We Got It Filed. But Should That Be Enough?
By James
I rarely watch legal dramas because they rarely get Big Law right. Nobody is busting in with a last-minute smoking gun that blows the case wide open. Complex cases move like molasses.
Have you ever hyped up a really good movie or show to a friend, but now they're scrolling social media or multitasking? I mean a really good movie, but it's a slow burner. Now imagine something tedious like a document review on screen. How many documents can you issue-tag HOT DOC (Trump or Musk at Epstein Island), before the audience is like "we get it." and starts scrolling social media?
But then there's Wendy Rhodes from the TV series Billions. She gets my attention. I don't know if her ethics are exactly sound. I didn't finish the series because I had too many streaming options and something had to go. But from what I remember, Big Law could really use someone like her to help steer management. She knows when really smart people are doing dumb work and actually says something about it. She'll lift you up, but she also sees through the posturing.
When was the last time your litigation team sat down after a filing and asked, how did that go? Not in the immediate aftermath when everyone's already focused on what's next, but a couple of days later, after a little rest. Without reflection, you have no way to know whether your process is improving or deteriorating, whether you're saving time or wasting it on the same problems.
Litigation teams routinely move from one high-stakes filing to the next without pausing to examine what worked, what didn't, and what should change. When reflection does happen, it tends to focus narrowly on the final push: the filing itself and maybe the two or three days leading up to the deadline. Teams ask whether the brief was strong, whether the argument landed, whether they met the deadline. But they infrequently look back to the preceding weeks of process and task allocation that shaped whether those final days were controlled or chaotic. Time pressures, client engagement, and business development priorities easily crowd out operational review.
Why Process Accountability Doesn't Happen
This is not a diss, but lawyers aren't trained to be operational managers, but in a law firm, that's exactly what they become. There's hierarchy, sure, but managing people is not the same as managing a process. Without deliberate attention to workflow and resource allocation, defaulting to "It's a RUSH!" feels productive. Every deadline feels like a crisis. Relief becomes the measure of success instead of efficiency.
Attorneys like things their way, and they can't afford to be tentative when it's time for aggressive advocacy. But it's also too easy for teams to break off and create their own little process preferences without a fresh set of eyes to critique them. "So and so likes it this way." And there are some advantages to that approach, particularly when it comes to witness examinations during discovery and trial. But filings should adhere to a system rather than routine mad dashes.
Junior associates, armed with hierarchical authority but limited operational experience, will often mirror the rush approach without guidance or context to calibrate it. Routine task requests to support personnel get pushed as emergencies that were neither strategically necessary nor required by the partner or client.
Without fresh eyes, post-process review, pressure testing, or pushback, meeting the deadline becomes the only measure of success.
This isn't easy to fix, especially when the culture has been set for years. But it's fixable. The key is building process accountability into your workflow instead of treating it as an optional add-on when you have time.
Start with a Post-Filing Debrief
How did that last filing go? The real question isn't whether the brief was good or whether you met the deadline. It's: what happened in the weeks leading up to that deadline that made the final days controlled or chaotic.
Schedule a team debrief within a week of any major filing. Keep it short. I mean 30 to 45 minutes short. Focus on process, not performance reviews. This is what I'd ask:
When did we know this filing was coming, and when did substantive work actually start?
What tasks took longer than expected, and why?
Where did key case information end up, and could everyone who needed it actually access it?
Who was doing what, and was that the right allocation?
What would we do differently next time?
Look for the patterns. Is it always down to the very last minute? This is one of the biggest signs of a poor process, yet it's often overlooked because the relief from getting that filing out the door is overwhelming. If you're making significant additions to your brief at the last minute after client review, something broke weeks earlier. A solid debrief should surface that.
Build in Mid-Matter Check-Ins
Post-filing debriefs are useful, but they're also reactive. By the time you're reviewing a completed filing, you've already locked in whatever dysfunction got you there. The more powerful approach is periodic review during the life of a matter.
Set a weekly check-in for active cases. Thirty minutes. Same questions, different focus:
Are deadlines manageable, or are we already seeing warning signs?
Is work distributed appropriately, or are the same bottlenecks appearing?
Are associates getting the experience they need, or are they stuck doing the same tasks?
Are support personnel being used effectively?
You're asking whether the way you're working is sustainable and whether it's setting the team up for success or failure down the line.
Make Process Review Part of Your Team Culture
Unlike a traditional performance review, process reviews are not meant to assign blame. The purpose is to surface gaps you didn't know existed. Document management can break down, and people end up searching for the same file multiple times. Handoffs between team members create delays. My approach is to get into how the work actually gets done, including the tools and processes behind it. This shifts the focus away from individuals and onto the system.
Poll the team to gauge what's working and what isn't. Let people speak to what they are seeing and where things break down. Pass the mic around. Once you see the gaps, you can address them directly.
So when was the last time you stopped for a mid-matter review? If the answer is "we don't have time," that's usually a sign the same issues will keep coming back.
I should probably tie this back to Wendy Rhoades to close out, but I'm not the most creative writer, so for kicks (if you have access), just check out Billions Season 5, Episode 1. Wendy gives a master class in performance improvement debriefing, including an explicit opener declaring a safe space to speak freely.
Ok, sure, the debrief quickly devolves into a profane shouting match, with name-calling and phones slammed against desks, but law firm employees are rarely that confrontational, so I think we're safe.
James Jordan is a litigation eDiscovery and case management professional with deep experience supporting world class trial teams. He specializes in evidence identification and management, discovery defensibility, and litigation workflow optimization. When he's not thinking about document review or exhibit preparation, he's DJing soulful music, nerding out on stand-up comedy, and contemplating the restoration of his 1965 VW Beetle.