I recently had a spirited debate on this topic with a group of lawyers. While the familiar refrain of “it depends” reared its head more than a few times, a few conclusions were reached. For those who are not business-getters, their answer was “the firm.” For in-house attorneys and partners who are rainmakers, their unmistakable rejoinder was that clients hire lawyers. Subject to a few minor exceptions, the experience I gained as a partner and in-house lawyer leads me to side with the latter group.
One way to assess the topic is to examine the two most common rationales that are used to support the contention that clients hire law firms, and not lawyers. The first such argument I often hear is that clients hire law firms in matters of huge importance, such as “bet the company” litigations, major white-collar or related types of investigations, or significant deals, especially in the M&A context. The predicate for the position is that retaining a high-profile firm is a defensible hire that protects senior executives and the board in those situations.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
