Killing the Billable Hour: One Op-Ed At A Time
Evan Chesler, presiding partner at Cravath, is the latest to raise his voice against the billable hour. In an op-ed piece he penned for Forbes magazine, Chesler says:
I’m a trial lawyer. I bill by the hour. So do the associates who work for me. I have lots of clients, so I can pretty much work, and bill, as much as I want. This needs to be fixed. Yes, you read that correctly.
Of course, partners and clients and even journalists have been calling for or predicting the death of the billable hour for years. As Chesler himself contends in his piece, nobody really likes the billable hour:
The billable hour makes no sense, not even for lawyers. If you are successful and win a case early on, you put yourself out of work. If you get bogged down in a land war in Asia, you make more money. That is frankly nuts.
Of course, there is a reason that the billable hour won’t die. More on that after the jump.
Chesler indirectly makes the point for the billable hour, though he almost certainly doesn’t intend to:
How much do I bill per hour? We don’t make numbers public at Cravath, but you can assume I’m not cheap.
He then goes into an elaborate analogy about expensive contractors, expensive kitchens, and other expenses that I cannot afford.
But the fundamental beauty of the billable hour isn’t really addressed.
“I’m not cheap.” The billable hour still provides an excellent way for lawyer A to whip it out over lawyer B. “My firm is not cheap,” or “the negotiated price point for high end litigation services accurately reflects my added intellectual value, and it’s not cheap” doesn’t have quite the right ring to it does it?
The legal profession is an adversarial system … and — to quote Herm Edwards — “you play, to win, the game!” The billable hour is an easy “mini-game” to calculate.
Regardless of the efficacy of Chesler’s article, it’s still pretty interesting that he made the argument in the first place. AmLaw Daily offers this interesting information:
Client fees have been an issue for Cravath recently. In December, when the firm announced it was cutting its associate bonuses to roughly half of the 2007 payments, Cravath made a point of announcing that its fees would be frozen in 2009. This was not completely helpful to corporate customers as the firm refused to publish its fee schedule. The only publicly available fee information from the firm was filed in mid-2008 as part of a long-running employment discrimination case. In that matter, a mid-career litigation partner posted his billable rate at $875 an hour, a $205 an hour increase since 2004.
The billable hour probably isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. But it is nice to dream.
Kill the Billable Hour [Forbes]
Cravath’s Chesler: Time to Kill the Billable Hour [AmLaw Daily]
(107) 
Comments
FIRST. HTH. TY.
Evan Chesler is bombing the Gaza Strip with his mad skills.
Fird
Die billable hour! dieee!!!!
These pretzels are making me fourthsty.
Mitt Romney is at Cravath now?
yawn.
Why is Cravath fighting a land war in Asia?
Did Chesler not hear that Cravath is TTT now?
lol 6
Even if Evan didn't look EXACTLY like Fonzi from happy days, I'd say he's correct-amundo !!!
how bout the intgrity and self restrait all lawyers are bount to exhibit? This guy is basically saying he has no self control and is not lead by honesty.
"The billable hour makes no sense, not even for lawyers. If you are successful and win a case early on, you put yourself out of work. If you get bogged down in a land war in Asia, you make more money."
Perhaps in the short term. But in the long term if you garner a reputation for turning too many routine matters into "land war[s]" you will lose business. And if you garner a reputation for handling complex cases efficiently and producing good results for clients (such as by quickly obtaining favorable settlements) your reputation will improve and more business will flow your way. So the incentive for being inefficient is not as strong as this guy claims (at least not if one takes the long view).
#11 -- sit on it.
The Princess Bride is the Greatest Movie of all time.
#11 - sit on it
"You can assume I'm not cheap"
Perhaps, but I can also assume you are a giagantic, flaming, puss oozing herpes sore.
13 is exactly right.
The "land war in Asia" metaphor presumes you're only palying the game once, not repeatedly over the course of your career.
Stupid Mormons
decent looking guy...
I bill by the federal billable hour...ie per game of Tertis completed.
Tertis? Srsly?
