, P.C., to pursue
these personal injury/product liability cases on a nationwide basis,
utilizing their client base of thousands of mobile home owners
throughout the country.
We
cemented our strategic alliance through strategy sessions with our
respective staff members as well as attorneys from the states of
Illinois and Florida. At these sessions, the steps to litigation and
resolution of formaldehyde exposure cases were discussed in detail,
with all team members contributing creative ideas and solutions to
this mass litigation project. Key staff members came to know one
another and to rely on each other's skill. At these strategy
sessions we outlined and formulated the project's assignments, and
established my firm's harmonious and compatible working relationship
with the Fleming firm. Joint staff meetings are periodically held
for special assignments such as the custom design of a database
tailored to meet the needs of these personal injury/product
liability cases. Computer links were established between the two
firms using a product called First Class which accommodates
Macintoshes(R), PC's running Microsoft(R) Windows, and other
computer systems. The custom-designed database we share is FoxPro.
My
staff members continue to exchange knowledge and information with
the Fleming firm as the project progresses. Our firms are sometimes
in contact on a daily or weekly basis to organize and conduct
various assignments. Currently, the Fleming team is conducting
ambient air testing and inspections of the mobile homes, while the
Bennett team is responsible for filing petitions, requesting and
responding to discovery, taking depositions, appearing at hearings
and pretrial conferences, and preparing for trial. Each firm's
responsibilities are uniquely suited to the skills and preferences
of its attorneys and staff.
In
the area of white collar criminal defense, the adversary is often
the U.S. government, armed with its vast resources in which to
investigate and prosecute. Larger federal cases may involve task
forces comprised of several investigative agencies. These
investigative resources support the prosecution in preparing
for, and at trial. The solo criminal practitioner or small law firm
may be at a disadvantage to combat these powerful government
resources. However, parity can be achieved by forming alliances
outside the office to create an ad-hoc defense team.
One
of the attorneys at our firm focuses her practice on employment law.
As we are currently involved in two class actions based on
employment discrimination, strategic alliances are vital in this
area of our practice as well. One of the class actions already
certified involves nearly 3,000 class members and approximately 15
other attorneys who have coordinated efforts and clients. Mass
litigation, even paper-intensive employment litigation, presents no
obstacle to the small firm utilizing strategic alliances.
One
tool we use to forge alliances in the area of employment law is an
extensive client interview questionnaire developed in our firm. The
questionnaire, in bound booklet form, is made available to other
firms and solo practitioners to facilitate evaluations of potential
clients and to educate the lawyer or nonlawyer unfamiliar with the
nuances of federal and state employment laws. The questionnaire is
also a valuable "alert" system for attorneys faced with
potential employment class actions without the resources to
prosecute such cases themselves. A firm or solo practitioner may
have developed strong relationships with several potential class
members or mass litigation plaintiffs but lacks the expertise in
employment law to bring the case to a successful conclusion. An
alliance with a firm that practices employment law affords clients
the best possible representation: the trustful relationship with the
firm they are familiar with, and the experience and knowledge of a
litigation firm.
Today's
technology plays a major role in a small firm's ability to gain
strategic advantages in mass litigation and large case matters. By
investing in the latest computer equipment, fax machines, software,
and CD-ROM technology, we have equipped our firm with the tools
necessary to research and access information databases and other
resources in a matter of minutes with tremendous savings to our
clients. The ability to access and share databases and information
with other attorneys and firms through strategic alliances keeps us
a step ahead of the competition in effectively handling large
litigation matters.
Strategic
alliances with other firms have allowed me to take on and expand
projects normally beyond the resources of a small firm. More
importantly, my partners and I, along with our staff, enjoy the
freedom to do what we do the best.
|
