A highly visible case in point is the federal government's ongoing investigation of Microsoft Corp. on allegations of illegal product tying and unfair trade practices relating to sales of MS-DOS and other Microsoft products. Yet real action by Justice is at least another year away, probably two, which is plenty of time for intense lobbying to kill the case. When President Reagan took office, the Antitrust Division lost some of its best trial lawyers. Microsoft is an example of how factors like the legal team and the philosophy of the trial judge can make the real threat of a case far less immediate or, ultimately, significant than the public imagines. For example, with apologies to my friends in major law firms, just because a business uses one firm for its routine legal work does not mean that it should automatically use the same firm for litigation, although a firm's familiarity with the business is a factor to consider.
Litigation is a very different specialty, handled by different lawyers.
Find a lean firm that fits the case and can handle opposing counsel. Choosing a firm that fits is also crucial to saving money because, while there is surprisingly little correlation between the size of a firm and its litigation expertise, there is a virtually perfect correlation between the size of a firm and the size of its bill. Inexperienced clients reeling from a fresh suit are relieved just to find a lawyer, however, and rarely feel comfortable haggling. Business people take less tractable problems in stride every day, including technological breakthroughs, competition and the economy, none of which has a written set of rules nor appellate courts in which to challenge their results. Clients who abdicate to their litigators will see their bill swell as the case meanders off track.