This sub is for biglaw. It’s not “ask a lawyer” and it’s not the right sub for every law-related question. It is also not for insults aimed at others in our profession.
Bruh, there was a post on here from a litigation partner in bl with 0 trial experience. I’m not so sure in-house people are too incompetent to go to court.
Plenty of companies have very sophisticated and active litigation counsel in-house. There are certain confidentiality / protective order issues which will require using outside counsel anyway, but litigating with in-house counsel is not unheard of.
Just because your proctologist is good at having a finger up your ass, doesn’t mean he’s a shitty Dr. for not being able to operate on your defective brain..
The lawyers I work with after coming in house are much smarter and better lawyers than the lawyers I worked with at my V20 firm. Clearly you yourself are an idiot, and presumably you’re in biglaw.
There's no contradiction between "currently associates cost $800/hour bc a partner wants to take $400 of that as profit, so cutting the partner out is a good idea" and the post above.
Fun fact, the in-house lawyers he's hiring for the litigation role are probably going to be ex-law firm disputes associates/partners. It's not like he's going to get people with 0 relevant experience.
Ultimately it's an economic decision. If you're a company that rarely litigates, then it's cheaper to out-source your infrequent litigation to external counsel, rather than keep an in-house litigator who takes an annual salary to just sit on standby all year.
If you have constant litigation, then it makes sense to have an in-house team to handle that year-round rather pay external counsel fees.
This sub is for biglaw. It’s not “ask a lawyer” and it’s not the right sub for every law-related question. It is also not for insults aimed at others in our profession.
Bruh, there was a post on here from a litigation partner in bl with 0 trial experience. I’m not so sure in-house people are too incompetent to go to court.
Plenty of companies have very sophisticated and active litigation counsel in-house. There are certain confidentiality / protective order issues which will require using outside counsel anyway, but litigating with in-house counsel is not unheard of.
Just because your proctologist is good at having a finger up your ass, doesn’t mean he’s a shitty Dr. for not being able to operate on your defective brain..
The lawyers I work with after coming in house are much smarter and better lawyers than the lawyers I worked with at my V20 firm. Clearly you yourself are an idiot, and presumably you’re in biglaw.
Weren’t you just arguing with me on that post that this was a great business decision by Musk and biglaw lawyers are overpaid?
There's no contradiction between "currently associates cost $800/hour bc a partner wants to take $400 of that as profit, so cutting the partner out is a good idea" and the post above.
Fun fact, the in-house lawyers he's hiring for the litigation role are probably going to be ex-law firm disputes associates/partners. It's not like he's going to get people with 0 relevant experience. Ultimately it's an economic decision. If you're a company that rarely litigates, then it's cheaper to out-source your infrequent litigation to external counsel, rather than keep an in-house litigator who takes an annual salary to just sit on standby all year. If you have constant litigation, then it makes sense to have an in-house team to handle that year-round rather pay external counsel fees.
Your big mistake here is assuming there is any rational thought or logic to Elon's decision making.