The Art of the In-House Litigator
Traditionally, corporate legal departments looked to outside law firms to handle their litigation needs. The reasons for this are plentitude, ranging…
September 26, 2017 at 07:42 AM
4 minute read
Traditionally, corporate legal departments looked to outside law firms to handle their litigation needs. The reasons for this are plentitude, ranging from a needed expertise found at select law firms to the abundance of time litigation absorbs from its participants. However, as noted in this publication and elsewhere, times, as they say, “are a changing.” Corporations are now looking more and more inward to handle their legal needs, including dispute resolution. Indeed, a cursory review of court dockets reveal an increasing number of companies are now represented by in-house counsel. See, e.g., Kanongataa v. NBC Universal Media, 16-CV-07383 (SDNY).
Being an in-house litigator differs from litigating through a law firm. It is not so much the mechanics of litigating – motion practice and reviewing documents are par for the course – but rather the overall process and mindset that divides the in-house litigator from her outside counterpart. This litigator is not an outside consultant advising clients in a quasi-arms-length manner, but rather someone with a seat at the table across and beside colleagues who share a common commercial mindset that drives their collective business needs. It is to this business -focused ethos that the litigator must adhere for a successful in-house career.
It is a safe bet to state that aside from die-hard litigators, no one else likes litigation, especially those managing a business. To be sure, these individuals need to spend their waking hours running a business, not embroiled in the minutiae of litigation. As such, in-house litigators should hone the skill of resolving a dispute before it lands in court. As an insider, the in-house litigator may be exposed to a dispute as it is brewing – before the delivery of a demand letter or service of a summons and compliant. Consequently, she should consider viable ways to resolve the dispute amicably outside of the litigation arena. This is especially true if the dispute involves a business partner or customer with whom the company wishes to maintain positive relations.
This content has been archived.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
© 2024 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 AllJudge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
Inside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1'They Should Have Tried to Negotiate': Jury Finds Against Insurer
- 2Expert Testimony Regarding Sexual Grooming
- 3Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Law Firms Shrink From 'Performative' Statements
- 4Legaltech Rundown: DeepL Launches AI Translator, BigHand Upgrades Intelligence Software, and More
- 5$149M in Attorney Fees Is Part of Kroger Opioid Settlement
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