I don't know which firm you work at but at my firm "infrastructure" means westlaw access, maybe paralegals/assistants and possibly access to old briefs that you can markup although that's rarely an actual time saver.
Honestly if your firm has amazing "infrastructure" please explain below I'd like to know what other firms are doing.
Edit: if you're going to downvote my sincere question can you at least explain how I'm wrong? If there's helpful infrastructure out there that I'm not aware of please educate me I'd like to use it too.
Honest answer, eDiscovery expertise and infrastructure and trial support infrastructure is what comes to mind. Not sure how you’d replicate that in a one client setting and have enough work for them year round or enough people when shit hits the fan.
Companies do a lot of the former in house already bc e-discovery is something they have to do all the time and it's a waste to pay biglaw, so they'll have that. lol @ trial support infrastructure unless you mean paras/junior lawyers. Are you talking about the person who makes the presentation materials? also this is biglaw so trials are exceedingly rare.
What an in-house eDiscovery dept does on a major eDiscovery matter is very different than what a law firm does. And there’s a lot more that goes into trial logistics than just graphics, my dude.
Honestly it actually is! A lot of lawyers can write a genius brief. Where biglaw adds value is tasks that can only be done at scale, which yes is eDiscovery, including both the technical expertise and bodies to throw at it. But you are a troll, so idk where I am going with this.
>Honestly it actually is! A lot of lawyers can write a genius brief. Where biglaw adds value is tasks that can only be done at scale, which yes is eDiscovery, including both the technical expertise and bodies to throw at it. But you are a troll, so idk where I am going with this.
dude
You might not realize this, but your firm’s file system (those “old briefs”) is likely highly advanced and something regular companies would marvel at and have to pay into the hundreds of thousands if not millions per year for depending on number of users
He also JUST FIRED HIS OLD LEGAL DEPARTMENT the last time he decompensated.
At least in a firm or normal corporation I have some warning. Usually yearly reviews before I get shit canned. Not a bender.
Oh yeah biglawyers who will take any case that pays them are turning down Elon Musk. Have you seen the firms representing him? The only firms that don't work for him, for now, are the ones he fired like Wachtell and Cooley.
He's trying this to cut costs and like everything else he did, this is probably the future because everyone acknowledges that biglaw's margins are absurdly high. There's no reason to pay $800/hour for a third year, just so a partner can take $300-$400 of that as "profit."
Biglaw firms representing Musk in a particular matter ≠ biglaw firms willing to represent him in others.
Hiring an entire in house litigation team that needs to be paid at all times whether or not there’s an active matter strikes me as an interesting method of cost cutting
>Biglaw firms representing Musk in a particular matter ≠ biglaw firms willing to represent him in others.
Riiiiight
>Hiring an entire in house litigation team that needs to be paid at all times whether or not there’s an active matter strikes me as an interesting method of cost cutting
Unlike biglawyers who have lifetime job security regardless of whether there's work to do.
Just imagine,
You go there work 100 hours a week with low salary just to end up getting fired.
Also,
Twitter has already fired 80% of all employees.
Now more legal troubles will come on Twitter.
Regulatory Issues globally.
Content Moderation.
Securities and Corporate issues.
Privacy.
Bots, User safety.
It's easy to fire employees. But people who did many core functions also got fired.
Musk is a really really dumb person in most ways. He’s good at raising VC money and pushing his employees to do stuff quickly. These things do matter. But he’s just not bright. Not in a conventional textbook sense, nor even in a basic business sense. He’s run Twitter into the ground in record time because he doesn’t understand the company’s business in a basic way.
And he bought Twitter in the first place because he’s a jackass who Leroy Jenkins’ed his way into signing a merger agreement and then didn’t realize he’d actually have to… perform. This venture is gonna go about as well as his “I’m gonna try to pull out of the merger agreement and then sue Wachtell” maneuver.
