Why? Because the nature of the process actually demands it. No matter the subject of the litigation, every case gears itself to the same key moments -- arguments before the court on motions, depositions and in some instances even a trial. These are the case-critical moments where cases are won or lost.

Yet, at each one of these case-critical moments, in the normal course, no matter how many lawyers may or may not be in the background, each side will have only one lawyer acting and speaking on its behalf. That's the focal point, the fulcrum will always be one lawyer.

In other words, these case-critical moments are great levelers. One side may have two lawyers working on the case and the other side may have one hundred. But when it comes to these critical moments, unlike military combat (where there may be strength in numbers), it makes no difference. The lawyer who is best prepared will do the best job for his or her client. So the question becomes, how best to prepare the lawyer representing you in these case-critical moments? 

LESS IS MORE

Think Delta Force, not army regiment. The myth behind the current paradigm, at least the one espoused by many large firms, is that somehow the litigation team with the most lawyers will have the best prepared point lawyer -- that more lawyers means that more stones can be unturned and their lead lawyer will be the best prepared.

As a result, most large law firm litigation teams, particularly in high-stakes matters, are pyramided like large audit firms. The lead partner is at the top, and underneath are various layers of subordinates -- with the layers increasing in size as the litigation increases in size. The lead partner directs the forces like a general but -- under guise of saving litigation costs -- rarely roles up his or her sleeves and does any digging or living in the trenches.

It is the rare lead partner who participates in initial research or initial drafting of a brief, let alone participates in such things as the initial document review process. Rather, these tasks are performed by subordinates and the results are funneled up to the lead partner.

Yet who would you prefer arguing a motion on your behalf in court -- a lead partner who has actively been involved in the research and drafting of the brief from the start, or a lead partner who merely swoops in at the end to edit the product generated by subordinates? Who would you prefer cross-examining your opposing side's witnesses -- a lead partner who has become thoroughly familiar with the documents because he or she has swam in them, or one who has been fed the key documents found by less experienced subordinates? 

Stewart M. Weltman, a member of The Corporate Counselor's Board of Editors, is the principal in the Chicago-based Weltman Law Firm. He can be reached 312-606-8756 or sweltman@weltmanlawfirm.com.