I am delighted to be writing once again. I must say that I am starting to find joy in sharing these reflections and I hope that they give the readers a reason to pause, reflect, change their perspective of the topic or simply be entertained!

‍

Today's topic is something that I have had mixed feelings about for many years. It usually starts with someone you just met asking you:

‍

Oh you are a lawyer, what is do you specialize in?

‍

I usually found myself unable to give an exact answer to this question and I used to ask myself, do I need to be a specialist in one area of practice ? Am I doing something wrong?

‍

Now I am glad to report that I finally found the answer. I am proudly a generalist and I would not like to be a specialist in one area of the law for a number of reasons. Whilst I enjoy some forms of advisory roles, I predominantly identify as a litigator and firmly believe that in dispute resolution, with very few exceptions, a litigator can effortlessly handle mandates across many subject matters.

‍

So should clients expect a litigation practitioner to be a specialist in one particular area of the law?

‍

Except for a handful of areas such as construction or oil and gas I believe that the answer is a solid no. Being a litigator involves having a set of transferable skills which can be summarized as follows:

‍

Good analytical and problem solving skills;
‍

• Knowledge of the basic applicable procedural framework;
  ‍
• Tactical and strategic thinking;
  ‍
• Excellent drafting abilities;
  ‍
• Charisma

‍

If a lawyer has these skills one may argue that he/she would be more than capable of handling 80% of disputes across various subject matters. Whilst this may sound too simplistic to many fans of specialisation, the transferability of skills across practice areas is undeniable.

‍

With that said, being a generalist should not be confused with being a jack of all trades! An acceptable level of professionalism must always be observed in respecting the boundaries of your knowledge/experience. One should naturally follow a suitable assessment criteria when deciding whether to seek or accept a mandate, however, equally, never shy from accepting mandates that seem to be slightly out of their comfort zone.  

‍

Historically in other jurisdictions such as England, continental Europe and the United States, specialization developed as a form of advancing professionalism. This was also further fuelled by the emergence of the multi jurisdictional large international law firms that would typically have more than 50 lawyers in each office. Of course, when having such a sizable head count it made  sense to divide litigators into practice groups and market them as specialists in one or two fields. An open question however remains as to whether this model really benefits the individual lawyers. The obvious problem with this model is that it limits the learning abilities of young lawyers and restricts them to specific areas which they may not be excited to pursue later on in their professional journey. This may cause many to become stale and lose the spark.

‍

By contrast, if one compares western jurisdictions with UAE and other GCC jurisdictions another picture comes to light. Whilst many international law firms started in the region with the same concept of specialization we can now see that there is a shift towards either applying it in a looser manner or abandoning it altogether. This certainly comes as a result of a realization of the nature of the market, the available pool of talent and above all the way client acquisition/retention works in the region.

‍

This shift can be seen through many indicators such as:
‍

• The overall marketing messaging used in the region;
  ‍
• The fact that the lawyers rising up the ranks at international law firms that operate in the region tend to be the ones with a more generalist practice;
  ‍
• Significant changes in internal policies on mandate allocations within larger firms.

‍

Many see this as a positive shift because it better suits the nature of the legal landscape specially in the UAE. We live in an exciting and ever evolving economy which calls for the legal industry to be dynamic and create models that adapt to our environment rather than assume that historical models must succeed everywhere.  

‍

Therefore the moral of the story for small and mid size firms is that they should not try to impose specialization on themselves in the name of becoming more professional or worst, with the aim of making themselves look like larger local or international firms. There is power in individualism. Small and mid size firms should adopt strategies that focus on how individual lawyers can gain knowledge and experience in multiple practice areas as early as possible in their careers. This would foster any team's ability to attract diverse mandates as well as maintain closer relationships with clients.

‍