The mid-law advantage
Large firms compete on scale: global reach, broad practice coverage and deep bench strength across specialisms. Mid-sized firms generally can't match that, and most don't try. What they compete on instead is closer to the relationship itself. Clients at mid-sized firms expect to know their lawyer directly, and to feel like a priority rather than just a number – and without the drag of scale, mid-law firms make a virtue out of their ability to deliver that experience.
But the advantage can be more fragile than some firms realise, because it depends on consistency. A client who gets a brilliant, responsive experience on one matter type and a slower, less coordinated one on the next starts to wonder whether the first experience was a fluke. Trust built over years can shift with a single inconsistent handling of a matter.
Great expectations
Clients now expect more transparency and predictability than law firms traditionally considered necessary. They expect to know who's working on their matter, how long things will take, and what it will cost, often before the work has even started. In a crowded market, clients can shop around and get a good idea of the experience of working with other firms before they buy. If they feel their experience is inconsistent between teams, not only will they notice, but this could be a red flag that prompts them to work more closely with a rival who seems more reassuring.
This puts mid-sized firms in an interesting position. Relationship is still their strongest card. But playing that card well now takes more deliberate effort than it used to, and clients are comparing every interaction against experiences they're having with other teams internally, not just against other law firms.
Consistency is the secret sauce
I have long been of the opinion that creating an excellent client service is not just about the direct relationship with the lead lawyer, or even the team of lawyers. In the course of any client matter, different specialists are needed to support at different points. Yes legal knowledge, advice, negotiation are required, but countless different skills are needed to successfully navigate compliance and court timetables, produce documents and track funds, liaise with councils and government bodies, keeping things moving all while keeping the client informed and feeling like a priority and not just a matter number, Beyond the legal expertise, it’s about having the right person available when a matter needs attention and making seamless handoffs between team members.
Without an effective teamwork system, the firm’s understanding of the effort required internally to deliver excellence for the client can be so inaccurate that it creates the kind of scramble clients can sense even when they can't name it. Clients rarely comment on it directly. But believe me they notice when something feels slightly off, a little clunky, more effort than the last time they did it. Avoiding that feeling is about how well a firm runs behind the scenes, matter after matter, without the client ever seeing the effort involved.
Honest, curious conversations
In my view, mid-sized firms shouldn’t be trying to out-scale large law, or out-automate the newest tech-enabled specialists. Rather, they should be focusing on protecting what already sets them apart. Those relationships which are the jewel in their crown depend on the interpersonal skills of partners, yes – but let’s start recognising just how much of the outstanding client experience also depends on operational consistency. Once we do, we can work strategically to achieve that reliable, seamless, consistent service that every client deserves – and will shout about.
I'll be at the Alternative Legal Management event this September, and client experience is exactly the kind of conversation I'm looking forward to having in person. If you're going to be there and want to compare notes on what's working, or what isn't, grab some time with me here.
