Sometimes,
it
is
absolutely
necessary
for
clients
to
use
multiple
law
firms
for
a
single
matter. For
instance,
if
a
client
wants
their
usual
counsel
to
appear
in
a
lawsuit
in
a
jurisdiction
where
their
typical
counsel
is
not
licensed
to
practice,
they
may
also
need
to
engage
local
counsel. In
addition,
sometimes
a
matter
might
require
litigation
and
ancillary
proceedings
that
cannot
be
handled
by
a
single
firm. However,
when
clients
use
multiple
law
firms
for
the
same
matter,
certain
inefficiencies
may
arise
that
can
be
avoided
if
the
client
uses
just
one
law
firm
to
handle
the
legal
work.
When
I
was
a
Biglaw
associate,
I
worked
on
a
large
litigation
matter
on
behalf
of
one
of
our
clients. I
was
perplexed
to
discover
that
the
client
had
hired
both
our
firm
and
another
large
law
firm
to
represent
them
in
this
matter. I
still
am
not
sure
why
the
client
decided
to
go
with
two
law
firms
to
handle
this
lawsuit.
Perhaps
the
client
believed
the
lawsuit
was
too
large
for
just
one
law
firm?
This
did
not
seem
reasonable
since
both
firms
had
hundreds
of
attorneys
each. I
suspect
that
some
kind
of
internal
politics
compelled
the
hiring
of
two
law
firms
—
perhaps
to
please
different
factions
of
the
client’s
legal
department.
In
any
case,
working
on
a
matter
with
a
different
law
firm
created
administrative
challenges. Firstly,
the
other
law
firm
and
our
law
firm
needed
to
spend
significant
time
deciding
who
would
handle
various
tasks
related
to
the
lawsuit
and
conveying
information
that
was
discovered
by
one
law
firm
that
might
not
have
been
learned
by
the
other. In
addition,
since
the
client
wanted
both
firms
to
sign
off
on
significant
parts
of
the
representation,
we
would
review
the
other
firm’s
work,
and
they
would
review
our
work,
which
likely
added
to
the
fees
billed. This
might
have
enhanced
the
work
product,
but
it
is
unclear
if
this
was
worth
the
increased
legal
fees.
Other
inefficiencies
were
created
since
our
firm
tried
at
every
step
of
the
process
to
show
that
we
were
doing
a
better
job
than
the
other
firm
or
that
the
other
firm
had
made
mistakes
in
the
tasks
it
was
assigned
to
handle. Partners
at
our
firm
likely
wanted
to
put
themselves
in
a
better
position
to
receive
additional
work
from
this
client,
so
they
tried
to
undermine
the
other
shop
at
every
turn. I
remember
I
once
drafted
a
memo
specifically
outlining
mistakes
that
the
other
firm
had
made
on
a
particular
project
so
that
the
partner
could
use
this
as
ammunition
when
communicating
about
the
deficiencies
of
the
other
shop. I
cannot
be
entirely
sure,
but
I
have
to
believe
that
attorneys
at
the
other
firm
were
doing
everything
they
could
to
undermine
our
firm
so
that
they
too
could
better
position
themselves
to
receive
additional
work
from
the
client.
In
many
instances,
two
heads
are
better
than
one,
and
clients
tend
to
get
better
work
product
if
more
attorneys
are
reviewing
papers
and
conducting
research
on
behalf
of
the
client.
However,
clients
should
not
create
inefficiencies
in
a
representation
by
providing
incentives
that
give
lawyers
a
reason
to
expend
time
and
resources
on
anything
else
than
best
serving
a
client.
Accordingly,
it
rarely
makes
sense
to
hire
two
law
firms
to
handle
the
same
matter
on
behalf
of
a
client. In
most
situations,
a
client
will
be
best
served
by
hiring
one
law
firm
to
handle
an
entire
legal
matter
so
that
clients
do
not
need
to
deal
with
the
administrative
issues
associated
with
multiple
law
firms
handling
one
matter.
Jordan
Rothman
is
a
partner
of The
Rothman
Law
Firm,
a
full-service
New
York
and
New
Jersey
law
firm.
He
is
also
the
founder
of Student
Debt
Diaries,
a
website
discussing
how
he
paid
off
his
student
loans.
You
can
reach
Jordan
through
email
at jordan@rothman.law.