> I don’t buy into the idea that big law firms are more accountable than anyone else.

That’s not what the previous person said. People just think they’re paying a premium to get it done right, when as you point out, price is uncorrelated to correctness

Yes, I suppose I was responding to the person GP was describing. I should have been more clear.

> I don’t buy into the idea ...

You are failing to put yourself into the customer's shoes. Maybe you don't buy into it, but clearly customers do.

I don't know what the legal disruptor market strategy is, but going on what you've said, they shouldn't be differentiating on price. Rather, use reputation against the incumbents, somehow.

I’ve been the customer for as long as I was the “seller”. I’m saying that the customers are getting bamboozled and they ought to know better. The incentives are all backward.

To be super clear: I support disruptors in this space. My gripe is with customer/clients that are holding change back for reasons that are against their own best interests.

Yes, my point is that people prefer the bigger names because it comes with a better perception of quality and general guarantee that they'll be around in case something goes wrong.

Yes I agree that people think that. And I think they’re wrong, for a bunch of reasons.