The Washington
Biotechnology & Biomedical Association (WBBA) is a trade group for life sciences in Washington. As a Life
Sciences attorney, I often attend their trade events and meet people who
are involved with pharmaceutical studies and various bio-technology projects. They
are usually represented by one of the large firms here in Seattle.
The people I meet in the life sciences industry complain to me about
the cost of their legal fees; they make a phone call to their attorney, and
they're charged $400 an hour. I'm not really sure why or how these big firms have
a monopoly on the life sciences, but it seems as if there is a
perception out there that big law firms are better-equipped to handle cases.
They are bigger, after all, and better-staffed. Their fees are hefty – but
surely you get what you pay for.
This is an unfortunate
misconception – one that costs a lot of money.
Many attorneys who now work as solo
practitioners or for small firms trained at a major law firm. It is indeed
possible to attain high-quality legal representation at a big firm. But is a
big firm the only place you can find this level of competent
representation? If you choose to go a
different route, will you be sacrificing quality? The answer is unequivocally “no”
– and it's important to understand this, particularly if you don't have a
corporation paying your legal fees.
The fact of the matter is that
big firms are expensive – and they simply don't have to be. Their high costs
are often a result of inefficiency and a certain approach to billing practices.
In litigation, for example, the big firms tend to issue the absolute maximum number of interrogatories and
requests for production and admission. The goal is to bring in as much
information as possible, but retrieving and assimilating all that information
takes time and costs money, which is then billed to clients. Perhaps this isn't
a pressing issue when the client is Google or Microsoft, but what about
individuals paying their own legal fees?
Whether it's a contract or a litigation dispute, the most cost-effective approach is to try to narrow down what's actually relevant and draft language that reflects what needs to be said in clear language, omitting the superfluous. For those of us in solo practices, part of the reasoning for this approach is practical: we are busy, and we don't have the time or the staff to do unnecessary work. Many solo practitioners and small firms are staffed with attorneys who trained at large firms and provide excellent services at reasonable prices.
For me, however, working as a solo practitioner also plays
into my belief about the way I want to practice law. I don't believe in billing
time just to bill time. It is my objective to do exactly what my clients want
me to do – no more and obviously no less. I don't take action unless my
client has approved it. When my clients receive my bill, they fully understand exactly
what it is they're paying for.
Essentially, I
believe in making things as clear as possible for my clients in the area of
contracts and other transactions, using clear, understandable language. It is inappropriate, in my
mind, to use 30 pages of complicated and archaic legal-speak to say what could
be said simply and clearly in three pages. This is my approach in all matters.
Legal representation can
be efficient, excellent and economical. It is possible to have all
three. A smaller firm or a solo attorney can provide clients with the same
level of service they would receive at a larger firm, and making this choice can
bring the added bonus of a considerably smaller price tag.
If you are looking for an
attorney, I recommend you contact your local bar association. Most Bar Associations,
including the King County Bar Association and
the Snohomish
County Bar Association, have lawyer referral services.
