Why we say no to most matters
We turn down the majority of the matters we hear about. Not out of arrogance — out of a calculation about what senior-led work actually requires.
The premise — Most of the law firms we admire turn down work. Not because they cannot do it, but because they have made a calculation about what doing it well requires. Last year we received 142 substantive inquiries and accepted 11. That ratio — roughly one in thirteen — is not a recruiting line. It is the operating constraint that lets the firm function.
The math — A partner at our firm runs three or four active matters at a time. Not because of capacity in hours, but because of capacity in attention. Reading every document. Taking every deposition. Standing at the lectern. On a contested antitrust certification, the production can run 1.2 million documents and the deposition calendar can hold 40 fact witnesses. There is no version of that work in which a partner sees everything that matters unless the partner is on a small number of files. That work cannot be delegated downstream without becoming a different kind of work — and that different kind of work is what most general counsel are paying us to avoid.
The cost of yes — Every engagement we accept is a future engagement we cannot. We say no to matters we could win because we have already said yes to matters we are winning. The implicit promise of every active client is that their partner is fully on the file — every memo, every Daubert, every cross. We protect that promise by counting, every quarter, against a hard ceiling per partner.
The cost of no — Less work for us. We are aware of this. We have walked away from eight-figure engagements when the calendar would not allow them at the standard the matter required. We would rather decline a matter than dilute another one. The clients who hire us are paying a premium for selectivity — and selectivity is only real if it costs the firm something. If we said yes to everything, the premium would be a fiction.
The first call — Within seven days of every inquiry, we tell the prospective client whether we are the right firm. If we are not, we say so, and we usually have a recommendation — often a peer firm whose strengths match the matter better than ours do. The wrong answer for both of us is "maybe." Maybe is what burns a quarter of preparation on both sides and ends in a referral we should have made on day one.
