More than ever before, it appears that sophisticated clients are embracing the use of smaller firms and boutique practitioners. In particular, today’s economic realities have provided an environment in which smaller or boutique practices can flourish and prosper.

As almost 60 percent of the 11,600 members of the Houston Bar Association are either solo practitioners or practicing in firms of fewer than 24 lawyers, many Houston attorneys may see unprecedented opportunities due to the increased market demand for the hands-on experience, personal service, flexibility, and value they can offer in a smaller environment.

It is clear that one-size-fits-all does not apply to law firms and that firm size does not determine the quality of a firm’s work. However, the radical changes occurring in today’s legal markets make small firm boutiques an increasingly desirable addition to a corporate client’s go-to list of law firms. While some clients may need a “one stop shop” firm to handle all of their legal needs around the globe, the traditional practice of law and the legacy client handed down through generations of partners at a firm seem to be increasingly less prevalent in these turbulent economic times.

Corporate counsel whose budgets have been slashed may find themselves with limited resources to accomplish the same amount of legal work. It seems obvious that corporations are taking a harder look at whether their legal work is being handled efficiently and may conclude that different approaches to legal service providers are necessary. Boutique firms may be well-positioned to take advantage of these new paradigms in the market.

Boutiques can be unique service providers in that they typically have a specific expertise or focus in niche areas that enable them to offer specialized services to clients, along with a personal touch. IP boutiques were one of the first to become highly competitive among sophisticated consumers of legal services, competing with firms that were larger in headcount and geographic desirability. The complexities of intellectual property law and the attorneys’ day-to-day focus on that subject matter gave those boutiques a competitive edge in their field. Similarly, attorneys practicing in environmental boutiques, immigration boutiques, and other specialty areas often focus their attention on the complexities of specific regulations and develop skill sets in areas that may not be available in many firms. In addition, because the focused practitioners have chosen a boutique for their practice, they may be able to offer their specialized services for a more competitive rate and innovative or flexible fee structure as they are not burdened by the overhead that comes with multiple offices, non-billing service staff such as recruiters and marketers, and other fixed costs that must be passed on to the client.

For those who want to try cases, boutique litigation firms may offer their lawyers the most realistic opportunity to get into the courtroom and actually try cases before a jury — an increasingly rare occurrence for lawyers at some of the nation’s largest law firms. Trial lawyers need to try cases to gain experience, and boutique environments may be the quickest path to gaining that experience.

Another factor that is likely contributing to the increasing emergence and use of smaller, boutique firms may be the ever-growing mass of conflicts that can complicate the ability of large firm practitioners to accept work. When practitioners with a unique skill continue to have to decline work due to firm-wide conflicts spawned across multiple offices and geographic locations, it may be more profitable for those lawyers to set up shop in a smaller, boutique form so that they can accept the work that clients are trying to send. Without the conflict problems, the clients can then hire the same people they would have chosen to hire at a larger firm, at a potentially lower rate. The draw: substantial savings, same people.

From an in-house perspective, the increasing availability of high-end boutique practitioners is also beginning to change the way clients may choose to structure their legal teams or dockets. For complex or unusual cases, pairing firms and lawyers can bring cost-effective results and leverage competencies. For instance, environmental regulatory specialists may not have a significant record of courtroom trial experience and may not be familiar with the client’s litigation style or risk tolerance. Another litigation boutique that has the requisite trial experience may lack the needed regulatory expertise. In fact, some clients may have lawyers on their in-house roster who bring a particular competency to the team. Teaming firms and players can be an obvious solution. Modern electronic tools can make collaboration both feasible and relatively seamless. Similarly, repetitive dockets lend themselves to a team approach. Establishing a center of excellence, either externally or internally, to act as a resource for counsel on a repetitive docket can reduce costs and improve results by leveraging the lessons learned from handling the entire docket. Even something as simple as a centralized or coordinated approach to discovery can yield improved results and significant savings. As with any team, the key to success in legal teaming lies in the attitude of the team members. Effective collaboration among firms requires an atmosphere of trust and a willingness to relinquish some control of the financial rewards in a given case. You may need to make a little less on an individual matter to make more on the long-term relationship. In other words, your practice may be better served by a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

If you are contemplating opening a boutique practice, your focus should be on finding the niche that makes you unique and would make you a valued provider, whether as an individual counsel or a member of a larger legal team with other lawyers or firms. If you want to market a particular skill set or niche, the marketing needs to focus on what you can achieve for your client that is different from what everyone else has to offer. The difference may be your unique practice area or experience in a complex type of law, your flexibility to undertake creative billing arrangements, your ability to move quickly and provide highly personal attention, and/or your ability to perform the same work as the largest of firms with an efficiency or economy that matches a reduced corporate legal budget. As a boutique practitioner, you should also cultivate your clients, friends, and professional colleagues to educate them about what makes you special. Boutique practitioners with specialized skills can enjoy a steady stream of referrals from larger organizations or practitioners who want high-end services for their clients but who may not be able to handle the matter themselves, whether due to conflicts or the unavailability of a particular specialty practice. The expectation is that you will respect the referrer’s relationship with the client and understand that they will retain their client relationship for other matters.

If you are contemplating hiring boutique practitioners, benefits to your company can include the fact that your business, no matter how small, will matter. You have the chance to be a significant client to the firm. You are likely to enjoy more personal service and reap a loyalty to your business that serves your company well in the long run. You may enjoy substantial savings by using highly experienced practitioners who know the area of law intimately and who can work efficiently and without excessive overhead costs that must be passed on to the client. Boutiques may be able to move faster and be more creative on billing arrangements, and you may be able to more consistently use a cadre of lawyers with whom you have developed trust and lasting relationships because the absence of major conflicts allows them to take your cases on a consistent basis. Perhaps most importantly, when you hire the senior-most attorneys in the boutique with decades of experience, that is who you get. They are the most experienced and they do your work.

At the end of the day, there is great truth to the adage that clients hire lawyers, not law firms. In today’s legal and economic climate, it is likely that boutique lawyers who can offer high-end skills with a more flexible rate structure will see more opportunities than ever before.

Debra Tsuchiyama Baker, a Georgetown University Law Center graduate, is a founding partner of the boutique litigation and environmental law firm of Connelly • Baker • Wotring LLP. She has practiced environmental law for more than 24 years, and established a boutique practice more than eight years ago that continues to provide litigation and environmental legal services to clients on a national basis.

David P. Young is a General Solicitor for the Union Pacific Railroad Company and graduated from the University of Houston Law School in 1988. He manages all of the company’s environmental legal affairs, as well as all litigation in Texas and Louisiana. Young has been with the Union Pacific Railroad Company for more than 15 years and supervises a staff of 9 in-house lawyers and over 50 outside law firms.