Clients naturally form close, long-standing relationships with their attorneys—especially in high-stakes legal matters. There's real value in continuity, institutional knowledge, and confidence that "this person understands us."
But here's the problem: the person who understands your business usually isn't the one doing the work.
In a traditional law firm, client relationships typically reside at the partner level. The partner learns the client's business, manages the relationship and oversees the work product delivered by junior lawyers behind the scenes. Clients reasonably assume that the partner's knowledge trickles down to the team doing the work.
This assumption is often the basis for one of the biggest hurdles to switching legal providers: the perceived cost of onboarding a new lawyer. Clients worry that new counsel won't understand their business, people, or industry, which could result in delays, missteps, or even higher legal bills. Sticking with the known quantity feels safer—especially for a GC who may feel personally responsible if the new lawyer underdelivers.
That concern isn't baseless. But there's another cost worth considering: what happens when familiarity substitutes for reliability, and institutional memory stands in for efficiency? When that happens, clients may end up paying for comfort rather than results.
Let's take a closer look.
The Trusted Partner Illusion
Yes, your relationship partner probably does know your business. They've been on the calls, they've reviewed the contracts. They understand your risk tolerance. But let's be honest. But they're not the one doing the work.
The actual drafting, negotiating, and redlining? That's often farmed out to a junior associate who, until this morning, didn't even know your company existed.
Sure, the partner will review it—maybe even mark up a few sections—but you're effectively paying two lawyers: one to do the work and another to make sure it's done right, when a single experienced lawyer could have handled it start to finish.
Rinse, Repeat
Even if that associate eventually gets to know your business, that knowledge rarely sticks. Six months later, when a new issue comes up, the firm may plug in someone new and the process starts all over again.
You spend the first few hours explaining your business model. Again. Reviewing the same indemnity clause you rewrote last year. Again. Reminding them that your company doesn't operate in Europe, so GDPR shouldn't show up in every contract. Again.
Here's a hypothetical, but common, scenario: You send over a standard vendor agreement for review. The associate flags provisions you've already negotiated a dozen times before and tries to renegotiate them. The partner doesn't catch the confusion until you do. Now you're back in clean-up mode, spending time (and money) fixing something that should have been done right the first time.
Another one: You're onboarding a new regional distributor. The associate has questions about your pricing, margins, and carveouts for key accounts. Not because they're thinking strategically, but because they have no idea how your business works. So spend a billable hour educating your law firm before you even get advice.
The Hidden Costs of Continuity Loss
Most clients don't think of this as a "cost," but it adds up fast. Every time your law firm swaps in a new associate, you're footing the bill to get them up to speed. You're not just paying for legal analysis. You're paying for onboarding, for repetition, and for institutional memory that resets with every handoff.
Here's the kicker: you're often paying partner rates to oversee the associate's learning curve. That's not training funded by the firm; it's funded by you.
This cycle repeats every time a new issue arises, a team member leaves, or a different practice group gets pulled in. The firm may know your name, but the people actually doing the work are starting from zero and billing you while they ramp.
Another hypothetical: Let's say a second-year associate spends five hours reviewing a new supplier agreement. The partner reviews their work in another 1.5. That's 6.5 hours of billing to deliver what a senior lawyer with context could have handled in two.
Multiply that inefficiency across your annual legal workload (contracts, policies, and projects), and the real "switching cost" becomes sticking with a system that profits from inefficiency.
What Makes OGC Different
At OGC, your work isn't handed off. It's handled by a senior lawyer with 15+ years of experience solving complex legal and business issues, often from inside a company like yours, and in the same industry.
That depth of experience matters. It means your lawyer already speaks your language, understands your commercial priorities, and can come up to speed quickly without burning hours (and budget) on background. You're not paying for training. You're paying for judgment, precision, and speed.
And in many cases, that experience goes even further. When you're negotiating a deal, there's real value in having a lawyer who's been across the table from your counterparty dozens of times before. They know where the other side is likely to flex, where they'll dig in, and how to get to yes faster. That kind of foresight doesn't just save money. It can accelerate your path to revenue or drive material cost savings.
So yes, switching firms can feel risky. But if your current firm is constantly playing catch-up on your business and your deals, maybe the bigger risk is sticking with the status quo.
Closing Thought
The idea that switching firms is costly has been baked into the legal industry for decades. But when you step back and look at how traditional firms actually operate—rotating junior teams, billing for ramp-up time, and relearning your business with every new matter—the real cost might be in staying put.
Continuity, experience, and commercial judgment shouldn't be optional. At OGC, they come standard.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