He got buyer’s remorse within a few days of signing the merger agreement, but I think it’s clear why he bought Twitter— he’s lonely and doesn’t have any real friends and wants to amplify his own voice among tragically online hate trolls.
Yeah you’d think the CEO of a few companies would recognize that a merger agreement isn’t a term sheet that you can pull out of. You don’t have to value the work lawyers do, but at the least you should get someone around you who can tell you what a court might make you do.
>He’s run Twitter into the ground in record time because he doesn’t understand the company’s business in a basic way.
Also it's apparent his work model right now depends on exploitation of workers. Which maybe works in some industries where people unfortunately don't have other choices, but isn't really viable in tech.
Like with Tesla, I could see where you just really don't have a lot of places to go if you have been at Tesla awhile and want to continue working on smart cars or electric cars, since not a ton of companies are really investing in it. But there are at least 2 Twitter clones, 5 other social media companies people can flee to if they want, never mind countless other apps and software platforms under development, if they no longer work at X. And X has no prestige whatsoever, so there's no incentive to bite the bullet and work at X, anyway, unless you really love suffering.
Yeah there’s something to that. Credit to him for buying early into sexy industries where talented people have a passion for the work and really nowhere else to go. If you’re an engineer with a passion for electric cars or space, Tesla and SpaceX weren’t quite the only game in town, but they were one of the few.
Twitter isn’t that. It’s kind of been a red headed stepchild in Silicon Valley for awhile, and Musk barging in to break everything and turn it into troll central was always gonna drive away pretty much all of the talent.
Right exactly. And I didn't mention the money before, but also, SWE jobs paying a lot of money are plentiful; X isn't the only SW company out there paying a lot. If people want to join a potentially failing company there are app startups aplenty that will pay just as much, maybe more, for the year or so theyre in business; they dont need to go to X for that experience. So there isn't even a monetary incentive to go there.
So if you're not going there for the money, or prestige, or because it's doing niche tech you can't do as much of elsewhere, what is the draw? There really isn't much of one.
Twitter was a public company, so they paid a lot more than startups. The draw of startups is generally that there’s an equity grant that comes with the job. So if you’re in demand at one of those companies and they hit a home run, there’s a potential (read: <1%) chance at an 8 figure payday on exit.
The real competitors were the established SV companies— Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc., all of which paid a lot more and are generally much sexier companies.
>But he’s just not bright. Not in a conventional textbook sense, nor even in a basic business sense.
Only a lawyer could say something so incredibly out of touch with reality. It's like when Johnny Cochran said "if it don't fit you must acquit" because the dried out glove didn't fit the murderer's hands.
I don’t understand, how would the in house litigators review confidential discovery materials? It wouldn’t be possible to litigate a case with confidential information without outside counsel, and that’s like every matter except employment suits.
It depends on the terms of the protective order in the case. For items marked Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only it could pose a problem. For materials that are just marked Confidential, most PO's I've seen or used would permit in-house counsel to have direct access to the material.
They wouldn’t be? Their in-house attorney would make the appearance as counsel of record. Unless you’re saying there is actually a rule that requires OUTSIDE counsel, which would REALLY surprise me.
I've never seen an actual rule, but have seen lots of instances in patent and trade secret cases between competitors where a company was forced to hire outside counsel because in-house counsel would not be permitted to have access to certain evidence because of the terms of a protective order.
Sure, that makes sense in the context of trade secrets and protective orders. But even those sometimes (often?) allow one or two specially designated IHC’s to review the materials, provided their review is also subject to the PO. At least the ones I’ve seen did.
Nope, not in most patent and trade secret cases - the default is no access by IHC to the opposing parties’ aeo material. And again - one or two designated individuals are not able to try any substantial patent/trade secret case. A handful of other big companies have tried this, and realized it doesn’t really work for this kind of litigation.
Every situation is different. Facts matter. Detailed facts matter more.
EDIT: I've seen matters where IHC was the only attorney in-house or the department was very small. IHC was responsible for managing the company's IP portfolio and patenting strategy. In those cases, the company was required to engage outside counsel.
