Belonging to a boutique— all about balance or a bigger shift? Maurice Allen explains why boutiques are an increasingly attractive option for the next generation of talent.
Is the rise of the boutique firm—and indeed other ‘alternative’ models like the platform firm—simply about addressing the desire to return to a time in the profession when people, legal excellence and client service mattered more than the bottom line?
Working to live
The assumption is that lawyers will follow the money and that this is the main criterion behind career decisions and the battle for talent, but it was not always thus. In fact, when US firms first came to London, lawyers and market commentators were quick to draw a contrast with the UK partnership model, delineating that the UK model was more about working to live rather than living to work.
However, the big UK firms were not immune from market criticism. When the Magic Circle and Silver Circle firms began their ascendancy, there were accusations from others that the riches they promised and provided were at a human cost. Lawyers were becoming highly trained legal battery hens, and the human element was being disregarded; one did not know one’s fellow partners, and partners were simply highly paid employees; there was no clear career path for associates; and trainees were just cheap labour as opposed to being the next generation of talent to be nurtured and trained. To add to this, a huge divide was being created between legal and non-legal staff.
Strategically speaking, is the rise of the boutique also a recognition that clients do not always need full-service law firms and may instead prefer firms that have a core focus on the type of work for which they are being retained? It would not be stretching the concept of what a boutique law firm is to say that many of the US law firm offices in London essentially operate as boutiques themselves: they pick their spots, do not try to be all things at once, and stress the benefits of being small but perfectly formed.
The next generation
The other critical dynamic is how boutiques fit into the battle for talent and where they fall in the eyes of the next generation of lawyers weighing up where their best opportunities lie. From my own experience, I have observed that associates and nonequity partners do not necessarily see the same risks in joining boutique law firms. In fact, the reality is quite the reverse, and that is one of the reasons why US law firms have been so successful in pulling talent out of the big UK firms. Whereas Big Law favours safer, less threatening candidates, boutiques welcome those who are mavericks, those who are more opinionated and who may appeal to their existing clients.
In a smaller boutique environment, younger lawyers are more likely to be given more responsibility and client contact. They have far greater opportunity to develop their personal profile and the type of reputation and client ‘stickability’ which is beneficial for their long-term careers. In fact, the reason the Magic Circle, for example, broke free of the London law firm pack was that they nurtured their younger talent, sent them on secondment to clients and other offices, and used their nextgeneration talent to help ‘institutionalise’ the clients. That allowed them to dominate the market for a significant period.
In short, boutiques create the type of environment and opportunities the more established firms once offered, and provide a sense of belonging and shared purposethat bigger firms struggle to maintain. Decision-making is simplified at the senior levels, and individual lawyers also potentially receive more attention to their careers. At their simplest, boutiques are about playing hard and working hard while establishing a sense of contributing and achieving together.
Making choices
The model does not come without disadvantages, of course. So far, the most successful examples have been in the disputes sector where clients may be more persuaded that they need a conflict-free option available to deal with a problem that has arisen. It is perhaps less obvious that the model works in more transactional areas, although there is arguably no reason why you cannot create a boutique offering in areas such as restructuring or private equity, for example, which would work for similar reasons.
Clients, however, often still want to hire law firms that can service their needs more broadly. When it comes to making career choices, those that allow for the possibility of drawing upon and interacting with others in their firm with different or complementary skills have some advantages.
Young and even senior lawyers who have experienced more traditional legal environments are increasingly drawn to the notion of ‘something different’. That ‘something’ implies more freedom and individuality and a sense of ‘ownership’—in the emotional, not literal, sense. Boutique law firms clearly tick the box for many with that mindset and, for that reason, there is every chance they will continue to thrive.
