My company used Atrium to help us think through some very complicated niche legal issues. We were on a flat rate plan, and it was nice to be able to brainstorm without watching the clock. We were pretty happy with their service, but it all came from one attorney, who also was the one who found us and brought us in. Whenever we dealt with anyone else there, it was disorganized and low quality. When our main attorney left, of course we followed them.
I had bought into their philosophy at first but the experience showed me why law firms have the partner-oriented structure they do. Legal work is built around trust in the lawyer in most cases and that's hard to automate.
So much this. I'd arrange to pay an incredibly good and trustworthy lawyer in daily deliveries of wheelbarrows full of rolled pennies if that's how their fee structure worked. Most law firms that have tried and failed at alternative fee structures seem to have made the mistake of thinking that their clients were hiring them because of the alternative fee structure when in reality they were hired in spite of it.
It’s always been weird to me when a law firm tells me about all the services and such they have. It’s not the firm, it’s the lawyer, and if they decamp, you follow. Likewise just because I am really happy with lawyer X at firm Y Doesn’t mean I’m interested in Y’s patent practice when I need patent assistance.
For his reason I’ve always been puzzled why law firms merge. You ever pay multiples of revenue; it’s just literally a pro data merge with a little goodwill thrown in from one side.
Cross selling is often a major source of business for law firms and there may be rewards for successfully introducing an existing client to a new part of the firm.
I had bought into their philosophy at first but the experience showed me why law firms have the partner-oriented structure they do. Legal work is built around trust in the lawyer in most cases and that's hard to automate.