9 ms·

I deeply wish this was more of a thing. If you look at the way law firms work, this is how they take their specialized knowledge and keep more of the value they

I deeply wish this was more of a thing. If you look at the way law firms work, this is how they take their specialized knowledge and keep more of the value they create for themselves. I don't see any reason we can't/shouldn't have a similar model in software engineering be the de-facto now that the field is mature enough to support it.

tomrod 4y ago
Partnership Consultancies exist. But neither law firms nor standard consultancies typically have staff in on ownership.
- ncphil 4y ago
  In the US, at least, all members of a law partnership (or professional corporation) must be licensed attorneys. That's baked into both state law and rules of professional conduct, and is a serious limitation on organization that tech professionals are not saddled with.
  - tomrod 4y ago
    Yeah, LLPs/PLLCs might have the credentialing requirements. However, I am not sure law firms have to organize with those structures -- I admit ignorance in that case. I was thinking more generally.
leereeves 4y ago
Don't law firms, like software companies, usually have a small inner circle of founders and key staff who make the decisions and keep most of the profits? And don't law firms treat the average staff lawyer worse than software companies treat the average developer?
- ghaff 4y ago
  Not necessarily founders but BigLaw has partners at various levels and then associates plus various support staff. And, yes, BigLaw (like investment banking) has a reputation for really working associates hard in addition to having something of an up or out structure. Which probably works OK for law because a lot of the associates probably went to law school because they weren't sure what else to do with their liberal arts degree--and don't necessarily want to stay in law long-term anyway.
  - dbcurtis 4y ago
    Up or out is right. But the most common “out” path is to a corp legal department. Better hours, and now the partner that used to work your ass off buys you lunch to court your business.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Yeah. Though I know a lot of lawyers who migrated into non-law positions after a few years, including politics (also usually for a few years depending on their leanings and the climate--e.g. White House) but also a variety of other things. As you say, there are also a variety of corporate legal positions including government affairs and the like in addition to straight law jobs.
rsweeney21 4y ago
Law firms are not co-ops. They are partnerships where a small number own and control the company.
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  What would be the difference from a company owned by five individuals that also do all the work and a coop formed by five individuals?
  - jasode 4y ago
    >What would be the difference from a company owned by five individuals that also do all the work and a coop formed by five individuals? Parent is probably talking about "BigLaw" (thousands of lawyers) and boutique law firms (hundred lawyers or less). Most lawyers at the firms are employees (i.e. the associates) and not part-owners (i.e. the partners). They are not co-ops. Even in a tiny local law firm of 5 partners/owners and no junior associates, they'd still have the staff paralegals and secretaries as non-owner employees so they're not really co-ops either.
    - sdenton4 4y ago
      FWIW, farming co-ops are often more similar to the lawyer model, in practice: A small number of owners who hire out lots of manual labor. You could certainly have a similar model for software co-ops, using contracts for various non-central parts of the work. Most worker co-ops also include a probationary period for new hires before they become part owners (because to do otherwise would be a bit insane). A really long probationary period with a low chance of conversion starts looking a lot like the lawyer model...
  - jsonne 4y ago
    Because the model of a law firm is maybe 10 senior partners own the company and there's 200 attorneys and several hundred assistants and paralegals under them. Its not much different than most modern corporations having a bunch of shareholders and a board in practice.
  - 4y ago
DANK_YACHT 4y ago
Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships can serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company could. Most software has huge economies of scale, so it's unlikely small partnerships would be successful long-term unless they filled a tiny niche (read not-very-profitable) that wasn't worth pursuing by a bigger company.
- edge17 4y ago
  By the definition, software isn't an economy of scale. Unit cost doesn't decrease by magnitude as output increases. A utility company is an example of economy of scale.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    Creating GitHub.com takes the same amount of time whether they have 1k customers or 1M customers
    - throwaway14356 4y ago
      or creating 1000 gihubs
  - treasurebots 4y ago
    Economies of scale don’t just have to be areas where unit marginal costs decrease as volume increases, they can also be areas where fixed costs dominate marginal costs, which is the case for many software firms because marginal costs are usually very small
  - slavik81 4y ago
    Economies of scale exist when the average cost decreases as the number of units increases. The average cost for N units is the sum total of all fixed and per-unit costs divided by N. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships can serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company could. That's not really accurate. Larger law firms can have more specialized attorneys; they can offer clients a more comprehensive set of expertise - not only in areas of law, but geographically ('let me call an IP attorney in the Paris office'); they can have larger personal and business networks, which provide access to more resources, more business, enable them to broker more solutions for clients, and which give them more influence.
segmondy 4y ago
Start one.