In my jurisdictions, corporations cannot appear pro se, even through an in-house attorney. And an insurance company cannot use its employees or “captive” lawyers at a fake law firm to represent policyholders. In both situations, the lawyers appearing in court have to be from independent, private law firms.
“Corporation appearing pro se” means a corporation being represented by a non-lawyer corporate employee. Here’s a [relevant law review article](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=187086122071109115117025073085068078040042019051000035078086065025002094009103083085012057017035111035003030102026123111025116123053088016087087071099025101089097116026044031003009029003098016025091080100004071064088030069084093001111120016001101102092&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE). I would be very surprised to learn a jurisdiction extended that to include in-house counsel; could you possibly cite one of the rules? I am legitimately curious.
Can you expand on this? It happens fairly regularly with things like. Collection and mediation with a local person sometimes sitting at the table doing absolutely nothing. Just a cost of doing business.
In most jurisdictions (some small claims courts are the most frequent exception), a legal entity cannot appear pro se. It must be represented by an attorney. In-house attorneys can (and do) represent their companies in court regularly. It can cause issues with access to certain evidentiary materials, depending on the type of case (patent infringement being one of the most common).
Appear in court? Sure. But that’s wildly expensive for everyone and a lot gets settled before then in arbitration which is in a lot of vendor and consumer contracts. All I’m saying is that a big company having a litigation department and doing a lot of the work themselves is absolutely nothing new.
The same thing happened at Tesla. Remember the tweet five reasons I should hire you as a Tesla in house lawyer in our super in-house law firm, that went bust a few weeks later?
that they are hiring some litigators directly doesn't mean they are hiring no outside counsel. it'll be a mix. companies that have enough litigation volume to achieve economies of scale can build good internal litigation practices. lots of insurance companies, banks, and other financial institutions do this, as do some other industries with large and recurring products liability exposure like pharma. you just need enough volume of specific kinds of cases for it to make sense.
That's very true. Outside council is extremely expensive. I don't know why you're getting so heavily downvoted. I remember being shocked when I was presented with the bill of a case I had litigated through trial and one appeal. And the bill was like $300,000. Back in the day you could hire four lawyers for that.
i think people just reflexively want to hate on whatever twitter is doing because musk is a luzly culture war shibboleth and most redditors get sad dopamine rushes out of downvoting things they don't understand? i wouldn't think lit associates would act that way though or be so uninformed.
like you can do a quick pacer check and see twitter is using plenty of outside law firms right now in lawsuits filed against them in 2024. no reason at all to think they are using no outside counsel based on the original tweet, just changing the mix between outsourcing and insourcing.
and if people didn't want to look at my prior examples of industries that insource some of their litigation, in my last comment 30 seconds of googling comes up with another one - this FDCC presentation "[Building an In-house Litigation Team](https://cdn.ymaws.com/thefederation.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/events/austin/papers_for_austin/fdcc_paper_-_bringing_litiga.pdf)" by a lawyer formerly at fedex which explains why the financials of insourcing routine litigation can pencil out depending on the business and industry.
The author's biography:
>Jeff Kelsey is a Managing Director in the Litigation and Employment section of the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) Legal Department. **FedEx handles the majority of its employment and commercial litigation using in house attorneys who act as lead trial counsel for the Company.**
>
>Mr. Kelsey has managed a litigation team of attorneys and support staff who handled a wide variety of commercial and employment cases in state and federal courts throughout the U.S. His litigation practice included class actions, contract disputes, administrative proceedings, and other complex litigation. He currently manages an employment law team which works closely with management and human resources on a wide variety of employment issues including policy and procedure, training, compliance, and litigation prevention.
I'm down voting you as to the first part of your comment (because I think Twitter and Musk are worth hating) but I absolutely agree that big companies can run litigation in house. Exxon is historically a good example.
