The rise of corporate law firms

The legal market is now dominated by corporate law firms. Whilst large law firms did exist previously, they tended to be collegiate rather than corporate in approach. They could be described as a framework in which individuals practised. The most conspicuous examples of corporate law firms are the Magic Circle firms in London, which are essentially part of globalised, massive organisations. However, beyond the City of London and across the country as a whole, there are now many large law firms which essentially operate in a corporate way.

Corporate culture and independent thinking

At the outset I should admit that I for some reason have never been any good at being  corporate. My persistent failure to engage with corporate organisations may be a cause or consequence of some antipathy towards them. It is hard to say at this stage. I have come to believe that corporatism seems to be one of the substitutes for organised religion, something with which I also struggle. You might think this comparison is a bit of a stretch. However, there can be seen clear similarities; personal identification with the organisation, a corporate mantra, festivals (now known as awards nights) and a clear belief that your organisation is better than similar ones. Whilst I would imagine not many partners in large corporate firms believe that their counterparts in rivals will burn in hell, nonetheless they probably do believe that these firms are really not quite up to scratch.

So corporatism therefore impairs independent thinking?

Profitability and modern litigation

It is also necessary to consider the underlying dynamic of a corporate law firm; that is to make money for its owners. Most of the firms do seem to be quite successful at this objective.

This creates then a priority for billing leading to profitability. So much litigation now operates on what might be described as an alternative to Parkinson’s law; that is that the work expands so as to exhaust the cost available for its completion.

Which cases become commercially attractive?

Further, the type of dispute in which a corporate law firm is likely to be interested will not necessarily be that which is most compelling in pursuit of justice.  The ideal area might be described as high-value, low-risk litigation. This has resulted in the proliferation of consumer claims which are usually indefensible. Such claims also have the advantage of being of little real interest to the individual claimants. In real terms, they may have lost very little and would regard any recovery as a bonus. They would therefore be more amenable to a deduction under a DBA.

In the areas in which I principally practise – clinical negligence and personal injury – the ideal case could be described as low-risk, high-cost litigation ideally with an admission of liability. The claim is then subject to an expensive process.

Clearly unattractive is high cost high risk.

Access to justice and affordability

It was interesting to note that one of the arguments in the Mazur case was that the current arrangements, in relation to unauthorised individuals being able to undertake significant work in litigation, was that it enabled members of the public to afford access to a lawyer when this would not otherwise be possible.  This realistic argument reflects the fact that access to a qualified lawyer is now unaffordable to a significant proportion of those with a legal problem.

Pro bono, public image and commercial reality

Whilst corporate law firms do seek to emphasise their pro bono commitment, the reality is that the amount of work involved is minute compared to their turnover. On my rough analysis of one Magic Circle firm’s stated  level of pro bono work over the last year, applying a characteristic charging rate for the City of London the total involved would amount to 0.02% of the firm’s total turnover. Of course, the actual cost to the firm is significantly lower than the charging rate to clients.

The rule of law and corporate courage

Whilst, at least at present, the rule of law is not being threatened in this country as it is in the United States, it is still instructive to see how most corporate firms have responded to the President’s clearly unlawful threats to them. They have settled with him in terms advantageous to the President. It should be noted that a minority have shown the courage and principle to stand their obviously justified ground. At this stage they have been successful in this stance. However, the fact that a number of large firms were commercially unable to withstand these unlawful threats indicates that they could not stand up for the law even on their own behalf, let alone that of their clients.

Why law and justice still matter

I can only admit that what follows sounds pompous. I believe that law and justice are important for the stability of society. If the law is not available to everyone and if justice is denied then this creates a disillusioned and divided society. Regrettably, this appears to be our direction of travel.

Debates around law, justice, regulation and public accountability are becoming increasingly important within modern legal practice. You can explore more of my legal commentary and analysis here.