tomrod 4y ago

Partnership Consultancies exist. But neither law firms nor standard consultancies typically have staff in on ownership.

ncphil 4y ago
In the US, at least, all members of a law partnership (or professional corporation) must be licensed attorneys. That's baked into both state law and rules of professional conduct, and is a serious limitation on organization that tech professionals are not saddled with.
- tomrod 4y ago
  Yeah, LLPs/PLLCs might have the credentialing requirements. However, I am not sure law firms have to organize with those structures -- I admit ignorance in that case. I was thinking more generally.

leereeves 4y ago

Don't law firms, like software companies, usually have a small inner circle of founders and key staff who make the decisions and keep most of the profits? And don't law firms treat the average staff lawyer worse than software companies treat the average developer?

ghaff 4y ago
Not necessarily founders but BigLaw has partners at various levels and then associates plus various support staff. And, yes, BigLaw (like investment banking) has a reputation for really working associates hard in addition to having something of an up or out structure. Which probably works OK for law because a lot of the associates probably went to law school because they weren't sure what else to do with their liberal arts degree--and don't necessarily want to stay in law long-term anyway.
- dbcurtis 4y ago
  Up or out is right. But the most common “out” path is to a corp legal department. Better hours, and now the partner that used to work your ass off buys you lunch to court your business.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Yeah. Though I know a lot of lawyers who migrated into non-law positions after a few years, including politics (also usually for a few years depending on their leanings and the climate--e.g. White House) but also a variety of other things. As you say, there are also a variety of corporate legal positions including government affairs and the like in addition to straight law jobs.

rsweeney21 4y ago

Law firms are not co-ops. They are partnerships where a small number own and control the company.

DeathArrow 4y ago
What would be the difference from a company owned by five individuals that also do all the work and a coop formed by five individuals?
- jasode 4y ago
  >What would be the difference from a company owned by five individuals that also do all the work and a coop formed by five individuals? Parent is probably talking about "BigLaw" (thousands of lawyers) and boutique law firms (hundred lawyers or less). Most lawyers at the firms are employees (i.e. the associates) and not part-owners (i.e. the partners). They are not co-ops. Even in a tiny local law firm of 5 partners/owners and no junior associates, they'd still have the staff paralegals and secretaries as non-owner employees so they're not really co-ops either.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    FWIW, farming co-ops are often more similar to the lawyer model, in practice: A small number of owners who hire out lots of manual labor. You could certainly have a similar model for software co-ops, using contracts for various non-central parts of the work. Most worker co-ops also include a probationary period for new hires before they become part owners (because to do otherwise would be a bit insane). A really long probationary period with a low chance of conversion starts looking a lot like the lawyer model...
- jsonne 4y ago
  Because the model of a law firm is maybe 10 senior partners own the company and there's 200 attorneys and several hundred assistants and paralegals under them. Its not much different than most modern corporations having a bunch of shareholders and a board in practice.
- 4y ago

DANK_YACHT 4y ago

Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships can serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company could. Most software has huge economies of scale, so it's unlikely small partnerships would be successful long-term unless they filled a tiny niche (read not-very-profitable) that wasn't worth pursuing by a bigger company.

edge17 4y ago
By the definition, software isn't an economy of scale. Unit cost doesn't decrease by magnitude as output increases. A utility company is an example of economy of scale.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Creating GitHub.com takes the same amount of time whether they have 1k customers or 1M customers
  - throwaway14356 4y ago
    or creating 1000 gihubs
- treasurebots 4y ago
  Economies of scale don’t just have to be areas where unit marginal costs decrease as volume increases, they can also be areas where fixed costs dominate marginal costs, which is the case for many software firms because marginal costs are usually very small
- slavik81 4y ago
  Economies of scale exist when the average cost decreases as the number of units increases. The average cost for N units is the sum total of all fixed and per-unit costs divided by N. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
wolverine876 4y ago
> Law firms don't have economies of scale. Two partnerships can serve N clients roughly as well as one larger company could. That's not really accurate. Larger law firms can have more specialized attorneys; they can offer clients a more comprehensive set of expertise - not only in areas of law, but geographically ('let me call an IP attorney in the Paris office'); they can have larger personal and business networks, which provide access to more resources, more business, enable them to broker more solutions for clients, and which give them more influence.

segmondy 4y ago

Start one.