Lee Rosen had a thought-provoking piece recently where he challenged the idea that lawyers can be “better” and “cheaper” as fallacy.
The more we thought about it, the more we have to agree. You simply can’t be the best lawyer if you’re always trying to compete on price; you might be able to make an initial good impression; you might even be able to serve a good number of clients adequately, but in the end, you will have to take shortcuts that will sacrifice quality in the name of cost.
Of course, and this is an argument Rosen doesn’t make, is that what if that’s OK. Is it per say unethical to provide “meh” representation because of cost concerns. Let’s be honest, this is likely already happening; but in this time which sees more and more people who need (but can’t afford) legal services, might there be a role for this kind of OK, but not great service?
And would any lawyers actually want to do it? Certainly, it’s hard to imagine that type of practice going along with someone well-respected in the profession.