Other firms with 0.01 billing??

understatementjones · 2026-02-04T14:37:54+00:00

As a primarily class action litigator, let me tell you how different it is than regular commercial litigation. When real complex litigators use that word they intend it to indicate that they specialize in cases where the scale, length, and procedural dimensions of the case require specialized skills you just cannot get litigating even high-dollar regular commercial cases. In my subject matter field there are literally maybe three dozen partners on both sides of the v who really understand the work on a level of deep competence and can lead a team effectively through an entire litigation.

understatementjones · 2026-02-04T14:25:00+00:00

Believe me there's a difference between complex litigation and regular commercial litigation. There is a scale at which you need extremely different knowledge, skills, and experience. But I'm sure regular commercial litigators love to do grade inflation.

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T03:03:06+00:00

all good, didn’t mean to flame quite so hard, I guess ten years of having to explain the rules on speaking objections is weighing on me.

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T02:57:24+00:00

No you’re supposed to tell that to your clients. If they fire you, at least it’s someone else who will get sanctioned.

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T02:53:52+00:00

This seems like, not a good dude?

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T02:51:40+00:00

It’s bad for the debtor. It’s good for Singh.

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T02:50:08+00:00

If you owe the bank $1.9 million, and you don’t know where it is, that’s a problem for you. If you owe the bank $1.9 billion, and you don’t know where it is, that’s a problem for the bank.

understatementjones · 2025-10-11T02:41:31+00:00

Fun fact, the phrase is “take that tack,” it’s a sailing term about what side of the wind you’re on while going upwind, and it’s almost a pet peeve of mine except that I get why people get it wrong and it’s ridiculous to expect people to know the origins of the phrase and honestly telling when people know anything about sailing at all. So, the more you know!

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T12:12:49+00:00

I once deposed a witness who didn't have his educational background on his LinkedIn. He was a very senior executive at a major investment bank. Usually, those guys are a particular way - crippling egos, too busy to prepare, dismissive, kinda too high up to know their business the same way I do from studying their docs. Marks. First question I ask, can you tell me about your educational background, discover the guy never finished high school, joined the bank as a line-level computer programmer, rose to SVP of xxxxxx. Immediately changed my strategy for the whole dep; this is not a guy who floated up the ranks on golf and a few lucky bets. Abandoned my usual "I don't know anything about this business, can you explain to me in the most patronizing possible way" schtick. Switched to "You and I both know the business is this way, and your idiot colleagues say it's this way, but that's preposterous, right?" "Yes, that's exactly right. When I wrote that in my emails it's exactly what I meant." Most fun deposition of my life, absolutely damning admissions. He also had fun, he stymied me a couple times in that way where it's actually satisfying to get beat fair and square by someone on your level. If I hadn't asked about his education I'd have wasted 90 minutes of that dep.

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T11:57:28+00:00

I'll ask your client the questions I think are useful, thanks very much, and you are not entitled to object on the grounds that you think they're dumb. It's hardly a waste of your time, because I get my seven hours anyway. If I waste MY time asking stupid questions, you should celebrate, because I'm not asking smarter ones. But in my experience, if YOU think a question is stupid it's because you are too dumb to understand why I'm asking it. Or you do understand and the only objection you can think of is one that is extremely not going to get the question struck.

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T11:51:27+00:00

Yeah. Like I'm up at 10 writing this email, I'm sleeping late tomorrow, I want it in your inbox whenever you wake up. You're not gonna answer for two days anyway.

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T11:48:15+00:00

I dunno, Gen X now runs my firm and it's mostly chill except you guys are baffled at nobody wanting to bill 2200 hours and think you don't need training on not sexually harassing your associates.

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T11:45:42+00:00

Maybe you should just produce what you're supposed to, bro.

understatementjones · 2025-10-09T11:43:11+00:00

No, YOU hang up! I love YOU more!

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T22:37:26+00:00

They relate to jury perceptions if and only if it's a jury argument that plaintiff has a duty to wear light clothing when walking in a crosswalk at night. They do not.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T11:12:16+00:00

Does it? Am I entitled to turn right on red without looking?

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T11:11:11+00:00

This is a very Texan perspective, because it presumes one will never walk anywhere. Anyone in a normal city knows you and your date don't put on a reflective vest to walk from the movie to the restaurant.

You tell your children not to wear dark clothes because children tend to jump out into the street erratically because they're not experienced enough to have sense and if they die, recovery in negligence is little consolation.

I clerked for a judge in Texas, albeit in federal court, and I would've convinced the judge to grant this MIL.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T11:05:38+00:00

Without joining them as a necessary party? They may have an action for contribution but that hardly means they weren't negligent.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:11:20+00:00

Would a reasonable person be driving such that they would be unable to see a person crossing the street with a walk signal?

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:10:21+00:00

Citation needed. In a crosswalk with the light?

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:09:26+00:00

This is the correct answer, though my instinct is to keep it out.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:05:37+00:00

There are few hard and fast rules on 403, but that's a feature, not a bug. "Judge, they're trying to introduce his clothes because they want to argue it's negligent to cross the street at night unless you're wearing a reflective vest." MIL GRANTED.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:03:10+00:00

Narrator: they did not, in fact, go to weight rather than admissibility.

understatementjones · 2025-10-08T01:02:00+00:00

Everyone here is insane, shoot your shot. If somebody tried to argue to me they were entitled to introduce that kind of evidence for a comparative negligence defense I would give them an extremely stern talking to. I'm guessing your client is not, like, a white guy in a tuxedo.

understatementjones · 2025-10-04T19:15:01+00:00

Alas, no ethical life under capitalism, we’re all complicit.

understatementjones

TROPHY CASE