Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting The relationship between in-house counsel and outside litigation counsel has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. Technology and the Internet have been the driving forces for many of the changes. Technology growth has forced outside litigation counsel into a quasi-technology consultant role in the way they deal with e-discovery and case management. Technology has made litigation more complex as the underlying subject matter of cases has become more complex. The availability of information via the Internet has made in-house counsel a more savvy shopper and a better informed manager. Technology has surely changed the way outside litigation counsel tries cases and has forced trial counsel to be trial-technology savvy. There are many more examples of how the fast flow of information is altering the balance of power between in-house and outside counsel, but you get the idea. Reflecting these changing times, the 25-point list below offers useful best-practices that in-house counsel should be demanding from outside litigation counsel.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting A little more than a month ago, I surveyed our readership and asked, "how does in-house counsel hire outside litigation counsel?" Six possible answers were presented in random order. In-house chooses the lowest priced firm from a group of approved firms. In-house hires the best litigator based on prior experience. In-house hires the best litigator based on their reputation. In-house hires their litigator friends and former (or future) colleagues. In-house hires the litigator most likely to generate a win. Finally, a write-in field for other responses answers Having worked in the litigation industry for more than 20 years and seeing favoritism trump skill plenty of times, I expected some cynicism to show through in the answers provided. However, even with that expectation, I was still very surprised with the results.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting We often work on large cases, and large cases often have joint defense teams. A joint defense team is simply a group of law firms working for a group of clients and/or working on some issues together in a case. Some joint defense teams work together brilliantly. It's like watching the best NFL players come together for the Pro Bowl game when each of them plays as a member of the same team. In a trial, sometimes the whole “dream team” unites to prevail. It's a beautiful thing to watch -- when it works. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work that way very often. In a recent engagement I watched a well-organized team in the run-up to trial perform beautifully. They had sorted out communication, who handled what issues, leadership, client communications, and billing arrangements with no apparent drama. I can contrast that with any number of large cases where the opposite is true. These are unfortunately the majority of joint defense efforts. In these cases, turf battles are common. As much time is spent on politics as is spent on winning the case. I suspect cases have been lost entirely because a joint defense effort has failed.
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting
1. Gain Insight into Juror Bias
by Ken Lopez Founder/CEO A2L Consulting
Thomas F. Carlucci Partner Foley & Lardner LLP John E. Turlais Senior Counsel Foley & Lardner LLP Ryan H. Flax (Former) Managing Director, Litigation Consulting A2L Consulting
by Ken Lopez Founder & CEO A2L Consulting These are times of economic uncertainty - or are they? I believe that litigation support consultants and lawyers, especially leaders of medium and large law firms, can use a simple economic forecasting tool to better plan staffing and business needs. If you use this tool, you will likely know when business is going to turn up, and when it is going to turn down, well before most of your peers.
One type of litigation consulting that is underused is the planning and conducting of a mock trial. A good litigation consultant can put together a mock trial that is every bit as real in appearance and challenges the litigation team as much as an actual trial.
Learn why the work of the father of group psychology from 70 years ago is so important to the leadership of a modern trial team. Stories about a trial team breaking down at or just before trial are legendary. The breakdowns are typically triggered by some event that creates anxiety that then causes the team to engage in one of three progressively severe sets of behaviors:
This article is an excerpt from a longer article and e-book available for free download by clicking here
Share: