Andy submitted this logo he is working on for “William Dyrcz Attorney at Law”. As I understand it, this law firm specializes in real estate planning and tax laws.

This logo falls under the monogram category, meaning it’s only the initials of the company. In most cases, the monogram would show all the initials of the company (WDAL). In this case we are just looking at the ‘W’ & ‘D’. There is also no other text displayed with this monogram, which hurts this implementation greatly.

Design Principals

I’m going to assume this is only a rough version of what Andy intends the logo to be. It is obvious the mark was drawn by hand and colored with marker. This would never suffice as final art. I also want to mention, the version that was submitted isn't an exact circle (close but not quite). Either make the mark within an exact circle or make it obvious that it wasn’t supposed to be a circle. As it stands now, it looks like a mistake.

Overall the concept is creative and interesting to look at, however it’s nearly impossible to get an idea of who the company is, or what they do by only seeing this mark. After some looking, the viewer might make the connection to real estate and possibly decipher the ‘W’ & ‘D’. On it’s own, comprehension of this mark is just too much of a stretch for a viewer. Something as simple as adding the full company name in text below, next to, or around the monogram would be a vast improvement. I would also say, it’s important that the full name be part of the logo so that it gets used consistently across all media.

Functionality / Versatility

This monogram is fairly functional, in the sense that it will scale up or down relatively well. The actual letters in the monogram could get a little thin at small sizes though, since they are narrower than the exterior circle. As mentioned previously, the mark is not functional from a comprehension/legibility standpoint.

Does the Logo Work for the Audience?

At this point of the design process, I don’t see the logo really working for the audience. The obvious major issue gets back to the interpretation of the mark from the viewers perspective. If the viewer can’t understand what business the logo represents we have a major problem. The whole idea of a logo is to communicate with the viewer and create something that resonates and is memorable. One thing Andy has done to try and speak to the audience, is to bring the concept of real estate through shape of a house reflected in the ‘W’. This area needs some work because the ‘W’ becomes rather tough to decipher.

Uniqueness

This mark is a deviation from what I’m used to seeing form law firms, which is good if the company wants to be set apart from the competition. It might be nice to bring some color into the mark when refining it.

The color palette you choose can also help to set the company apart from the competition. For example, if your main competitor is UPS, you wouldn't want to choose brown as your main brand color.

Typography

In the way of typography, there’s not much to look at. The hand drawn letters definitely thirst for refinement and consistency which will come, I assume, when the mark is refined further on the computer.

Possible Improvements

So what is the best way to improve the logo? Well I think have made some comments above that can certainly offer some direction. So, here’s a list of actionable items.

I hope you have found the above information useful. My intention is not to hurt feelings, but rather to offer constructive feedback and critique. Best of luck, to you Andy.

I appreciate and welcome your comments, and look forward to hearing from you soon. I purposely don't cover every possible improvement that can be made to this logo, so go for it if you think I missed anything. All I ask is that you keep your comments clean and appropriate.

Like what you read here? Subscribe to the Logo Critiques News Feed.