The Perils Of Specialization

Is it better to be a generalist or a specialist? It depends, as columnist Mark Herrmann explains.

An expert, they say, knows more and more about less and less, until he knows everything about nothing.

A generalist, on the other hand, knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything.

As a lawyer at a firm, I used to be an expert: I knew an awful lot about multidistrict litigation and its state court analogues. And I knew how to defend pharmaceutical and medical device product liability cases. That’s what I did — all day, every day — and that expertise was what I sold to clients. As outside counsel, I wallowed in the law.

As in-house counsel, that knowledge vanished evolved. I’m now an expert only in my company: I know the types of issues we confront, how to keep appropriate folks in the loop about developments, and where our institutional knowledge lies. But actually defend a particular lawsuit? I’m afraid I feel that capacity slipping away with each passing year.

I’m no longer an expert. But an in-house lawyer can become a generalist in some interesting ways. A couple of months ago, I mentioned how working in-house had changed my perspective on witness preparation. I now understand that it’s possible to put a witness on the stand with no preparation whatsoever, and still consider the resulting judgment to be fair. Who’d a thunk it?

My other perspectives have broadened over time, too.

Consider arbitrations, for example. Do you handle ’em? If so, then you probably know all about arbitral procedures. And you could easily be deceiving yourself. If you were tempted to advise a client about an aspect of arbitral procedure outside of your narrow expertise, you’d probably give incorrect advice.

Sponsored

For example, do you use witness statements or live direct testimony at arbitrations? If you do international arbitrations for a living, you’re saying, “witness statements.” If you handle U.S. commercial arbitrations, you’re thinking, “generally, live witnesses.”

Do you take depositions in connection with arbitrations? If you handle international arbitrations, you’re thinking, “almost never.” If you do labor arbitrations, you’re thinking, “rarely.” If you do U.S. domestic commercial arbitrations, you’re thinking, “that’s not uncommon.”

Do you produce documents to the other side before an arbitral hearing? In international arbitrations, you get the documents the other side intends to rely on at the hearing (and, perhaps, some additional documents). In U.S. domestic arbitrations, discovery will be far broader. In labor arbitrations, the other side will show up on the day of the hearing with 200 exhibits that you’ve never seen before.

How do you handle a party-appointed arbiter? In international arbitrations, you can speak to the arbiter only in limited circumstances about her arbitral philosophy (and no more). In U.S. domestic arbitrations, each party typically tries to pick an arbiter that leans heavily in its favor. In labor arbitrations, the party-chosen arbiter may well be the shop steward or the company’s head of HR.

Do you cite arbitral precedents to your panel? Not in international or U.S. commercial arbitrations: Most arbitral decisions are confidential, so there’s little public precedent available to cite. In labor arbitrations, on the other hand, it’s routine to cite arbitral precedents.

Sponsored

What’s my point?

Damned if I know.

Three things, I suppose: First, if you really enjoy immersing yourself in one area of law (at least as a litigator), then consider working at a law firm. Lawyers at firms are experts in the law; if that’s what you like, make that your career. If you’d rather learn about an industry (or a specific company), then consider moving in-house.

Second, in-house lawyers shouldn’t feel too bad about losing the specialized knowledge they cultivated when they were in private practice. You’ll compensate for the loss of specialized expertise by acquiring a broader world-view: You’ll become a generalist, who knows less and less about more and more . . . .

Finally, be very careful about giving advice based on what may be your narrow perspective. Don’t make assumptions about court systems, or bodies of law, or rules of procedure in areas with which you’re unfamiliar. Don’t assume, for example, that all arbitrations are alike.


Mark Herrmann is the Chief Counsel – Litigation and Global Chief Compliance Officer at Aon, the world’s leading provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital and management consulting. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Could Provide (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.