LAWMALL
.COM

Local Counsel Explained

Email This Section to Interested Businesses, Associates, Friends or Relatives

Robinson-Patman Act litigation is very complicated. The federal courts from 1936 to the present have engrafted a lot of antitrust doctrine onto the relatively simple federal statute. See Wish List of Statutory Reforms Needed to Make the Robinson-Patman Act Workable. The lawyer primarily responsible for the antitrust lawsuit should be highly experienced with this type of litigation, to be able to use this experience for the benefit of the client. If an inexperienced lawyer commences an RPA case alone, such lawyer will have a lot of learning to acquire and the failure to have the learning when needed could wind up hurting the client's case. Let me add, however, that an attorney wanting to do this type of case has to start out with case # 1 and should do so, realizing that there is a lot to learn. I am always available (almost always without any fee) to give my insight to anyone who calls.

The best way to handle a 2(d)/2(e) case, in my professional opinion, is to have two lawyers. One is your own local attorney (who has to be qualified to practice in the federal courts), and such lawyer should be a good litigating attorney (preferably commercial or civil rights litigation), but he/she need not know anything about the Robinson-Patman Act. If he/she does know the RPA, you wouldn't need a second attorney. But this type of case is rare, and it is very unlikely that any lawyers you might meet would have RPA experience.

The second lawyer can be from anywhere in the United States and he/she should have experience litigating claims under the Robinson-Patman Act or under the Sherman Antitrust Act. I have that type of experience and am willing to work on this type of case, to be brought in the nearest federal court in the plaintiff's home state. Both the local lawyer (admitted to practice law in your state and in the federal courts in your state) together with me, a New York licensed lawyer, would be the legal team.

I expect the plaintiff to pay the legal fees of the local counsel, and on my part I try to do whatever I can to reduce these costs. Whatever costs there are would be deducted from my share of the recovery after any resolution of the case. The local counsel is needed to sponsor my request to represent you "pro hac vice" (for this case alone), and to assist in preparing requests for adjournment of time, and to comply with local court rules. The time to be spent by local counsel is not much and it is better to compensate the local counsel by the hour rather than to give the lawyer a percentage of the recovery. It makes it much easier to find a lawyer if you pay the lawyer by the hour, and it prevents overcompensation which would result if you gave the local counsel a percentage. The local counsel would want too much and make your case far less difficult to maintain if my share is reduced. These cases are tough enough without giving away the percentage I need to be able to maintain this type of case.