Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough remained South Carolina’s largest law firm in 2013, with 203 lawyers here, even as it continued to grow significantly outside of the state. Managing partner James Lehman said the firm is still guided by the vision of the late Claude Scarborough Jr., who joined the firm in 1955. His idea was that Nelson Mullins could compete on a national stage by attracting talented young professionals with the right culture and right systems in place on a low-cost, back-office platform. Lehman said Scarborough modeled the firm after a West Coast law firm – divided into teams with individual-based goals. He sat down recently to talk with South Carolina Lawyers Weekly about the firm and its culture.
Lehman
LW: How has the firm evolved over the years?
Lehman: What began as an insurance defense and workers’ compensation litigation firm has evolved into significant practices in intellectual property, health care, corporate, government relations, and complex litigation. We were able to grow in these areas because clients continue to give us greater responsibility. For example, what started as local counsel for some automobile manufacturer’s product liability cases evolved into a national role. Similarly, our pharmaceutical and medical device practice developed into a national role.
LW: How have the firm’s business practices changed over the years?
Lehman: Our compensation system has changed at least three times to account for our growth. In the new normal, we do the best we can to develop creative cost-effective solutions for clients post-recession. We try to adapt to be ready for future challenges.
LW: What do you consider the firm’s biggest victory?
Lehman: It would be hard to characterize any single case. We are proud of the trials our litigators handle across the country in a time when there are less trials. Our corporate lawyers are also leaders in their specialties. We are also proud of our groundbreaking pro bono work in South Carolina. We are lead trial counsel in a public school case, Abbeville County School District, et al. v. The State of South Carolina, et al. We represent poor, rural school districts in questioning whether the state is meeting its constitutional obligation to deliver a “minimally adequate education” to all students. We also recently had a big victory for the mentally ill in South Carolina prisons.
LW: How did the recent economic crisis affect the firm?
Lehman: Because of some trends we noticed in some large litigation matters we were handling before the recession, we started to trim our sails before the crisis. As a result, we found ourselves in a better position to react to the changing environment. We were fortunate in that we did not have to withdraw any job offers. Of course, we didn’t hire as many, nor make as many new offers, and were very cautious during the recession.
LW: How does Encompass fit into the firm’s plans for the future?
Lehman: Encompass is a division of our firm that provides electronic discovery, and document review services. We work with clients in heavily regulated industries on matters ranging from U.S. and foreign government investigations to various types of litigation, including product liability, patent, commercial, and arbitrations. We formed Encompass as a brand extension of our litigation practice. We have clients who have tried various models to meet their discovery needs, including performing discovery in-house with contract personnel, using off-shore discovery providers, and working with non-law firm discovery vendors, but continued to believe there was a better solution. We think Encompass is that solution.
LW: What are the firm’s trends in hiring over the last couple of years?
Lehman: Most of our growth is happening outside of South Carolina, because these offices represent new areas of growth for us, although we continue to grow in our South Carolina offices as well. The recent trend is to hire more associates than we had in prior years. Like so many firms, our associate hiring was limited from 2008 until 2010. We have seen an increase from 2011 to 2013.
LW: Is there such a thing as a firm that’s too big? Is there a temptation to grow just for growth’s sake? Do the firm’s leaders have discussions about when it would be prudent to stop growing?
Lehman: While I am sure that there was a time when we had specific geographic or professional growth goals as a firm, we made the decision several years ago that we would not grow just for the sake of growth. We do not have a specific geographic footprint we are driving towards. However, we do expect that we will continue to grow in existing offices and in new locations as clients give us new opportunities. We believe that in the new normal strength is not so much about the number of attorneys, but how well we use our resources to serve our clients.