Why Personalized Service Makes a Difference at a Law Firm

Big firm or little firm? It’s a major question for law firms and for clients alike. Do you want to join a big firm or a little firm? Do you want to found a big firm or a little firm? Do you want to take your case to a big firm or a little firm? There’s plenty of advantages for both options, which is why both big and little firms thrive in the legal world. However, understanding what you lose when you go with a big firm is important and often neglected.

I say that because too many people automatically assume bigger is better. A big firm has lots of lawyers. They probably have very attractive claims about how much compensation they’ve brought their clients. They may be able to put their names out there more, getting more name recognition. It’s true that there is a lot to be said for big firms. However, in my opinion, there’s far more to be said for smaller firms, and that doesn’t get said as loudly.

A smaller firm would refer to those that have a relatively small number of lawyers. These can be family law firms like Adams Law Firm here in Houston, or they can be individual lawyers or partnerships or two or three lawyers. It’s easy to assume you get less when you work with fewer lawyers, but the truth is, you probably get more.

Bigger firms may have so many lawyers that they hardly know each other. They may not collaborate on cases at all. At the same time, they probably have a huge caseload that shuffles your case around and makes you a far lower priority. A smaller firm, on the other hand, is far more likely to make you a priority and to provide a personalized experience. What does that mean? It means that you meet your lawyer and spend time with your lawyer. When you call, your lawyer calls you back quickly, and they don’t check their watch every minute they spend on the phone. At a small firm, you are a person, and that means your case actually matters to your lawyer.

Big firms take on so many clients that you may only be the facts on a piece of paper to them. Those lawyers are more likely to be motivated by reaching a settlement as quickly as possible so they can move on to the next case, and that settlement might not be the best outcome for you. A smaller firm won’t rush your case. They won’t take shortcuts. They won’t take the first settlement offer that comes forward. When your lawyer sees you as the person you are, they’re going to try to get you the best possible deal.

Maybe you’re more comfortable going with a big firm with lots of cases and lots of lawyers. That’s fine, but for my money, I’d rather go to a smaller firm where my concerns would really be heard and my claim would really be fought for.

What Does Experience Mean?

What does experience mean in the modern world? It’s a question I’ve long pondered. In times before now, before the internet, iPhones, and the constant availability of knowledge, experience was truly important. You needed people who knew everything about something in order to run the world because it just took too long to learn new things.

That’s still true in some areas. We need want experienced doctors, for instance, and we still want experienced astronauts and scientists. Those fields are too complex to pick up quickly, but most others, it’s harder to say.

Take, for instance, accounting. Do you really need an experienced accountant anymore? Perhaps if you’re rich and you really want to avoid as many taxes as possible, but for the rest of us, it’s just a matter of using the right tax programs and doing a little research online.

How many fields will this be true for, in the future, I wonder? Will the state of knowledge reach a point where we don’t particularly need experts anymore?

It seems like this could possibly be true, in terms of available information, but that we’re going the opposite direction. Take a look at the job market. These days, an entry-level job requires two years of experience. How these two years are to be gained if entry-level positions aren’t available is not clear, but the requirement is there.

In fact, as machines and computers take over more manual and basic computation work every year, experience has become ever more prized, perhaps simply because we must prize some quality.

Or perhaps, we prize experience just because it’s in our nature to consider it an important quality, a respectable quality.

So, perhaps the question should be rephrased. Experience in the modern world means one of the few things people still respect and pay for. The question should instead be: though we respect experience, do we really need it anymore?

I would bet that 90% of the jobs out there could be done by novices with only the very slightest amount of training.

That training and the requisite brief period of researching answers that might also be required may slow down employees temporarily, but when they come at entry-level wages, surely many industries will think the slow down more than justified.

Which again makes me think the question should be rephrased. If we don’t need experience in most jobs, how long before businesses realize this and start making changes accordingly, even if their customers still prefer experience?

It’s a sobering thought, and it’s just another sign that the way we view the ideas of employment and income is sure to change in the coming decades.