Generalist v Specialist

GENERALIST VS SPECIALIST: Should I Specialize?

One of the first things any sole practitioner must address is whether to specialize in a particular field of law. Historically, and especially in Singapore, solos have felt they needed to become general practitioners – to engage in the “bread and butter” stuff of legal practice – in order to fill the rice bowl. Many still perceive that specialisation is a luxury they can’t afford. However, in today’s business environment, a number of factors make generalist practice economically less appealing than a speacialist practice.

1. Laws have become more complex

New areas of practice — such as environmental law, computer law, competition law, and countless other new fields have arisen from previously unheard of social problems and in increasingly complex business arenas. Other practice areas that were once obscure backwaters of legal practice have mushroomed; these include professional liability law, immigration law, entertainment and sports law, to name a few. The internationalization of commercial markets has complicated even the most basic business transactions. Increased government regulation in some areas and deregulation in other areas have made the law more confusing to clients and practitioners alike. Simply in terms of pure volume, no lawyer is capable of learning or keeping up with all the constantly evolving fields of law.

2. Clients seek Lawyers with Greater Expertise

In this age of information, clients have become increasingly knowledgeable and their demands more sophisticated. Clients increasingly seek lawyers with greater expertise. As a corollary, evidence shows that clients are more willing to lodge a complaint against their lawyers and the incidences of negligence claims against lawyers have increased. This simply means that there is now greater risk of liability for lawyers practising in areas where they lack expertise. A generalist lawyer will handle at most a few cases in any specific area of law in the course of his career; whereas a specialists will have the opportunity to grow his experience and expertise in the areas he has chosen to specialise in.

3. Generalists cannot compete with Specialists

Specialists can assure quality by implementing substantive practice systems that utilize routine procedures for handling similar cases. Just as production lines in other industries can produce more items with fewer mistakes (cars, watches, or almost anything else), legal production lines can improve efficiency and quality as well. To be most effective, these systems require volume, so the generalist who handles one or two cases in an area each year can hardly be said to have a system. Assuming a practice system improves efficiency, the specialist can use this competitive advantage in one of three ways: to improve profitability by taking less time to do the same work as a less-efficient lawyer, where both charge the going rate; to reduce fees by undercutting the price of less-efficient competitors; or to reduce the number of hours the specialist must devote to legal work, providing more time for family and personal interests. In short, the competitive advantage offered by specialization makes it worthwhile for most lawyers to choose to limit their practice concentrations.

4. Marketing is easier and cheaper for Specialists

It costs less to market to a small, targeted audience than to an unfocused, general audience. The generalist has to reach the public with an offer to do legal work where there is unlimited competition; whereas the specialist needs only to reach the small number of people in that field of endeavour or with this specific legal need. With the internet

Should a Solo Specialize?

Should sole practitioners try to limit their fields of practice, or is specialization reserved for lawyers in larger organizations? Can solos generate enough business to maintain profitability if they do not take whatever legal work comes their way? The answers to these questions are not simple. The general proposition that specialists make more money than generalists applies as much to solos as it does to other lawyers. So, for solos, the critical issue is whether they can find enough legal work to pay the bills and earn a living. To assess this question, it is important to understand the relationship between price and volume.

The more generic the work, the more lawyers are available to handle it, and the less practitioners can charge for their services. For more specialized work, there is less available work and a smaller group of lawyers qualified to perform it, and those lawyers can charge more for their services. In theory, it is easy to see how the specialist can earn three times as much as the generalist, but it might not be as apparent that the specialist need serve only one-third the number of clients to earn the same amount as the generalist. In this sense, the specialist in a small town does not have to generate as many clients to stay afloat, even though the number of cases available may be fewer. Given the other efficiencies of marketing and delivery, the small-town solo can effectively concentrate her practice.

It is axiomatic that lawyers generally seek to provide more high-end services to more high-end clients over time; no one ever says, “My goal in practice is to be a bottom-feeder who takes all the cases that no one else wants.” The trend is for lawyers to enhance their client mix over time. This means that a less-experienced lawyer first starting her practice may take cases that she would not take after her practice is established.

Solos can also participate in referral networks, both to attract clients in their areas of specialty and to refer cases they are not equipped to handle. In the latter situation, lawyers can reduce the risk of liability if they do not take cases outside their fields of expertise. A referral network allows a lawyer to maintain some relationship to the client, while avoiding undertaking legal work outside the lawyer’s knowledge base. Having a referral network is especially useful to solos, as it gives them the scope of services of a larger law firm while maintaining the autonomy and other benefits of a solo practice.

For those lawyers who still favor the concept of serving the general needs of a clientele without engaging in a true specialty practice, the thought of serving as a referral hub may be appealing. Using as an example the primary-care physician who handles patients’ basic needs but refers patients to specialists as necessary, the notion of a primary-care lawyer might work as well. Lawyers associated with a unique cultural, ethnic, or religious group, or some other affinity connection, might find a way to create a specialty in primary legal services, thereby creating a new kind of general practitioner.

Whatever solo lawyers decide to do about specializing should not be a matter of serendipity. Instead of waiting for something to happen, or for their law practices to evolve into something, solos should make reasoned and researched decisions about how to build their practices. Often lawyers become specialists by default: after handling a couple cases in some area—maybe an area the lawyer does not even like—the lawyer becomes known as “the lawyer who handles X.” The better approach is for lawyers to look at their personal skills, interests, contacts, and opportunities, and then work to build the concentrated, high-quality practices they want. This is not something that will happen overnight; but, without some kind of long-range plan, practice specialization is not likely to happen at all.