Steve Runyan: Growth mindset misses benefits of close-knit, midsize firms

For much of the legal industry, growth is treated as an unquestioned good. Larger platforms, broader geographic reach and higher headcount are often used as shorthand for success. I suspect the assumption is that more money follows. Yet many midsize firms have deliberately chosen a different path — one defined not by expansion but by discipline.

Our founders established our firm nearly 90 years ago, and for my 20 years as part of Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP, we have floated around 25 attorneys. I am often asked if we have considered growth — either organically or through merger or combination. We’ve certainly considered it, but it’s never seemed right. At this point, I could not imagine anything other than what we have now. The reason lies less in what we are choosing not to become and more in what we believe we have created and can continue to do exceptionally well: provide outstanding customer service, grow the skills of all our professionals and embrace a work culture in which each person is both valued and known.

Growth as a strategic decision

At various points, our firm has had credible opportunities to grow through mergers, lateral groups or geographic expansion. Each option came with clear potential benefits, but each raised difficult questions about cultural integration, quality control and client impact.

Growth inevitably introduces layers — of administration, of process, of client conflicts and of internal competition for work and credit. For some firms, scale offsets that complexity. For others, particularly firms whose value proposition centers on responsiveness and continuity, growth can undermine the very characteristics that attract clients and new hires in the first place.

One (or many) partners invariably could use a “bigger bench,” and we talk periodically about whether we need to grow. But we have always decided to stay right about where we are. We have come to view size not as an external benchmark but as an internal design choice. Two-thirds of our partners became partners while at KGR, and the remaining are laterals, all from larger firms. If anything, those who lateralled have been adamant about maintaining our current size, preferring the flexibility and collegiality afforded by our scale. Remaining midsize requires us to be selective in hiring, deliberate in matter acceptance and highly involved at the senior level. In our experience, that discipline produces more predictable outcomes for clients than expansion pursued for its own sake.

Structural advantages

Midsize firms occupy a unique position in the legal market. We pride ourselves in the ability to handle complex, highstakes matters while remaining small enough to avoid significant institutional distance between clients and decisionmakers and conflicts for our current clients.

Several advantages flow from this structure:

• Partner involvement remains meaningful. Senior lawyers are not spread so thin that they disappear after origination. Partners bill time — they don’t originate work and hand it off to someone else. Certainly, there are times the solution to a client’s problem is found in another practice area. But even in those circumstances, the originating partner participates in the decision-making. As a result, clients see continuity from strategy through execution.
• Staffing can remain lean and intentional. We staff matters based on the work required and the best matching skillsets, not around utilization demands driven by scale.
• Firm culture remains visible. Collaboration is easier to sustain when lawyers know one another across practice groups and generations.

Critically, these advantages are not self-executing. They must be communicated clearly, particularly to sophisticated clients who may assume that larger platforms necessarily provide greater stability. We articulate how our structure influences responsiveness, accountability and institutional knowledge, and we reinforce that message by providing consistent client experience.

Rethinking succession

One often-discussed issue for the midsize model is succession planning. Particularly, how do we ensure we retain clients as attorneys retire (as if attorneys ever really retire)? We frame succession planning primarily as a client-
continuity issue.

We integrate associates into client relationships early and visibly. Associates are present in client meetings, not as passive observers but as active participants. They hear clients articulate goals, concerns and risk tolerances firsthand. Over time, clients come to know them as lawyers — not simply as names on correspondence.

Also, associates participate in matter planning meetings. I remember months after I started, a partner sat across the table from me and asked what I thought we should do in a matter. I had two simultaneous (unspoken) thoughts: 1) “Oh dang, he really wants to know what I think we should do”; and (2) “I have no idea.” As momentarily uncomfortable as that was, it taught me the lesson that everyone on the matter needed to bring value. No one can simply be a “bag carrier.”

This approach serves several purposes simultaneously:

• It protects the client relationship. No relationship depends exclusively on a single individual. If circumstances change, the client is not introduced to unfamiliar lawyers under pressure.
• It accelerates knowledge transfer. Associates absorb institutional knowledge in real time, rather than relying on abrupt or forced handoff processes later.
• It builds trust on both sides. Clients gain confidence in the depth of the team, and associates develop judgment and accountability earlier in their careers.

Importantly, this is not about overstaffing or inefficiency. It is about thoughtful exposure. One additional voice in a meeting — properly prepared — can reduce long-term risk far more than it increases short-term cost.

Transparency as a succession tool

We have also found that clients respond positively when succession planning is explicit rather than implied. Explaining why younger lawyers are involved, what roles they play and how that structure benefits the client reframes succession as a service feature rather than a contingency plan.

In a midsize firm, that transparency is easier to sustain. Leadership has visibility into staffing patterns, client coverage and relationship concentration. Gaps can be addressed early, before they become vulnerabilities.

Durability over scale

The legal market will continue to reward different firm models for different reasons. Growth will remain essential for some organizations. For others like KGR, durability will be the more relevant metric.

In our experience, clients are less concerned with how many lawyers a firm has than with how well those lawyers know them and what kind of relationship they have with their lawyers — and whether that knowledge and the relationships will endure.•

__________

Runyan is managing partner of Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP.