Pillar+Aught is pleased to announce that Steve Moniak has joined the firm as Of Counsel.  Steve brings 20 years of top-notch experience litigating a wide variety of cases for individuals, businesses, and government.   Steve works with clients to understand their needs and passionately advocates on their behalf, which has earned him an AV® Preeminent Martindale-Hubbell peer review rating in the areas of general civil and business litigation.  Steve’s peers have consistently ranked him at the highest level of professional excellence for his legal knowledge, communication skills, and ethical standards.  Active in his community, Steve serves on the Derry Township Zoning Hearing Board and previously served as an Arbitrator in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.

Steve can be reached at smoniak@pillaraught.com and 717-308-9954.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

by David Gialanella and Zack Needles/The Legal Intelligencer

Radical change is not easy to pull off at large or even midsize firms, which often are weighed down by bulky staffs, layers of bureaucracy and decades of tradition.

For lawyers looking to reinvent the way they practice, sometimes the best option is to just start from scratch. Enter the law firm spinoff, examples of which are beginning to mount in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

“Being part of a larger firm, there is by definition a certain amount of bureaucracy and administrative overlay,” said Michael Tanenbaum, a name partner at Tanenbaum Keale, an 18-lawyer firm formed recently by a group splitting off from Sedgwick’s Newark, N.J., office.

Mr. Tanenbaum knows well the bureaucracy, and he acknowledged being the cause of some of it: He previously spent seven years as firmwide managing partner of San Francisco-based Sedgwick, which has shrunk of late and now has about 250 lawyers.

Starting a new firm can offer attorneys an opportunity to extract themselves from the complex machinery of large organizations.

Something as conceptually simple as uniform office size is not to be taken for granted at a larger firm, according to Anthony Sylvester, a partner at Sherman Wells Sylvester & Stamelman in Florham Park, N.J., which was formed in late 2014 when 16 lawyers broke off from Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti of Morristown, N.J.

Being paperless — or “paper light,” when it comes to some transactional practices that require hard copies — is another tough goal at a big firm, he said.

Sherman Wells’ founders endeavored to learn from what “sophisticated law firms” were doing to achieve those modernization goals, Mr. Sylvester said.

“That is something you could never do at a large firm,” he said. “If you want to make more dramatic changes to how your firm is structured, it’s easier to do on a smaller platform.”

Across the Delaware River, the desire to scale down to a leaner and more modernized operation is true even for at least one plaintiffs firm. While the considerations and calculations involved in starting a plaintiffs firm are, in many ways, much different from those attendant to starting a defense firm, keeping client costs down appears to be a guiding principle across the board.

In mid-January, Andy Youman and David Caputo, both partners at 36-lawyer Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, left to form their own shop focusing on catastrophic injury and whistleblower cases.

Mr. Caputo said he and Mr. Youman will now enjoy a small-firm environment, where they have implemented a structure based on greater use of technology. For example, the new firm is paperless and has a secure, online portal for client communication and document exchange.

“When you talk about copying costs — we don’t have a copy machine, everything is scanned,” he said. “We don’t need a copy machine with a big lease or the costs that come with it. Not to mention that, without all the paper, we need less space.”

Also in Pennsylvania, a nine-lawyer group of Harrisburg lawyers left Rhoads & Sinon to open Pillar + Aught earlier this year.

One founding partner, Kate Deringer Sallie, pointed to the “old-guard law firm” characteristics: high overhead costs, antiquated billing systems and outdated compensation policies. And talented young lawyers are rewarded by being removed from a common work space, placed in an office with a fancier chair. Then a bigger office. Then a corner office.

“That wasn’t helping the client and it wasn’t really helping us to give them better value or better service,” Ms. Sallie said. “What it was doing was isolating us.”

Ms. Sallie said she and her colleagues were facing increasing pressure to bill clients and raise rates. Unable to find an existing law firm that modeled the culture they were seeking, they instead based their new firm on successful clients’ businesses.

“We looked to some of our bank clients that are starting to recognize the need for a more collaborative work environment for their employees,” she said.

Of course, along with the freedom to try new things, there’s also plenty of risk involved.

“I wouldn’t necessarily warn people away from it,” but “you have to go into it understanding maybe you’re not branded the way you were before,” said Billie Watkins, district president for Robert Half Legal.

For practitioners with established — and relatively loyal — books of business, the loss of resources from a big firm might seem like a stiff price to pay for flexibility. But it might be a good trade-off.

According to Mr. Tanenbaum, who represents pharmaceutical and medical device clients in mass tort matters, an alternative fee arrangement or discount need not be the subject of multiple meetings at a firm like Tanenbaum Keale.

“Rather than go through a lengthy negotiation, we … can sit down for 10 minutes and say, ‘OK, we’re going to do it,’ ” Mr. Tanenbaum said.

While there may be no impending avalanche of spinoffs, conditions are right. Firm managers and consultants cited a changing market for legal services — one that’s certainly more competitive — as a factor driving decisions.

“Partners now are working longer than they used to,” said Frank D’Amore of Attorney Career Catalysts, who advises on lateral moves and mergers. “For some, they’re working longer because they have to.”

Lawyers “have been hanging onto work more than they have in the past,” but it’s not simply retaining control that causes it — leverage is down at many larger firms, and practice heads lacking successors might deem it wiser to launch lower-cost firms or, to avoid administrative headaches, to merge with a different firm, Mr. D’Amore said.