#15 - The Princess Bride? Really? How about Mean Girls
#15 - The Princess Bride? Really? How about Mean Girls
What are the chances that David Lat & Kashmir Hill dream of Elie's black rod?
I predicted this.
Proletariat unite!
Karl Marx
You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
Bet we could all work less if there were no billable hours to worry about.
25 = mysTTTal
Elie doesn't read articles all of the way through.
Don't allow them to kill the billable hour! If we do this, then they win. You know who they are. Why do they hate us for our freedoms?
Patriot #1
Agree with 13. If you have repeat clients, they're more likely to keep you around if you win cases without costing them too much.
Chesler is "not cheap" because his firm gets results that clients think are worth the money. If they thought they could get the same or better results for less money, they'd probably go elsewhere.
Why do Mormons hate billable hours but love jello? It just makes no sense.
13 assumes that clients have any idea what is "routine" or how much time is required to do things. Law firms are the ones who set the standard for how long things take to be done, and if all of those firms' incenctives are to draw things out, then clients will not realize that their legal representation is "taking too long" and thus will find new representation.
--
31 --- ok..... Are you from Texas?
Zero.
27 -- You have made my day.
I've been at this for nearly 7 1/2 years now and by far the worst part of my job is having to account for every minute of my time. Absolutely hate it. For litigators who work on one or two projects, recording time may not be that difficult, but for transactional lawyers working on a dozen or more matters, it's hell.
This tool sounds like he'd rather be at some hellhole like Greenberg Traurig than Cravath.
This tool sounds like he'd rather be at some hellhole like Greenberg Traurig than Cravath.
Don't allow them to kill the billable hour! If we do this, then they win. You know who they are. Why do they hate us for our freedoms?
Patriot #1
15 YOU are a douche!
how will eliminating the billable hour help firms make more money?
The smart attorneys get cases done early and go home. Markets should reward efficiency. You can still price the "intellectual" ability into rates by pricing briefs or complaints, cases as such. Plaintiffs lawyers do this all the time and they make a lot more than partners at big firms, it's just they are sleazy pond scum and it's not worth it to many people.
This tool sounds like he'd rather be at some hellhole like Salusa Secundus than Arrakis.
32 - You're obviously not a litigator.
Most of the time -- most of the time, but not all of the time -- the in-house counsel for the company you're representing is well versed in corporate matters and absolutely clueless in litigation -- so the advise they're going to give to the management is "let the litigation lawyers handle it." And they'll believe what you tell them.
When you give them an assessment of the likelihood of victory -- which, if you're even 10% competent, will be accurate 90% of the time -- they have the choice to make as to whether to fight it or not: whether to settle out, or whether to pay you massive amounts to go forward with litigation you've already told them is likely to be unsuccesful.
For that 10% (in practice, far less, more on the order of 1% or 2%) of the time that you're wrong in assessing your chances of success, you can always point to the fact that you didn't make any guarantees to begin with, and this result was unanticipated because of X, Y, and Z. But for the most part, the client knows how expensive the litigation is going to be before the pleadings are filed, if you're doing your job right.
the first few days of trading in 2009 have been pretty good for stock market. But don't worry. Everything is going to come crashing down. Soon! Buy you guns now while you still can. Convert your liquid assets to gold Immediately! as in NOW before its too later.
Run for the hills . .. now!
What a pieceofcrapical article this Romney guy just wrote. And there were like four adds embeded in there too.
No real ideas to solve the problem. Just kinda says, it's a pain in the butt to record my hours and ask for them to be paid, so I'd rather do some plumbing or kitchen remodeling.
Well, then leave that firm and go do some good ole fixed-priced plumbin'.
The whole point of the law is to waste time at high prices. If lawyers made $20 an hour, cases would get done much faster.
32 - You're obviously not a litigator.
Most of the time -- most of the time, but not all of the time -- the in-house counsel for the company you're representing is well versed in corporate matters and absolutely clueless in litigation -- so the advise they're going to give to the management is "let the litigation lawyers handle it." And they'll believe what you tell them.
