The law firm of choice for internationally focused companies

+263 242 744 677

admin@tsazim.com

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Harare, Zimbabwe

What Does The Senate Have In Common With Biglaw?

Like most Americans, any time I spent watching the impeachment proceedings frustrated me.

We can’t buy a principle in a world of partisanship.

What are the standards for impeachment? The views of all senators are now 180 degrees removed from their own standards of 20 years ago. Should there be witnesses at an impeachment hearing? The views of virtually all senators are now 180 degrees removed from their own standards of 20 years ago.  Should the decision to impeach be bipartisan?  The views of all senators are now 180 degrees removed from their own standards of 20 years ago.

And, of course, it doesn’t stop there.

Are you a deficit hawk?

Depends on who’s in office.

Are you in favor of free trade?

Depends on who’s in office.

It makes you want to scream.

Just before I screamed, I saw an objection to a motion to recover attorneys’ fees. Fees were recoverable; the sole question was the amount of fees.

And instead of screaming, I came to a realization.

I realized that Biglaw has this in common with the Senate: The only principle is whose ox is being gored.

The big, flabby firm that had been working the case got religion. The big firm had assigned unnecessary lawyers to the case, staffed stuff with lawyers that could have been done by paralegals, used senior associates where juniors would have sufficed, and blown through estimated fees. But then the firm saw the other side’s motion to recover attorneys’ fees.

“The other side wants how much in fees? That’s an outrage! Look at what they did! They staffed the case with way too many lawyers. Many tasks that should have been handled by paralegals were done by lawyers; that’s ridiculous.  They used senior associates where juniors would have sufficed. They estimated the experts’ fees wouldn’t exceed one million, and ultimately it cost two. Where’s the cost control? Write it up, guys; we have to object to this!”

The arguments of lawyers, of course, unlike those of senators, are supposed to bend to fit the situation.

But I still couldn’t stop shaking my head.


Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and is now deputy general counsel at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.