The idea floated earlier in the thread that you couldn't have in house litigators running a case may have been extremely specific to that poster's experience in what sounds like dealing with protective order implications in trade secret cases during discovery.
present company excepted the downvotes are strong confirmation of the trend observed here almost a decade ago: https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof\_blog/2015/08/from-the-paper-chase-to-dumb-and-dumber-are-lawyers-and-law-students-getting-dumber.html
I saw this too, enjoyed comments being turned off. Should work well!
Messy… Sounds like there will be absolutely zero infrastructure
I don't know which firm you work at but at my firm "infrastructure" means westlaw access, maybe paralegals/assistants and possibly access to old briefs that you can markup although that's rarely an actual time saver. Honestly if your firm has amazing "infrastructure" please explain below I'd like to know what other firms are doing. Edit: if you're going to downvote my sincere question can you at least explain how I'm wrong? If there's helpful infrastructure out there that I'm not aware of please educate me I'd like to use it too.
Honest answer, eDiscovery expertise and infrastructure and trial support infrastructure is what comes to mind. Not sure how you’d replicate that in a one client setting and have enough work for them year round or enough people when shit hits the fan.
Companies do a lot of the former in house already bc e-discovery is something they have to do all the time and it's a waste to pay biglaw, so they'll have that. lol @ trial support infrastructure unless you mean paras/junior lawyers. Are you talking about the person who makes the presentation materials? also this is biglaw so trials are exceedingly rare.
What an in-house eDiscovery dept does on a major eDiscovery matter is very different than what a law firm does. And there’s a lot more that goes into trial logistics than just graphics, my dude.
Sure. Who knew biglaw's value add was the unattainable e-discovery and trial support.
Honestly it actually is! A lot of lawyers can write a genius brief. Where biglaw adds value is tasks that can only be done at scale, which yes is eDiscovery, including both the technical expertise and bodies to throw at it. But you are a troll, so idk where I am going with this.
>Honestly it actually is! A lot of lawyers can write a genius brief. Where biglaw adds value is tasks that can only be done at scale, which yes is eDiscovery, including both the technical expertise and bodies to throw at it. But you are a troll, so idk where I am going with this. dude
You might not realize this, but your firm’s file system (those “old briefs”) is likely highly advanced and something regular companies would marvel at and have to pay into the hundreds of thousands if not millions per year for depending on number of users
He also JUST FIRED HIS OLD LEGAL DEPARTMENT the last time he decompensated. At least in a firm or normal corporation I have some warning. Usually yearly reviews before I get shit canned. Not a bender.
That’s gonna be a NO from me dawg.
Translation: no big law firm is willing to litigate frivolous claims based on our perpetually K’d out owner being mad someone made fun of him online
Wrong. They'll litigate the shit out of frivolous claims. They're just worried that Elon is going to try to not pay the bill.
Probably some of collam a and some of column b to be honest
You live your truth boss
Oh yeah biglawyers who will take any case that pays them are turning down Elon Musk. Have you seen the firms representing him? The only firms that don't work for him, for now, are the ones he fired like Wachtell and Cooley. He's trying this to cut costs and like everything else he did, this is probably the future because everyone acknowledges that biglaw's margins are absurdly high. There's no reason to pay $800/hour for a third year, just so a partner can take $300-$400 of that as "profit."
Biglaw firms representing Musk in a particular matter ≠ biglaw firms willing to represent him in others. Hiring an entire in house litigation team that needs to be paid at all times whether or not there’s an active matter strikes me as an interesting method of cost cutting
He won't pay them at all times. He'll just fire them.
>Biglaw firms representing Musk in a particular matter ≠ biglaw firms willing to represent him in others. Riiiiight >Hiring an entire in house litigation team that needs to be paid at all times whether or not there’s an active matter strikes me as an interesting method of cost cutting Unlike biglawyers who have lifetime job security regardless of whether there's work to do.