When you give them an assessment of the likelihood of victory -- which, if you're even 10% competent, will be accurate 90% of the time -- they have the choice to make as to whether to fight it or not: whether to settle out, or whether to pay you massive amounts to go forward with litigation you've already told them is likely to be unsuccesful.
For that 10% (in practice, far less, more on the order of 1% or 2%) of the time that you're wrong in assessing your chances of success, you can always point to the fact that you didn't make any guarantees to begin with, and this result was unanticipated because of X, Y, and Z. But for the most part, the client knows how expensive the litigation is going to be before the pleadings are filed, if you're doing your job right.
CSM, like S&C and other top firms, uses value billing. The billable hour is a mere floor, and is an excellent indicator of base price for legal services.
If I mop up your multi-billion dollar litigation in three months, I haven't had to work that much (so you don't pay for many hours) but I added a lot of value for you (and I'll charge you for that on top of the hours--and if I'm good, you'll pay).
If I'm bogged down in the swamps for years, I'm stuck on your matter to the exclusion of other work--you'll pay for all those long, terrible hours your case requires.
The only problem with the billable hour is its potential for exploitation by unethical lawyers--there's a difference between getting "bogged down in a land war in Asia" and creating the bog just to bill the time. The former is the result of the client's case, and the client should pay for it. The latter is grounds for disbarment.
44 -- Are you honestly a Biglaw attorney calling Plaintiffs' lawyers sleazy pond scum? I can't think of anything sleazier than a Biglaw associate litigating legitimate claims into the ground because they know the Plaintiff will run out of money eventually to fund the suit... and that's kind of the entire purpose of being a Biglaw litigator.
(Plaintiffs' class action counsel)
BigLaw firms will fight this to the death. Flat fees would allow price discovery and so make the legal services market more efficient. BigLaw firms make money by being inefficient and so would lose out. What part of "no" don't you understand?
For the economically illiterate here's the short version. Clients want to buy results. Law firms want to sell hours. If clients find out what results cost law firms won't be able to use vast armies of witless associates to manufacture billable hours and most of you will lose your jobs.
Rent-seeking and inefficient - that's the motto of all BigLaw (and wannabe) firms.
Guys, has anyone pointed out that Evan Chesler looks like Mitt Romney yet?
Romney sucks. Go back to Utah, jello-eater!
Chesler is right, but a total hypocrite. Biglaw has made him rich, and I don't see him offering to return his PPP to the firm's ripped-off clients. C'mon Chesler my boy, put your money where your mouth is.
The best part of the whole article is a Cravath partner quoting the Princess Bride in Forbes.
The "land war in Asia" refers to the quandary of having like 6 or 7 armies in Irkutsk and desperately trying to attack Kamchatka.
why does Mitt Romney care about the billable hour? he doesn't even use his law degree last time i checked.
58,
You stupid tard.
You fight land wars in Asia by taking over Australia then going over Indonesia to the underbelly. With Australia, you have a safe region.
Thus spake an amateur Risk player.
You historical tard.
"Land war in Asia" was already old by the time William Goldman included it in the Princess Bride. Douglas MacArthur said that to President John F. Kennedy in 1961. I bet MacArthur wished that someone had told him that before he was seized by hubris and got fired by Truman in Korea.
Some of you contend that long-term interests keep law firms honest when it comes to efficiency. I disagree.
Take, for example, appellate briefs. I've had the misfortune on working on a number of appellate briefs at Biglaw, and the process is ridiculously inefficient. Midlevel associate writes a draft - because midlevel associate is from a top school, and has survived this long in Biglaw, the draft covers all the issues in an organized fashion, cites all relevant case law, and anticipates and addresses all of the opponents counter arguments. Junior partner then looks at draft.
Now, if it ended here - junior partner makes a few changes, signs off and out the brief goes - the client would be getting good value for its money. There have been studies done on the effectiveness of briefing, and those studies consistently show that there is no outcome advantage to filing a great brief vs. filing a good brief. You don't want to send shit to the circuit courts, but as long as you address the issues in an organized way, it doesn't matter if you are a brilliant or merely competent writer. The clerks and judges are going to ultimately make their own decisions based on their research.
