« Bill Gates and his IBM moment. | Main | R.D. Lewis: Hungary Business. »
November 04, 2010
"We really need a memo on all that?"
Terror has no shape. Maybe go to the mirror and practice saying that to your client, or to your colleagues, about some ongoing projects. Another way to say it:
Elizabeth/Justin, this project had been lawyer-ed and memo-ed out the proverbial wazoo. Let's of course do the research right away. We can get Josh/ Brittany to start on it today; they know the legal terrain here anyway, and know the facts.
But after we research it, can we do this: just do a draft of the [brief/letter/contract] that reflects what we conclude. Get it in the final product. That's where we're headed with this anyway.
No memo. All that is just "winding up"--and without ever "pitching", you know?"
"Who's protecting whom?"There are times you don't need to scorch the earth. To save time, money and relationships, just answer the question. Talk people out of the "full-Monty". Do the research, take a stand, and write it all up in the instrument you are actually going to use anyway: the pleading, the motion, the response, the letter, the instrument. Stop feeding the Monster.
Even if you don't use it, what the draft or instrument "looks like" helps everyone make the next decision, and take the next step. You can still back up critical points with smaller discrete memos, showing research and/or thought process.
And aside from necessary opinion letters, and really needed formal white papers, don't offer to write or write a cover-everyone's-ass and/or comprehensive "all-legal-theories-and-strategies" memorandum (c'mon, you big old Ivy League wuss) unless your in-house lawyer really wants it. And then try to talk her or him out of it.
The client's call, of course. But you can lead a little. If you are in litigation, test out your brilliant ideas and research in a draft brief or another document the client can actually use later on. Skip the 10-, 20- and 35-page memo. Try to make memos you do do be shorter, and reflect the group's cumulative thinking on that issue or project.
From a Holden Oliver post
Posted by JD Hull at November 4, 2010 11:59 PM
Comments
Right - 1000% right. But @ BigLaw, it doesn't work that way. Apart from the billing pressure,who has the authority to 'Just Do It?' Layer upon layer of bureaucracy prevents anyone but a senior partner, or the partner responsible for that client, from acting instead of doing CYA letters, getting memos etc. Clients should understand that dynamic when they choose to retain a mega-law firm.
For the small and mid-sized firm, there is less of an excuse. CYA for malpractice- and grievance-protection may be necessary in some circumstances (query whether clients are properly billed for that), and practicing defensive law (i.e., making sure you're absolutely correct) is always a smart move IMHO. But the endless back-and-forth of memos and inter-office conferences doesn't help anyone, least of all the client.
Posted by: Terri Weiss at November 4, 2010 07:04 PM
Thanks, Terri. And we could not disagree with you more. Everyone at our law firm has worked (and for many years) and still can work at a large firm. Every client we have is a "big law" client. There are exceptions to the idea in the post--but not many. Efficiency, value and integrity doesn't get a pass at my firm, yours, an excellent large firm (there are still a few left), or at Big, Myopic and Deaf.
But do keeping reading the blog. We need you.
PS Re: your previous comment, GCs do keep getting much classier. And, in our view, larger law firms--which still house some talent--do keep diluting their gene pools. Ironic.
Posted by: Hull at November 4, 2010 09:39 PM
Love your blog, even though we disagree on this one. :<)
(And I didn't mean to imply that all BigLaw is bad -I'm actually rather partial to quite a few, esp my old firms.)
Posted by: Terri Weiss at November 5, 2010 07:07 AM