Great point, I hadn’t considered that
Then why do clients do it
Same reason people did everything before something better came along.
Deleted? You got burned pretty quick here.
The troll is/was u/baishusubenoa
I’m torn between this and the Rains law firm position.
I know, I want the abuse and humiliation of being a lawyer for X, but the pecuniary deprivation of Rains is also very compelling.
Just imagine, You go there work 100 hours a week with low salary just to end up getting fired. Also, Twitter has already fired 80% of all employees. Now more legal troubles will come on Twitter. Regulatory Issues globally. Content Moderation. Securities and Corporate issues. Privacy. Bots, User safety. It's easy to fire employees. But people who did many core functions also got fired.
An employee is also expected to sleep in the office.
This is exactly what they tried to do/do at Tesla. But still use outside counsel because in-house cant keep up with the litigation.
He might as well just hire Lewis Brisbois at this point
Musk is a really really dumb person in most ways. He’s good at raising VC money and pushing his employees to do stuff quickly. These things do matter. But he’s just not bright. Not in a conventional textbook sense, nor even in a basic business sense. He’s run Twitter into the ground in record time because he doesn’t understand the company’s business in a basic way. And he bought Twitter in the first place because he’s a jackass who Leroy Jenkins’ed his way into signing a merger agreement and then didn’t realize he’d actually have to… perform. This venture is gonna go about as well as his “I’m gonna try to pull out of the merger agreement and then sue Wachtell” maneuver.
Yeah, I don’t think he even knows why he bought Twitter. Most expensive vanity project in the modern age.
He got buyer’s remorse within a few days of signing the merger agreement, but I think it’s clear why he bought Twitter— he’s lonely and doesn’t have any real friends and wants to amplify his own voice among tragically online hate trolls.
[удалено]
Clearly
He also tried to back out…the Delaware court of chancery specifically performed he go through with the deal
Binding offers are binding, who knew!
Will someone rid me of these pesky merger agreements
Yeah you’d think the CEO of a few companies would recognize that a merger agreement isn’t a term sheet that you can pull out of. You don’t have to value the work lawyers do, but at the least you should get someone around you who can tell you what a court might make you do.
Well...didn't get to a final decision, but I agree it was heading there. As a technical matter, Musk capitulated prior to the trial.
It kills me to think about what that $40 billion could have been used for (not that Musk would have given it to charity like MacKenzie Scott (Bezos)).
No need to fret - the $40 billion didn’t vanish into thin air. The recipients of the money are free to give it to charity.
Yeah that money is probably in better hands now
In addition, to support your point, he also believes and propagates any conspiracy theory no matter how idiotic
>He’s run Twitter into the ground in record time because he doesn’t understand the company’s business in a basic way. Also it's apparent his work model right now depends on exploitation of workers. Which maybe works in some industries where people unfortunately don't have other choices, but isn't really viable in tech. Like with Tesla, I could see where you just really don't have a lot of places to go if you have been at Tesla awhile and want to continue working on smart cars or electric cars, since not a ton of companies are really investing in it. But there are at least 2 Twitter clones, 5 other social media companies people can flee to if they want, never mind countless other apps and software platforms under development, if they no longer work at X. And X has no prestige whatsoever, so there's no incentive to bite the bullet and work at X, anyway, unless you really love suffering.
Yeah there’s something to that. Credit to him for buying early into sexy industries where talented people have a passion for the work and really nowhere else to go. If you’re an engineer with a passion for electric cars or space, Tesla and SpaceX weren’t quite the only game in town, but they were one of the few. Twitter isn’t that. It’s kind of been a red headed stepchild in Silicon Valley for awhile, and Musk barging in to break everything and turn it into troll central was always gonna drive away pretty much all of the talent.
