Are Judges Better than the Selection Committee?

The NCAA tournament field is set and this year the selection committee is being criticized for picking historically good programs (UCLA and Texas) over up-and-comers that probably have better teams this season (Temple and Colorado State). The possible reasons range from nefarious (bigger schools equal bigger money for the NCAA) to the not-that-nefarious (committee members let their historical view of the programs overshadow what the teams did during this particular season). Whatever the reason, it seems to difficult to argue that the selection committee valued prestige this year.

A similar issue can arise in the law when a client is choosing between a large, prestigious firm like the one I used to work for and a small, newer firm like the one I work for now. The small firm comes with some benefits–often a lower price and better client service–but clients wonder if they are losing the benefits that prestige brings, in the eyes of both the judiciary and opposing counsel.

My answer (full disclosure: I might be biased) is that the trade-off in prestige does not have much of an effect. As far as judges are concerned, in my experience prestige means close to nothing. I cannot point to a single decision I’ve seen where the relative prestige of the firms made a difference. I’ve seen decisions that I thought were based on factors that perhaps they should not have been, but I don’t think the prestige of the firms has been one of those factors.

The opposing counsel issue is a little trickier, but again I ultimately don’t think it matters. When a big firm attorney sees a small firm or solo practitioner on the other side, there can be a knee-jerk reaction that the other side might not be getting high-level representation. But in my experience, this knee-jerk reaction goes away rather quickly once the big firm lawyer learns that the small fry knows what he’s doing–either because the big firm lawyer hears about the small firm’s reputation from her network or sees throughout the case that the small firm knows what it’s doing.

Candidly, I do think that generally (subject to lots and lots of exceptions) big firms tend to have more talented attorneys than small firms. But if a client can get a small firm attorney who has the requisite knowledge and experience, the client has the best of both worlds and the prestige that it might be giving up doesn’t make a difference–as long as you aren’t trying to make the NCAA tournament.