Hey all, I have working as a partner in corporate practice of tier2/tier 3 firm. Have around 16 years of PQE. I have finally realised that I better work alone and don't really work well with 2-4 juniors working around/with me. I am more efficient working alone. I am now considering going independent and setting up my solo practitioner law firm. Do such kind of set ups work? Is having a team mandatory from market and positioning perspective? Any thoughts / suggestions would be much welcome.
I have far less experience than you but I started out as a sole practitioner so have some perspective to share.
I was once speaking with another sole practitioner with a small team (much elder to me). He said he lost out on companies as a client because his firm size was small. He said that companies find it easier to process appointment when the firm is bigger.
I don't think this is true in all cases. If your rapport is good, maybe size does not matter. But this may be true when you are trying to establish relationship with a company.
There can't be a general principle. As in-house counsel, it is the trust that matters and track record rather than team size. But unless you get hired, how do you establish a track record? It is a round circuit. But that's why being a sole practitioner is hard.
I am not competent enough to enlighten you , Sorry . But I wish you all rainbows and sunshine should you all out and open your preneur . And if that happens pls consider giving internship to me.
In case you do have time to mentor someone , pls shoot a mail seriouspen@mail.com or pls drop your throwaway mail
You won't know till you know. Your solo practice won't be at the level of your current firm for some time, but you'll find yourself richer in a different way. You can always build a team, or partner with others if you need to. Time spent building a solo practice, I feel, can yield rich dividends. Good luck to you.
It all depends where you want to see yourself some years down the line. If loads of money and pseudo-fame is what you aspire for, then better to stay where you are. In case you prefer independence, better work life balance and peace in life, then sole practice is a great option. I can vouch for it from my personal experience.
It depends on activity. Some things need a team, like a DD but a pure advisory practice can be done individually. But for clients, it's inefficient to have multiple consultants. So probably, better to stay where you are if the work which you do needs a team.
I have far less experience than you but I started out as a sole practitioner so have some perspective to share.
I was once speaking with another sole practitioner with a small team (much elder to me). He said he lost out on companies as a client because his firm size was small. He said that companies find it easier to process appointment when the firm is bigger.
I don't think this is true in all cases. If your rapport is good, maybe size does not matter. But this may be true when you are trying to establish relationship with a company.
There can't be a general principle. As in-house counsel, it is the trust that matters and track record rather than team size. But unless you get hired, how do you establish a track record? It is a round circuit. But that's why being a sole practitioner is hard.
I am not competent enough to enlighten you , Sorry . But I wish you all rainbows and sunshine should you all out and open your preneur . And if that happens pls consider giving internship to me.
In case you do have time to mentor someone , pls shoot a mail seriouspen@mail.com or pls drop your throwaway mail