Ross Kodner coined the term “BigSolo” recently (and apparently stirred up some controversy which I don’t really understand or care about). “BigSolo” means big-firm lawyers who go out on their own and open a solo practice. I don’t think we get much of that in family law since most big law firms don’t do much family law.
Ross, in his article on the topic, warned BigSolos about having to play multiple roles in the management of the firm. He said you have to be “a
* Rainmaker
* Firm Administrator
* Office Supply Manager
* HR Manager
* Facilities and Leasehold Manager
* Public Relations and Marketing department
* Webmaster/Blawgmaster/Twitterer
* CLE Compliance Administrator
* IT Manager or IT Liaison with Outside IT Personnel.
Oh yes, and one more, if in fact there’s time:
*Lawyer.”
I agree, and that may not be very appealing to folks coming from a big firm where they’re used to someone else taking responsibility for those duties. The same can be said for “MediumSolos” and “SmallSolos”. Wearing all those hats will wear you out.
Being a solo isn’t for everybody. It’s tough. I get the sense that many lawyers, having never been solos, romanticize the idea of being in control of their schedules, earning all the money and calling all the shots. Solo practice may not, however, live up to that romantic vision.
Lots of lawyers don’t fully appreciate the reality of solo practice until after they’ve given it a try. It’s a lot like the process people go through before having children. They think about it, they discuss and it and they think they understand what it’s going to be like. I thought I knew what I was in for. I didn’t – not even close. You just can’t fully appreciate parenting until you have the baby and you can’t fully appreciate a solo practice until you live it.
Aside from wearing 15 different hats, what else is tough? Well, for starters you have very little control over your time. Clients control your time, opposing counsel controls your time, the courts control your time, and unexpected events with employees control your time. You get to take up the slack. You don’t get to control your time.
Next? Your income is unnervingly vulnerable. Clients fail to pay. Judges don’t always award the attorney fees requested. Clients don’t always come through the door like you might like. Wild swings in income are the norm, not the exception.
What else? You’ll be distracted, constantly, by small problems. You’ll find yourself making decisions about automatic door closers (crazy, I know). You’ll end up running to Best Buy to replace the kitchenette microwave. You’ll meet with the banker about accepting credit cards. Of course someone else could do these things, but it won’t always happen that way. You’ll end up dealing with many things you shouldn’t have to deal with. It’s just the way it is.
Finally, you’ll lose prestige (which isn’t justified in my opinion). Being a solo, in the universe we live and work in, carries less status than being with a larger firm. You’ll meet someone. They’ll ask what you do. You’ll tell them you’re a lawyer and they’ll promptly ask you where your office is and how many lawyers you have in your firm. Why? I don’t know. Again, that’s just the way it is. You’ll have to say “just one” and you’ll get that look – the same look you get from the hostess when you go to the restaurant alone. Maybe, given the recent layoffs in big firms, that “look” won’t stick around much longer.
Being a solo is great and terrible: lots of pluses, lots of minuses. It may well be for you. It wasn’t for me (I survived about six months). The key is thinking through as much of it as you possibly can before you make the leap.
Related articles:
Lee has practiced family law for more than twenty years. With three offices, 
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
You’re right — being a solo isn’t for everyone. I’ve been doing it for the better part of 30 years now and I wouldn’t trade it for anything. Well, almost anything. (How much did you say you’d pay me to join your firm?)
Al Nye
More from author
But this firm bears your name. When you say you lasted six months, does this mean that you then partnered with other attorneys rather than be a “true solo”?
I added someone after about six months so I wouldn’t be so lonely and have been adding people since. How do you define “true solo”? A lawyer practicing alone? Or a lawyer that owns the practice and has other lawyers working for him/her?
Leehttp://divorcediscourse.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?p=319#comments-form
I would define “true solo” as someone who literally practices alone with perhaps some support staff — a practice environment that some attorneys, like Mr. Nye (great blog btw), perfer, even though they have other choices. This is different from someone who starts a practice and, after experiencing some success, brings on, or partners with, other attorneys to avoid the problems that you mention. (This is something that I’ve been thinking about, which is why your post got my attention.) Sounds like you did the later. You started a practice, but just chose not to go it completely alone, not because you couldn’t make it, but because you didn’t want to be head cook and chief bottle washer. This is different from someone who hangs a shingle, but then goes back to working for someone else. For instance, a “BigSolo” who goes back into the ranks of law-firm life after finding that hanging a shingle is just as much, if not more, work, and likely less pay, than being at a firm. This is not to criticize your post. I think it was a good one. I just found it surprising when you said you only lasted 6 months, given that you have your own firm. At first I thought perhaps it was a guest post from someone who decided to go back to a firm (or government), but then I saw it was you, so just wanted to clarify. Hanging a shingle and then flaming out, losing money, and scurrying back to a firm is my biggest fear. (And my wife’s biggest fear!). Thanks for the post and, for lack of a better term, Web 2.0 presence. In addition to this blog, I’ve listened to and enjoyed several of your podcasts.