The recent overheated debate about Ross Kodner’s term “BigSolo” to describe refugees from BigLaw, and in particular Susan Cartier Liebel’s attacks on Ross, likening the use of the term to racist epithets, falls apart almost immediately on examination. The bottom line of Ms. Liebel’s attacks is that trying to stratify or categorize solo practitioners is invidious: there are "only Solos." This is absurd on the face of it.
Of course legal practices are stratified: so are doctors, CPAs, consultants and virtually every other profession. Furthermore, invidious characterizations – from terms like “Ambulance Chasers” to lawyer jokes in general come into being for a reason, albeit most often a partial and misguided one. In these cases the abuses of a minority become emblematic of the majority. Anybody can cite examples.
Secondly, contrary to what Ms. Liebel seems to think, “BigLaw” is not generally a complimentary term to those outside it. When I mentioned to an associate at a small firm that my daughter worked in a Big Law firm notorious for slave driving its associates, she reacted in genuine horror: “of her own free will?”
There is no doubt that there is a phenomenon of refugees from BigLaw, whether of their own free will or due to recent layoffs. However, as a consultant my take on these people is somewhat different from Ross’s.
In dealing with some of these attorneys, what strikes me is that not just that they are “used to having an IT department” to do things for them, but they are much more aware of the advantages of technology and are willing to spend money to get the same (or similar) level of services that they had at their old firm. They tend to be believers in the utility and productivity that technology can bring to their practice. As such they make excellent clients.
Comments