“I frequently get approached by senior partners in firms who ask me, what options do you think exist?” he said. “It takes a special breed of partner to go out on his own and start a 10-lawyer firm, 15-lawyer firm. … He or she is going to need someone top-notch on the administrative side.”

Lizzy McLellan contributed to this report. David Gialanella: dgialanella@alm.com. Zack Needles: zneedles@alm.com. To read more articles like this, visit thelegalintelligencer.com.

Cory A. Iannacone, Principal, Pillar+Aught, presented at The 2017 Pennsylvania Bureau of Mediation and Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board Joint Conference held on March 29, 2017 at The Radisson Hotel Harrisburg, Camp Hill, PA. Cory’s session covered Deferral—the issue of choosing between two forums (the grievance process before an arbitrator or unfair labor practice charge before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board) to address the same issue raised by a union in both a grievance and an unfair labor practice charge.

In true Pillar+Aught form, Cory provided the audience with practical advice in how best to approach such an issue. In counseling clients, Cory explained that he is guided by two principles: 1) getting a favorable result for the client, and 2) the most efficient (i.e. cost effective way) to reach that favorable result. When a discrete legal issue is raised in both a grievance and a ULP, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board is better suited to address the issue, as opposed to an arbitrator, who, in Cory’s experience, is more likely to try to avoid directly addressing the legal issue in reaching a decision, thus leaving the possibility of a second hearing before the PLRB, meaning more time and money for the parties.

Cory went on to provide an example from one of his recent cases involving a county court’s right to hire, fire and supervise its employees as preserved under Section 1620 of the County Code—specifically, the court’s creation of two supervisory probation officer positions. When the union filed both a grievance and ULP over the Court’s actions, Cory called opposing counsel to discuss the case and narrow down the issue to be decided to whether the court’s actions fell under its Section 1620 rights. Cory and opposing counsel agreed to submit the case to the PLRB hearing examiner (as opposed to deferring it to arbitration), and because it was truly a discrete legal issue to be decided, agreed to submit stipulated facts to the PLRB hearing examiner, which avoided the need for a hearing—saving both sides time and money. Ultimately, the ULP was decided in favor of the county and dismissed.

Cory’s practical takeaway advice to the audience: First, when presented with a deferral issue, decide who is better suited to decide it—an arbitrator or the PLRB. Second, pick up the phone and try to address these types of issues with opposing counsel before litigating. In this case, Cory’s client reached a favorable result in the most efficient (cost effective) way possible—without the need for even one hearing.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW LAW FIRM AIMS TO CHANGE INDUSTRY CULTURE

PILLAR+AUGHT LAUNCHES HARRISBURG OFFICE

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (February 6, 2017) — Nine innovative local attorneys today announce the launch of a full service law firm, Pillar+Aught LLC, with the goal of changing the traditional law firm experience by offering a new team approach and unique pricing options.

“It’s time for the legal profession to evolve,” said Todd Shill, co-founder of Pillar+Aught. “While outstanding client service and proven expertise will always be paramount, that simply isn’t enough anymore. Our profession needs to evolve like other industries to create a culture that uses the latest technology, is flexible, in terms of both pricing and delivery of services, and understands that the attorney-client relationship is a two way street.”

By integrating cutting-edge technology and committing to the development of long term client relationships, Pillar+Aught is able to offer more favorable pricing arrangements and unique value propositions, such as modestly priced, fixed fee in-house training seminars, flat fee Securities and Exchange Commission work, and no cost attendance at client board meetings. Traditional, old-guard law firms are burdened with high fixed overhead costs and a staid culture preventing them from offering such flexibility and innovation.

“A fundamental principle of Pillar+Aught is the understanding that every client is a ‘firm’ client,” said Ken Rollins, co-founder. “Clients are always astounded by how antiquated lawyer compensation systems are, which typically incentivize hoarding, gate keeping and prioritizing of relationships. At Pillar+Aught, we want our clients to know that they can contact any of our attorneys, any time, and that attorney will service that client with the highest priority.”

Highly regarded experts in their respective fields, Pillar+Aught attorneys have counseled clients in dozens of transactions representing hundreds of millions of dollars in transaction value, successfully litigated sophisticated commercial and employment matters before federal and state courts, negotiated complex collective bargaining agreements on behalf of counties, townships and boroughs, and recovered millions of dollars on behalf of injured victims.

Pillar+Aught’s founding partners hold numerous professional distinctions and honors and represent a combined 134 years of experience:

Kevin M. Gold Labor and Employment, Intellectual Property Law

Cory A. Iannacone Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Law

John R. Martin Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Law

Dean F. Piermattei Commercial Litigation and Personal Injury Law

Kenneth J. Rollins Business, Banking and Securities Law

Kate Deringer Sallie Business, Banking and Bankruptcy Law

Todd J. Shill  Business, Employment and Entertainment Law

Lindsey E. Snavely Commercial Litigation, Labor and Employment Law

Jill Neary Weikert Commercial Litigation, Personal Injury and Family Law

“While each of us are proven experts in our practice areas, we offer an even greater resource to clients — a true team approach,” explained Kate Deringer Sallie, co-founder. “We are known for our responsiveness and practical guidance to all aspects of a client’s business. We are a one-stop-shop.”

The firm is located on East Park Circle off of Union Deposit Road in Harrisburg. For more information visit www.pillaraught.com.

CONTACT: TODD SHILL | PHONE: 717.480.9479