The Second Chair Compromise

As an in-house counsel, it is natural for me to give my Biglaw colleagues a hard time.

From your overpriced suits to the overpadded client invoices, you just sometimes make it easy on yourselves. But at the end of the day, even though it may pain me to admit it, I understand and appreciate your value.

I am understaffed, under-resourced, under stress, and just about any other “under-” you can think of, and I will often welcome the extra set of hands from the outside with open arms. But my CEO often does not share my same enthusiasm.

Even though he is well aware we are a small and strapped in-house team, he is often convinced we can take on any opposing counsel out there without the outside help. For one, he does not see the need to pay for more attorneys when he already has a team of them on his payroll — a fair, but misguided point. And second, he frankly trusts my team and I more than a group of strangers to handle matters of import to our organization. This point is a little harder to argue.

As in-house counsel, my team and I have built a natural rapport with our CEO and members of his team. We have earned their trust over many years of work and a record of success. When something major is on the line, it is natural for him to want familiar faces in the room.

But as the under-resourced in-house team that we are, I often find myself pushing for outside counsel assistance to ensure our organization is adequately represented. Which leads to me to a little technique I have devised I like to call the Second Chair Compromise.

The Second Chair Compromise is as simple as its name suggests. In lieu of asking the CEO to sign-off on handing the entire case to outside counsel, I instead convince the CEO that my team will remain primary on the case, but that we could use some outside experts to help with paperwork or to answer specific legal questions my team may not have the time to research.

I further assure him that if the present case ever makes its way to trial, it will be one of his attorneys making the arguments in court while our outside help merely sits at the table ready to offer assistance, if needed.

Hence, the name Second Chair Compromise.

This compromise is admittedly a bit more work on my team and I. Sometimes handing off a case, out of sight and out of mind, is a relief.

Ever wake up in a panic after sleeping through an alarm only to be met with that feeling of relief when you realize it’s Saturday? Yeah, handing off a case is kind of like that.

Haven’t thought about the Peterson case in awhile? Who cares, outside counsel is monitoring it and has your back.

The compromise at least requires that you show up and stay engaged. But given the time constraints and pressures of handling a case solo, it still can provide a tremendous amount of relief while ensuring your case has the resources it needs to prevail.

Plus it has the added benefit of keeping you in the good graces of your CEO who appreciates you staying on top of the case.

So to my Biglaw colleagues ever in search of new business, keep an open mind to the Second Chair Compromise. In fact, maybe even start to market it as your own idea, albeit with a slight reduction in your standard billable hour.

Yes, while you may have wanted to own the case outright, do you think your managing partner will really care who makes the closing argument so long as your newfound source of checks keep coming in?

---

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].