[Klein Legal, Flatiron — June 5, 2013, 9:17 AM]
The Library had run the forward scan Thursday morning without being asked.
This happened occasionally when the Divergence Diagnostic was active and a threshold condition was met — the Library's version of an unsolicited briefing, the passive monitoring function noticing something worth surfacing. Don had been in the office since seven-thirty. The scan result was waiting on the metaphorical desk of his awareness when he made the coffee.
Forward scan Q2-Q3 2013: two flagged items.
Flag 1: #mike-departure-window. Estimated closure: 0-6 weeks. LP income reduction active upon closure. Debt-system flag pre-active. Action: none (locked).
Flag 2: #darby-political-weather. Nesbitt back-channel: recent communication suggests Pearson Darby internal governance recalibration has accelerated. Estimated impact on co-counsel relationships: moderate. Boutique alliance program: may be repurposed or dissolved depending on Pearson name change timeline.
Don acknowledged both flags and did not run strategy on either. The Mike situation was locked. The Darby shift was still in Nesbitt's oblique language, not yet a concrete event.
He set up the quarterly review on the conference table — Zane co-counsel schedule for Q3, the Trillium CFIUS standing counsel calendar, Harold's two active Zane referrals, the Soto CFIUS matter update. Standard review. The kind of morning the firm had learned to run cleanly.
The mail arrived at 9:17.
Standard stack. Two invoices, one bar association communication, one envelope from Pearson Darby LLP.
The Pearson Darby envelope had the return address of their outside counsel dispute resolution office, which was a specific sub-office Don had not previously seen correspondence from.
He opened it.
Dear Mr. Klein — Pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Outside Counsel Co-Participation Agreement dated March 15, 2012, Pearson Darby LLP hereby initiates binding arbitration proceedings with respect to the disputed billing adjustment in the Greystone v. Atlantic co-counsel matter. Specifically, Pearson Darby disputes the procedural basis of the May 2012 counter-position and requests that the question of appropriate billing classification be resolved by a neutral arbitrator under the agreement's dispute resolution mechanism.
Don read the letter twice.
Section 7(c). He pulled the co-counsel agreement from the filing system — Nora's filing system, organized by matter date with a second index by contractual clause type, which was better than the system it had replaced and which Nora had built in three weeks without being asked. Section 7(c) was eight lines of standard arbitration-clause language that Don had read in March 2012 when drafting the procedural counter and had assessed as unlikely to be triggered on a billing dispute of this size.
He had been right about the assessment at the time. The dispute had been small. PD had a 15% billing floor to their name. The procedural defect counter had been clean.
Twelve months later, PD had decided the precedent was worth fighting.
The Library: Section 7(c) arbitration trigger: valid. Klein Legal's May 2012 procedural counter: defensible but subject to arbitration review under Section 7(c) broad trigger language. Assessment: PD has a colorable claim. Expected outcome: negotiated settlement prior to arbitration seat. Recommended action: file response, preserve record, seek negotiated resolution.
He set the letter on the desk. He walked to Harold's office.
Harold was at his desk with the Zane referral brief, pen at the four-o'clock position. He looked up when Don appeared with the letter in his hand. He read it in eleven seconds.
He picked up his pen. He went to the whiteboard. In the lower-right corner, in his clean consistent handwriting, he drew a box and wrote: Darby arbitration — Section 7(c). He drew a timeline bracket.
"Do we fight it or negotiate," he said.
"Negotiate, with a position that's worth fighting if they don't take it."
Harold made a note. "Nora's going to want to run the billing records."
"She's already running them," I said.
Harold looked at me. He looked toward the conference room, where Nora's desk was visible through the glass wall, where she had three columns of billing records organized in a row and was annotating the second column.
"She started this morning," he said.
"She started last Thursday." I had noticed the billing records in her workspace three days ago and had not asked about them. She had been running a forensic audit of the Greystone billing history without being told to, because she had read the Darby correspondence pattern in the case file and had recognized that the billing dispute had loose ends.
"How much does she have," Harold said.
"Enough to talk to Darby's counsel from a position of information rather than reaction."
He considered this. He made another note. He looked at the whiteboard — not just at the new box in the lower-right corner but at the full whiteboard, which had acquired content over the last six months: Harold's case maps in Harold's handwriting, Nora's financial analysis attached with clips, the Zane referral calendar in Sarah's color-coding system, the Trillium CFIUS ownership chain diagram that was Nora's work and that had been up for three weeks.
The whiteboard had been Don's in January 2012. It had been Harold's by June. It was theirs now.
"All right," Harold said. "I'll draft a response letter. We file it within fourteen days."
He turned back to his desk.
Don walked back through the bullpen to his office.
The quarterly review was on the conference table. The Darby letter was on Don's desk. The Library had logged two flags this morning. The Zane alliance was active and holding. The Trillium engagement was running. The specialty was real and had its first standing client. Nora was annotating billing records she had pulled before being asked.
Don sat at his desk.
He pulled the quarterly review toward him.
Through the glass conference room wall he could see Nora's desk: the billing records in three columns, two reference binders, her pen moving in the specific precise way she moved it when she was in the middle of finding something. Through Harold's glass wall: the whiteboard with the new box in the corner, Harold already writing the response letter.
The scotch glass was at the corner of the desk. He had poured it at seven-forty-five and had not touched it. This was correct. The ritual was the pour and the placement, not the drinking.
The Darby arbitration was the final beat of the first siege.
The arc had run from the merger announcement in April 2012 to this letter in June 2013. Fourteen months. The billing dispute from May 2012 had been addressed procedurally, held at a 15% floor, incorporated into the standard Section 14 protocol across PD's outside counsel network through Nesbitt's amendment. Now PD was trying one more administrative lever.
Don picked up the brief.
The next problem was already waiting.
It was the only thing that was ever waiting.
He picked up his pen and started writing the response to PD's counsel that Harold would refine into the actual letter, because writing it himself first was faster and Harold's refinement made it better, and the division was one of the things the firm had learned to do correctly.
✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦
Read A LOT more chapters for free at unwrittenrealm.com
✦ ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ ✦
TL;DR — Patreon has the chapters ahead.
Silver / $6 / 15 or more chap ahead
Gold / $9 / 20 or more chap ahead
Platinum / $15 / 25 or more chap ahead, no weekly wait
That's it. patreon.com/fanficwriter1
If reviews aren't your thing, no pressure — they do help though.