Of course, the process doesn't end with a proofread by the junior partner. Feeling that she has to add value to the process, the junior partner retools the whole breif and send it back. Associate rewrites. Junior parter changes it back to the way it was the first time and sends it back. Associate rewrites. Junior partner makes some "little changes" associate rewrites.
No it gets fun. Junior partner and associate agree the brief is ready for mid-level parter to see. Midlevel partner looks at brief and suggests several additional issues that should be researched. Associate researches. Junior parter asks associate to rewrite to include new issues. Associate rewrites. Brief is submitted to midlevel again, who now suggests that the brief is too long, and needs to be streamlined. Discussion of additional issues removed.
Then it gets REALLY fun. The day before the brief is due, all three lawyers put in a 16 hour day, working until midnight "fine tuning" the brief. Finally, brief is filed.
And ultimately, the result is no different than what it would have been had the brief been submitted after the associate's first draft.
Same thing happens on corporate docs. Constant rewrites that add no value to the final product, but make the lawyers feel like they did something.
Compare the billable hour to bankers who often only get paid if the deal gets done - work on a deal for 6 months and it falls through and they're lucky to recover T&E expenses
Some of you contend that long-term interests keep law firms honest when it comes to efficiency. I disagree.
Take, for example, appellate briefs. I've had the misfortune on working on a number of appellate briefs at Biglaw, and the process is ridiculously inefficient. Midlevel associate writes a draft - because midlevel associate is from a top school, and has survived this long in Biglaw, the draft covers all the issues in an organized fashion, cites all relevant case law, and anticipates and addresses all of the opponents counter arguments. Junior partner then looks at draft.
Now, if it ended here - junior partner makes a few changes, signs off and out the brief goes - the client would be getting good value for its money. There have been studies done on the effectiveness of briefing, and those studies consistently show that there is no outcome advantage to filing a great brief vs. filing a good brief. You don't want to send shit to the circuit courts, but as long as you address the issues in an organized way, it doesn't matter if you are a brilliant or merely competent writer. The clerks and judges are going to ultimately make their own decisions based on their research.
Of course, the process doesn't end with a proofread by the junior partner. Feeling that she has to add value to the process, the junior partner retools the whole breif and send it back. Associate rewrites. Junior parter changes it back to the way it was the first time and sends it back. Associate rewrites. Junior partner makes some "little changes" associate rewrites.
No it gets fun. Junior partner and associate agree the brief is ready for mid-level parter to see. Midlevel partner looks at brief and suggests several additional issues that should be researched. Associate researches. Junior parter asks associate to rewrite to include new issues. Associate rewrites. Brief is submitted to midlevel again, who now suggests that the brief is too long, and needs to be streamlined. Discussion of additional issues removed.
Then it gets REALLY fun. The day before the brief is due, all three lawyers put in a 16 hour day, working until midnight "fine tuning" the brief. Finally, brief is filed.
And ultimately, the result is no different than what it would have been had the brief been submitted after the associate's first draft.
Same thing happens on corporate docs. Constant rewrites that add no value to the final product, but make the lawyers feel like they did something.
60 = racist
61, 63
The same round of inefficiency can easily be found in the corporate world. See, e.g., Office Space ("Have you seen the TPS report?")
If you want efficiency, run a one man shop and reap the rewards, if any.
ooh, ooh, ooh, I have a point to make!!!!!
Now that cravath has a bankruptcy practice, they won't be able to keep stuff as quiet. Bankrupty fees, including per-hour charges, get disclosed in public filings!!!!!
60 - Wrong. The better strategy is to control South America (and Africa if possible) and then work your way up through North America. Then attack Asia through Alaska (with an ironclad defense in Greenland to avoid a European invasion). After I take Siam I attack Australia and the pea-brained Risk players who think Australia is the way to go get eliminated. Europe falls last.
At least CSM's associates know their bonus pool went into this cockbag's new kitchen rather than their much needed vacation or the down payment on their first apartment. That should be a welcome relief.
