The dark art of choosing outside litigation counsel
You would think that because picking outside counsel is such an essential aspect of being an in-house litigator, we would have gotten it right by now. You would be wrong.
October 31, 2013 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
Having been an in-house litigation counsel for some time now, I have often been asked what makes a good outside litigator. After all, there are a lot of great lawyers in the world, and two of the central challenges of an in-house litigator are how to pick the right outside lawyers to represent your client, and how to evaluate their performance after they have been retained. You would think that because this is such an essential aspect of being an in-house litigator, we would have gotten it right by now. And you would be wrong.
In fact, there is no consensus within the in-house litigation world about how to choose outside counsel. It is a truly a dark art that some of us have spent many brain cells trying to figure out. Given this lack of agreement within the in-house litigation world, it can hardly be surprising that outside counsel themselves are also uncertain about how they are being evaluated and measured about what their clients want.
Here, I offer my own perspective on what constitutes a good outside litigator for partners looking to make an impression:
-
It's not about the case. Some of the cases we deal with represent real tragedies. But perhaps one of the most reliable ways of distinguishing “A” lawyers from all others is their ability to understand that, for large companies, their particular case is not that important from a conflict management standpoint. The company is dealing with a flow, sometimes flood of cases, and what it really needs are lawyers who understand that the case they are working on is just a part of a much larger conflict management matrix. Every action taken in your case has to fit within the company's overall strategic direction. Lawyers who understand that have a future with us, lawyers who don't, do not.
-
It isn't about you. Nothing so clearly marks you as a lawyer no company wants to make a long-term investment in as an excessive concern with your own short-term financial well being. In-house lawyers recognize the financial pressures law firm partners operate under today, but we often wonder whether law firm partners understand the financial pressures we are operating under. At my company, we are moving rapidly and decisively away from reliance on the billable hour in part because we think it encourages this sort of short-term behavior. The firms that are trying to accomplish this and are willing to help us achieve our goals, will earn an increasing share of our business.
-
It isn't about your big trials. Everyone likes to win. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a big trial victory can attest to how sweet that win can be. And yet, sophisticated in-house litigators understand that very few cases will ever get tried. The whole litigation process is about getting to final resolution at the lowest possible overall cost. The best outside litigators know this and focus on getting the best results for the company even if it means not necessarily generating huge discovery and pretrial billings for their law firm.
-
It's all about values. Not everyone will agree with me, but I believe no one, inside or outside, is a great lawyer unless he or she practices law in a manner consistent with the highest values and finest traditions of the profession. Society's expectations of its corporations are changing and expanding. Companies will succeed in the future only if their business practices are aligned with these new and heightened expectations. In-house lawyers have to be at the very heart of this effort. We need outside counsel to roll up their sleeves and join the struggle. There will be no place at the table for stragglers.
Having been an in-house litigation counsel for some time now, I have often been asked what makes a good outside litigator. After all, there are a lot of great lawyers in the world, and two of the central challenges of an in-house litigator are how to pick the right outside lawyers to represent your client, and how to evaluate their performance after they have been retained. You would think that because this is such an essential aspect of being an in-house litigator, we would have gotten it right by now. And you would be wrong.
In fact, there is no consensus within the in-house litigation world about how to choose outside counsel. It is a truly a dark art that some of us have spent many brain cells trying to figure out. Given this lack of agreement within the in-house litigation world, it can hardly be surprising that outside counsel themselves are also uncertain about how they are being evaluated and measured about what their clients want.
Here, I offer my own perspective on what constitutes a good outside litigator for partners looking to make an impression:
-
It's not about the case. Some of the cases we deal with represent real tragedies. But perhaps one of the most reliable ways of distinguishing “A” lawyers from all others is their ability to understand that, for large companies, their particular case is not that important from a conflict management standpoint. The company is dealing with a flow, sometimes flood of cases, and what it really needs are lawyers who understand that the case they are working on is just a part of a much larger conflict management matrix. Every action taken in your case has to fit within the company's overall strategic direction. Lawyers who understand that have a future with us, lawyers who don't, do not.
-
It isn't about you. Nothing so clearly marks you as a lawyer no company wants to make a long-term investment in as an excessive concern with your own short-term financial well being. In-house lawyers recognize the financial pressures law firm partners operate under today, but we often wonder whether law firm partners understand the financial pressures we are operating under. At my company, we are moving rapidly and decisively away from reliance on the billable hour in part because we think it encourages this sort of short-term behavior. The firms that are trying to accomplish this and are willing to help us achieve our goals, will earn an increasing share of our business.
-
It isn't about your big trials. Everyone likes to win. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with a big trial victory can attest to how sweet that win can be. And yet, sophisticated in-house litigators understand that very few cases will ever get tried. The whole litigation process is about getting to final resolution at the lowest possible overall cost. The best outside litigators know this and focus on getting the best results for the company even if it means not necessarily generating huge discovery and pretrial billings for their law firm.
-
It's all about values. Not everyone will agree with me, but I believe no one, inside or outside, is a great lawyer unless he or she practices law in a manner consistent with the highest values and finest traditions of the profession. Society's expectations of its corporations are changing and expanding. Companies will succeed in the future only if their business practices are aligned with these new and heightened expectations. In-house lawyers have to be at the very heart of this effort. We need outside counsel to roll up their sleeves and join the struggle. There will be no place at the table for stragglers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250