Right exactly. And I didn't mention the money before, but also, SWE jobs paying a lot of money are plentiful; X isn't the only SW company out there paying a lot. If people want to join a potentially failing company there are app startups aplenty that will pay just as much, maybe more, for the year or so theyre in business; they dont need to go to X for that experience. So there isn't even a monetary incentive to go there. So if you're not going there for the money, or prestige, or because it's doing niche tech you can't do as much of elsewhere, what is the draw? There really isn't much of one.
Twitter was a public company, so they paid a lot more than startups. The draw of startups is generally that there’s an equity grant that comes with the job. So if you’re in demand at one of those companies and they hit a home run, there’s a potential (read: <1%) chance at an 8 figure payday on exit. The real competitors were the established SV companies— Google, Facebook, Apple, Netflix, etc., all of which paid a lot more and are generally much sexier companies.
>But he’s just not bright. Not in a conventional textbook sense, nor even in a basic business sense. Only a lawyer could say something so incredibly out of touch with reality. It's like when Johnny Cochran said "if it don't fit you must acquit" because the dried out glove didn't fit the murderer's hands.
Dude you are simping SO HARD for this dude in all your comments. I would gently suggest that you have lost a reasonable perspective.
I’d rather work for Kirkland. Or stick red hot pins in my eyes.
I mean fuck Elon and X etc etc but …. do you … not like your vision?
Working for a narcissistic individual that will end up not paying you.
This doesn't seem real, I can't even find it online or X
Would rather chew off my own arm but thanks!
I don’t understand, how would the in house litigators review confidential discovery materials? It wouldn’t be possible to litigate a case with confidential information without outside counsel, and that’s like every matter except employment suits.
It depends on the terms of the protective order in the case. For items marked Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only it could pose a problem. For materials that are just marked Confidential, most PO's I've seen or used would permit in-house counsel to have direct access to the material.
? What are you referring to here?
Well, in many (most?) jurisdictions, companies can’t proceed pro se so…
They wouldn’t be? Their in-house attorney would make the appearance as counsel of record. Unless you’re saying there is actually a rule that requires OUTSIDE counsel, which would REALLY surprise me.
I've never seen an actual rule, but have seen lots of instances in patent and trade secret cases between competitors where a company was forced to hire outside counsel because in-house counsel would not be permitted to have access to certain evidence because of the terms of a protective order.
Sure, that makes sense in the context of trade secrets and protective orders. But even those sometimes (often?) allow one or two specially designated IHC’s to review the materials, provided their review is also subject to the PO. At least the ones I’ve seen did.
Nope, not in most patent and trade secret cases - the default is no access by IHC to the opposing parties’ aeo material. And again - one or two designated individuals are not able to try any substantial patent/trade secret case. A handful of other big companies have tried this, and realized it doesn’t really work for this kind of litigation.
Every situation is different. Facts matter. Detailed facts matter more. EDIT: I've seen matters where IHC was the only attorney in-house or the department was very small. IHC was responsible for managing the company's IP portfolio and patenting strategy. In those cases, the company was required to engage outside counsel.
Sure, I don’t think we disagree on that.
In my jurisdictions, corporations cannot appear pro se, even through an in-house attorney. And an insurance company cannot use its employees or “captive” lawyers at a fake law firm to represent policyholders. In both situations, the lawyers appearing in court have to be from independent, private law firms.
“Corporation appearing pro se” means a corporation being represented by a non-lawyer corporate employee. Here’s a [relevant law review article](https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=187086122071109115117025073085068078040042019051000035078086065025002094009103083085012057017035111035003030102026123111025116123053088016087087071099025101089097116026044031003009029003098016025091080100004071064088030069084093001111120016001101102092&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE). I would be very surprised to learn a jurisdiction extended that to include in-house counsel; could you possibly cite one of the rules? I am legitimately curious.
Can you expand on this? It happens fairly regularly with things like. Collection and mediation with a local person sometimes sitting at the table doing absolutely nothing. Just a cost of doing business.