LEAVE MITT ROMNEY ALONE....BWAHHHHH
64 = sexist
seventy FIRST!!!
13:
"So the incentive for being inefficient is not as strong as this guy claims (at least not if one takes the long view). "
The know-it-all attitude of the junior varsity dipshits who troll this site never ceases to amaze me.
I love that you think you have figured out something that "this guy"- Evan Chesler- has not. Dumbass.
That is one sexy Mormon.
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
Demented Roy "Lost Pants" Pearson just refuses to go away. If we want to eliminate waste in the legal system, start here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601075.html
72: my apologies. I didn't realize that Evan Chesler is all-knowing and that everything he writes should be taken as the gospel. Jackass.
61 / 63 -- The efficiency of that type of process depends entirely on the issues being appealed. I've worked on a range of appeals from intermediate state appellate courts to SCOTUS, and the work put into an appellate brief needs to be directly proportional to the importance of the issue.
If you've got some minor technical appellate issue you're kicking to an intermediate state appellate court, the "have a midlevel write it, have a higher up review it and revise it, sign and serve" method is perfectly fine. The same is also true of a minor technical issue that gets kicked up to a court of last resort.
However, when you've got a truly landmark appellate issue -- the type of thing where a loss could be devestating to your client (or, if you're a specialized enough litigator, your practice), the latter approach of having a team of people write and rewrite and revise repeatedly can definitely be helfpful. If I'm Altria in the Altria v. Good case, I'm paying whatever I have to to make sure that my briefs are -perfect-.
61 / 63 -- The efficiency of that type of process depends entirely on the issues being appealed. I've worked on a range of appeals from intermediate state appellate courts to SCOTUS, and the work put into an appellate brief needs to be directly proportional to the importance of the issue.
If you've got some minor technical appellate issue you're kicking to an intermediate state appellate court, the "have a midlevel write it, have a higher up review it and revise it, sign and serve" method is perfectly fine. The same is also true of a minor technical issue that gets kicked up to a court of last resort.
However, when you've got a truly landmark appellate issue -- the type of thing where a loss could be devestating to your client (or, if you're a specialized enough litigator, your practice), the latter approach of having a team of people write and rewrite and revise repeatedly can definitely be helfpful. If I'm Altria in the Altria v. Good case, I'm paying whatever I have to to make sure that my briefs are -perfect-.
You assume everyone knows who Herm Edwards is. ATL has gotten way too ghetto for me. This isn't deadspin.
67,
Agree Europe falls last. But disagree on utility of Australia. With it you can go to Asia and from there you have a choice of getting the rest of Asia and invading No. Am. through Alaska.
Would be fun to play Risk instead of trolling this board full of apathetic losers, retarded associates, and clueless junior partners.
I don’t need a jejune sensibility between me and whatever meager news there is to report. This is pathetic.
Elie, improve the quality of the postings!
Guys in my high school used to call for the end of billable hours while also sorta making a case for them, it was no big deal.
It is no coincidence this droopy-eyed bitch changed the "i" to "e" in his name: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=chisler
Having been across the table from fucktards at that shit-shop, I agree they waste clients' cash like no other.
The love of a good SHEEP is free.
-- Not Evan Chisler
Guys in my high school used to call for the end of billable hours while also sorta making a case for them, it was no big deal.
I wish Evan Chesler was my dad. Then I could call him, Daddy Cheslerbucks.
Chesler is all talk, no action. You didn't think he was actually going to do this stuff, right?
Believe me, I know. Whenever our chicken CLO goes to Cravath to discuss alternative billing arangements, Evan beats him like a bitch. Then, he dials the CFO and gets exactly what he wants.
80/81,
You missed 61/63's point. His point is not that the briefs in less important cases can be written with less perfection. His point was that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether a briefs are good or great. Therefore, it doesn't make economic sense to spend the extra dollars on perfection.
I agree entirely with 61/63, and I have also worked on appellate briefs at every level from intermediate state appellate courts all the way up to SCOTUS.
79:
There is much you don't know and you won't figure it out trolling this site.
If you rearrange the letters in Evan Chesler, it spells Warm Van Molester.
