Litigation: Ensuring trial counsel presents the right case for your company
It is important to choose a trial counsel based not only on experience, but also how they will work with company executives and in-house counsel throughout the case.
February 06, 2014 at 03:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
As discussed in a previous post, pursuing litigation is one of the hardest decisions a company's executives and inside counsel ever make. Then comes probably the second most difficult decision: choosing a lead trial counsel and trusting them to present a case in a way that is aligned with company goals and priorities. After all, this individual will be the face of the company seen by the judge, jury, and even the general public if the case garners media attention. That lawyer also will be a key source of information for the company as the case progresses in terms of how it is proceeding, where the company stands, and the likelihood of a win. It is important, therefore, to choose a trial counsel based not only on experience, but also how they will work with company executives and in-house counsel throughout the case.
These are some avenues company executives and in-house counsel often pursue to ensure the lead trial lawyer they have chosen handles the case with the business's best interests top of mind.
- Companies that are successful at trial arm their lead counsel, once selected, with all the information he or she will need regarding not only the case at hand, but also the company, its history, and relevant strategic and operational information. The deeper the trial lawyer's knowledge, the better he or she will be able to align the case with the company's overall goals. More importantly, it will inform how the trial lawyer presents the case to the judge and jury.
- Executives and in-house counsel often find it helpful to review a detailed pre-trial report from the trial lawyer regarding the facts of the case, its strengths and weaknesses, and any witnesses who will be called. It should also include detailed information as to how the trial lawyer intends to present the case at trial. This allows company representatives to give clear directives to the trial lawyer regarding how they want the case to unfold from their point of view.
- For some companies, the pre-trial report is just a start, and they prefer to then hold conference calls or in-person meetings to discuss every aspect of the case, from evidentiary and discovery issues to specific trial strategies. This is probably the best way for company representatives to understand exactly what to expect, provide input, and gather information to relay to other stakeholders.
- It is not uncommon for companies to ask lead trial counsel to provide a video recording of planned opening statements so as to review the trial themes, the style of the trial lawyer, and what is being conveyed about the company. The video can be viewed by other stakeholders in the company to secure their input.
- Mock trials, even done on an impromptu basis, are also effective tools for assessing both trial counsel and the case he or she intends to present.
There are many things companies can do to ensure their choice in lead trial counsel is the right decision for their business objectives. By being open with trial counsel about goals and priorities, and providing input at every stage along the way, executives and in-house counsel ensure the case is handled the way they want.
This is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular matter. It is not intended to and does not create any attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed and any legal positions asserted in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Miles & Stockbridge P.C., its other lawyers, or InsideCounsel.
As discussed in a previous post, pursuing litigation is one of the hardest decisions a company's executives and inside counsel ever make. Then comes probably the second most difficult decision: choosing a lead trial counsel and trusting them to present a case in a way that is aligned with company goals and priorities. After all, this individual will be the face of the company seen by the judge, jury, and even the general public if the case garners media attention. That lawyer also will be a key source of information for the company as the case progresses in terms of how it is proceeding, where the company stands, and the likelihood of a win. It is important, therefore, to choose a trial counsel based not only on experience, but also how they will work with company executives and in-house counsel throughout the case.
These are some avenues company executives and in-house counsel often pursue to ensure the lead trial lawyer they have chosen handles the case with the business's best interests top of mind.
- Companies that are successful at trial arm their lead counsel, once selected, with all the information he or she will need regarding not only the case at hand, but also the company, its history, and relevant strategic and operational information. The deeper the trial lawyer's knowledge, the better he or she will be able to align the case with the company's overall goals. More importantly, it will inform how the trial lawyer presents the case to the judge and jury.
- Executives and in-house counsel often find it helpful to review a detailed pre-trial report from the trial lawyer regarding the facts of the case, its strengths and weaknesses, and any witnesses who will be called. It should also include detailed information as to how the trial lawyer intends to present the case at trial. This allows company representatives to give clear directives to the trial lawyer regarding how they want the case to unfold from their point of view.
- For some companies, the pre-trial report is just a start, and they prefer to then hold conference calls or in-person meetings to discuss every aspect of the case, from evidentiary and discovery issues to specific trial strategies. This is probably the best way for company representatives to understand exactly what to expect, provide input, and gather information to relay to other stakeholders.
- It is not uncommon for companies to ask lead trial counsel to provide a video recording of planned opening statements so as to review the trial themes, the style of the trial lawyer, and what is being conveyed about the company. The video can be viewed by other stakeholders in the company to secure their input.
- Mock trials, even done on an impromptu basis, are also effective tools for assessing both trial counsel and the case he or she intends to present.
There are many things companies can do to ensure their choice in lead trial counsel is the right decision for their business objectives. By being open with trial counsel about goals and priorities, and providing input at every stage along the way, executives and in-house counsel ensure the case is handled the way they want.
This is for general information and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular matter. It is not intended to and does not create any attorney-client relationship. The opinions expressed and any legal positions asserted in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of
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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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