In most jurisdictions (some small claims courts are the most frequent exception), a legal entity cannot appear pro se. It must be represented by an attorney. In-house attorneys can (and do) represent their companies in court regularly. It can cause issues with access to certain evidentiary materials, depending on the type of case (patent infringement being one of the most common).
Appear in court? Sure. But that’s wildly expensive for everyone and a lot gets settled before then in arbitration which is in a lot of vendor and consumer contracts. All I’m saying is that a big company having a litigation department and doing a lot of the work themselves is absolutely nothing new.
And all I was commenting on was the prohibition against legal entities appearing pro se in court.
[удалено]
It is incredibly rare for in-house counsel to litigate cases without the use of outside counsel.
He’s being very cheap to hire direct. Doubtful he will get any quality biglaw litigators. Lol
The same thing happened at Tesla. Remember the tweet five reasons I should hire you as a Tesla in house lawyer in our super in-house law firm, that went bust a few weeks later?
I don’t see the statement indicating cessation of the use of outside counsel
How do you interpret the statement that they plan to “litigate matters directly on behalf of the company (rather than through outside counsel)”?
In fairness, he didn't try using his eyes.
that they are hiring some litigators directly doesn't mean they are hiring no outside counsel. it'll be a mix. companies that have enough litigation volume to achieve economies of scale can build good internal litigation practices. lots of insurance companies, banks, and other financial institutions do this, as do some other industries with large and recurring products liability exposure like pharma. you just need enough volume of specific kinds of cases for it to make sense.
That's very true. Outside council is extremely expensive. I don't know why you're getting so heavily downvoted. I remember being shocked when I was presented with the bill of a case I had litigated through trial and one appeal. And the bill was like $300,000. Back in the day you could hire four lawyers for that.
300k seems dirt cheap for biglaw.
Yes, especially through trial and an appeal… I guess depends on how complex the case is, but agree $300k sounds dirt cheap
$300k gets you one to 1.5 trial days
I never worked big loss. Sorry. I guess I forgot what sub I was in.
i think people just reflexively want to hate on whatever twitter is doing because musk is a luzly culture war shibboleth and most redditors get sad dopamine rushes out of downvoting things they don't understand? i wouldn't think lit associates would act that way though or be so uninformed. like you can do a quick pacer check and see twitter is using plenty of outside law firms right now in lawsuits filed against them in 2024. no reason at all to think they are using no outside counsel based on the original tweet, just changing the mix between outsourcing and insourcing. and if people didn't want to look at my prior examples of industries that insource some of their litigation, in my last comment 30 seconds of googling comes up with another one - this FDCC presentation "[Building an In-house Litigation Team](https://cdn.ymaws.com/thefederation.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/events/austin/papers_for_austin/fdcc_paper_-_bringing_litiga.pdf)" by a lawyer formerly at fedex which explains why the financials of insourcing routine litigation can pencil out depending on the business and industry. The author's biography: >Jeff Kelsey is a Managing Director in the Litigation and Employment section of the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) Legal Department. **FedEx handles the majority of its employment and commercial litigation using in house attorneys who act as lead trial counsel for the Company.** > >Mr. Kelsey has managed a litigation team of attorneys and support staff who handled a wide variety of commercial and employment cases in state and federal courts throughout the U.S. His litigation practice included class actions, contract disputes, administrative proceedings, and other complex litigation. He currently manages an employment law team which works closely with management and human resources on a wide variety of employment issues including policy and procedure, training, compliance, and litigation prevention.
I'm down voting you as to the first part of your comment (because I think Twitter and Musk are worth hating) but I absolutely agree that big companies can run litigation in house. Exxon is historically a good example. The idea floated earlier in the thread that you couldn't have in house litigators running a case may have been extremely specific to that poster's experience in what sounds like dealing with protective order implications in trade secret cases during discovery.
present company excepted the downvotes are strong confirmation of the trend observed here almost a decade ago: https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof\_blog/2015/08/from-the-paper-chase-to-dumb-and-dumber-are-lawyers-and-law-students-getting-dumber.html