Cloud-based law firms Forum

[jagpaw]

Does anyone have experience working in a cloud-based law firm? Improvements in technology are making remote working easier and easier, and I've read articles about the growth of some firms like Fisherbroyles and vlp law group. Allowing attorneys to keep ~80% of the billable hours they generate because of the minimal overhead expenses involved with these firms seems like a pretty attractive arrangement. Not to mention traveling the world while practicing law. I imagine I'm overlooking something as I'm surprised this isn't more popular...

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/can ... onal-model

[skeenbr0]

This sounds like the gig-based economy reaching into the legal profession. How does the payment model work? I assume it's a bit eat what you kill. It also doesn't really sound like a viable path for a new graduate- taking a quick look at FisherBroyles, they want 7 years of Big Law or in-house training. Great if you are a burnt-out associate with no path towards partnership, but it's not an alternative to the current model if you are a 3L.

I can see this being an attractive option for an individual seeking legal services. (I will admit my bias right here- I do some debtor-side consumer bankruptcy work, and I can see this kind of thing putting a dent in that part of my practice, although I have found that you get what you pay for, and the guy who offers the $500 filing is nowhere to be seen when an aggressive creditor comes along.)

Would a large corporate client turn to this kind of firm for its needs as opposed to a large law firm?

[SFSpartan]

Not really a path for incoming associates, as you really need to be working in close proximity to people that can train you, help talk through things, etc (email is a really poor way of doing this).

Not having an office can also present a business development problem if you don't have a well-established reputation. Some clients will simply write off attorneys/firms that don't have a physical office, assume they aren't serious, etc.

That said, I can see this being attractive for someone who is established, has a strong client base, etc. This mitigates concerns people may have re: no office, and allows the firm to reduce overhead, as most corporate work can be done from anywhere so long as you have an internet connection. Could be a really attractive option for ex-Biglaw senior associates that want a ton of autonomy.

[favabeansoup]

Reasons off the top of my head why they aren't more popular (1)does not hire law students or entry level attorneys (2) seems entirely dependent on how much work you can bring in yourself, which most younger lawyers won't have (3) a lot of law firms don't even care that much about facetime anymore.

My firm, as long as you get your work done for the day and don't have any meetings, etc., no one actually cares if you are in the office. Some partners are a little more picky about showing face, but there have been plenty of days where I just decided to work at home and no one cared. Working in the office is also REALLY NICE sometimes and has a ton of benefits you don't get working from home.

Seems like it might be ok for older lawyers who just want to work whenever, but not really a viable option for those looking at substantive career growth.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[Rlabo]

http://www.law360.com/articles/787042/e ... al-office-

This seemed somewhat relevant.

[gaddockteeg]

I think about this a lot during bonus time. I do the math, and $400/hr x 2200 hours = a lot more than the firm pays me. Of course this overlooks that they're paying for my office in a super high-priced office building, they're paying my secretary, and they're bringing me most of my work. But I'd be happy as a clam to work from home and let someone else have my office if it means I make more money. I can see wanting junior attorneys to come into the office so they can learn, but it might be smart for a firm that's lacking office space to give some senior associates or of counsel access to meeting rooms and a little salary bump if they give up their office.

Also, I think some of the hours we bill out are written off which brings this down.

To use the 1/3 model from my undergrad business econ class: 33% goes to pay the associate, 33% pays for overhead (written off hours, secretaries, partner's admin time, etc), 33% is firm's profit.

edit: I don't mean to contradict you though, I agree wholly. Just fleshing this out further.

[lacrossebrother]

fisher broyles doesn't have support staff or associates.
I don't know how they address that wrt billing for printing and mailing shit

It's a weird model in that it seeks to be modern, but at the same, is somewhat self-defeating. In other words, the extent that you do have a book and can venture off on your own, I think i'd rather just handle the infrastructure/marketing myself rather than pay for the limited FB name and services. I think it's appealing to a limited audience of non-tech savvy, but bold lawyers, and it's also an interesting a stepping stone.

[JusticeJackson]

.

[Anonymous User]

.

[lacrossebrother]

"Come join our big firm where we offer you nothing but a Clio account and some conflicts." -FisherBroyles

[Anonymous User]

Bumping this topic given the prevalence of remote work now.

I’m a burnout Biglaw 4th year with no ambition for partnership. One cloud-based firm has been courting me and with my Biglaw firm asking that we return to the office 3X a week, I seriously want to take the plunge.

Also, the cloud-based place would allow part time (1200 hours). Which is a sweet deal for me for personal reasons.

Any recent insight?

Thanks