My firm is adverse to the same brokerage firm in two arbitrations. They are not particularly big cases, but after more than 10 years of litigating against the same firm, I realized that it appears to be a mindset.
One thing the firm does that is particularly annoying is overuse overnight delivery. This is particularly ironic since I am sure that the firm’s billing policy sent to its outside counsel says that overnight delivery should only be used when necessary. Nearly every corporate client I have promulgates a billing policy that specifically discusses expenses. And they nearly all say that routine correspondence should not be sent by overnight delivery. But it appears that when this firm’s own lawyers, or their staff, make the mailing decisions, they are not required to abide by that policy.
We have received overnight packages from this firm enclosing some of the most unimportant documents in a case. We have received overnight packages (marked for early a.m. delivery by the way) of items that could easily have been sent by email, US mail or fax. Instead, the company wastes its money in a demonstration of self-importance that I have not seen from other litigants.
There are other things going on, too, but I don’t want to spend the time examining a lengthy confidentiality agreement to determine if discussing the firm’s lack of familiarity with relatively easy technologies violates the agreement.
Arbitration was originally designed to be fast, efficient and cost-effective. Some firms have turned it into the same scorched-earth battle that arbitration was designed to avoid. Those same firms, if they would examine their internal processes, would see that efficiencies could be gained through intelligent expenditures and informed use of new technologies. But it’s been at least ten years, and this one firm clearly has not demonstrated an ability to learn much.
That’s the snail mail view of one lawyer from Jupiter, Palm Beach County, Florida. I’m Marc Dobin.