If you rearrange the letters in Evan Chesler, it spells Warm Van Molester.
By the way, did any of you see Colt McCoy's girlfriend last night? 6' tall and gorgeous. Some guys have all the luck. Me? I'm stuck billing for stuff that doesn't need to be done and praying no one ever finds out - oh, and my gf's chubby. She's eager to please however, if you get my drift and she thinks it's a big deal to be dating an attorney.
91 -- Sorry, disagree. When you get an appellate court to reverse itself, or when you get one circuit to disagree with a trend in other circuits, a large part of it usually has to do with how good the briefs are. If some dumb solo took an appeal to the Second Circuit against a Biglaw firm and got his ass handed to him ten years ago because he couldn't articulate a thought... and now you want the Second Circuit to reverse itself on that three page throwaway decision it issued then based on the crappy, misinformed briefs before it... having an excellent, well articulated brief certainly helps.
Speaking from personal experience, obviously, where an intermediate appellate court specifically noted at oral argument that its prior decision had not been based on extensive briefing, and ended up reversing itself.
each billable hour
a measure of passing time
measure of bleak toil
--Hey!-Ku
63 - I wish I had clients that were that stupid. I do about 50% appellate work, but never bill more than about 20 hours on a single brief (and since it is generally just copied and pasted in large part from the trial lawyer's msj, is quite a bargain all the way around). Lots of minor or interlocutory appeals are easily done in 8 hours -- especially if I have actually worked the case. The kind of billing you are talking about it absolutely ludicrous.
96 - changes in clerks, judges, and golf games lead to reversals of the sort you are talking -- stuff your briefs.
@13, that is only true if the client figures out that you are fighting a land war in Asia, and that your competitors don't. Otherwise the client has no idea what's going on. If defense counsel didn't routinely screw up my job would be 100 times harder, yet I know that they are happily billing their clients for crappy motions and pointless court appearances and the clients are totally in the dark.
And @52 is right. Also try BigLaw attorneys who file frivolous motions and stall cases in the hopes that the plaintiff will die.
67, 83, et al,
You are all retarded.
South America First, then Africa, then North America (as 67 indicated). However, THEN you take Europe in one fell swoop and the game is over. The key is minimizing points of access/defense. Once you take Europe you have only three: Alaska and any set of two on the Europe/Asia border, also shielding Africa. Asia can't be held effectively unless you take it all at once, including Australia, which is absolutely impossible without wasting landlocked troops.
Australia first is pure stupidity. Not only are you forced to take Asia second (impossible), you have no backdoor to run if you happen to have one bad round and or go first in the game of card trading. That said, I guess I would take Australia over starting in Asia. I would rather go North America or Africa over starting in Australia, though.
We should totally play Risk here. I would clearly destroy all you morons.
101: pure genius.
You don't need to take Asia first if you start in Australia. North America and Africa are attractive targets. Since Asia is impossible to hold, most people leave it unoccupied. This has two benefits for Aussies: they can march across Asia very easily to fight elsewhere, and there are no enemies anywhere near your stronghold so you're guaranteed to build new armies every turn. Australia is legit.
101: don't forget to bill it as "Strategic risk analysis and planning"
67 - Is an idiot.
103 - Is correct.
Europe is not the last to fall; it is the first to fall; the center cannot hold, and Europe is typically attacked from all angles. Some might argue that an Australia strategy is often second-best, or that you need some breaks to go your way, but at least Australia is in the thick of the fight at the end of the day. More than one can say for frickin' Europe. Please.
67, 101, all other risk players - risk is an idiotic game played only by complete and utter morons. Your billable hours must be very low.
Chesler, all Cravath partners - you are douchebags.
63, great post. As a junior associate, I especially enjoy when a partner or midlevel changes his or her own changes. And they don't have the wherewithal to actually get into the document and make their petty changes themselves - nay - that would be too easy. They have to print the document, handwrite their changes/edits, hand the document back, THEN the associate enters those changes, or has to follow up with the partner/midlevel on their chickenscratch . . . and on we go . . .