For almost a decade, our hospital has had a large Biglaw firm on retainer as a sort of “Break Glass In Case Of Emergency” option.
We handle most of our legal work in-house. Those times which we find ourselves under-resourced or engaged in a protracted legal dispute, we may hire outside, but usually local counsel. But for those instances when the federal government issues a business-changing rule or we find ourselves in a multistate, multimillion-dollar dispute, we haul out our Biglaw team and let them get to work.
Throughout the life of the engagement, our account has been handled by the same partner. I could go on for pages detailing how great and brilliant she is. From her legal pedigree to her acumen, she is everything you would expect from Biglaw.
Protégé™ In CourtLink® Explains The Whole Case Faster
Designed to reduce manual docket work by prioritizing what litigators need most: on-demand full docket summarization that explains the whole case to date, followed by on-demand document summaries for filing triage, and AI-powered natural language searching for faster search and retrieval.
But while I was more than happy to pay to have such a tremendous resource on retainer, for me, that was only a part of her value.
The rest came from the letterhead on which her advice came and the assurance of knowing she was backed by hundreds of talented colleagues. Even though I have given Biglaw a hard time before in some of my previous columns, I will be the first to admit there is a real value in the reputation that comes along with their representation.
Which is why when the partner recently informed me she was leaving Biglaw to set up her own shop, I was torn.
On one hand, I was happy to keep our business with her at her new practice. In fact, she was opening it with another one of her partners whom I had worked with on several occasions over the years and also thought quite highly of him as well.
What Even Is AI ‘Competence’? It Depends.
Takeaways from a Legalweek panel on evolving malpractice risks.
But on the other, I was a bit reluctant to follow knowing in doing so, I would be foregoing my proverbial safety net of having a large Biglaw firm, and its reputation, on retainer.
Sure, if any of my future opposing counsels took a moment to research her and her background, they may appreciate the level of representation we have, but that takes time and does not bring with it the immediate attention a Biglaw firm’s letterhead demands.
Reputation aside, I was also afraid to lose the backing of what seemed like a near infinite supply of other attorneys in her firm. Although I had never met the vast majority of them, it was nice to know that if a large issue were to arise, she could summon 10 attorneys at a moment’s notice. But in her new firm, in such a moment of need, I was capped at her and her partner lest she seek outside help as well.
At the end of the day, I kept some of our business with her new firm, but now utilize her more as a legal consultant than my outside Biglaw gun. As I previously mentioned, I could not bear the thought of severing all ties with her given how big of an asset she has been for us over the past decade, but I also could not justify the potential risk associated with not having a Biglaw firm on retainer.
Thus far the new relationship has worked well, and by all outside measures, her new firm has hit its stride out of the gate.
However, as I authorize payment on her substantially smaller monthly invoices than when she was with her Biglaw firm, I sincerely hope these new arrangements with her old clients is something she had planned for in her business plan.
Stephen R. Williams is in-house counsel with a multi-facility hospital network in the Midwest. His column focuses on a little talked about area of the in-house life, management. You can reach Stephen at [email protected].