In the world of legal battles and corporate affairs, there arises a scenario where a client might feel compelled to hire multiple law firms to handle a single matter. This could be due to jurisdictional issues where the client’s usual counsel is not licensed, or when the case requires varied expertise that ostensibly no single firm can provide. However, this strategy is not without its pitfalls and can lead to increased inefficiencies and costs.

During my tenure as a Biglaw associate, I encountered a situation where a client had engaged our firm alongside another prominent law firm for a substantial litigation case. The decision was puzzling, especially considering the capabilities and size of either firm, each staffed with hundreds of competent lawyers. The rationale behind employing two firms might have stemmed from internal politics or an overcautious approach to handling what was perceived as a massive lawsuit.

This dual hiring led to various administrative hurdles. Coordination between the two firms was a significant task, consuming time and resources to determine task allocations and information sharing. This overlap often necessitated redundant reviews of work products, inadvertently inflating legal fees which could have been mitigated had a single firm been in charge.

Moreover, an unintended consequence of this arrangement was the fostering of a competitive rather than collaborative atmosphere. Each firm, in an attempt to outshine the other, would focus part of their efforts on highlighting the shortcomings in the other’s work. This scenario was evident when I was tasked to draft a memo pinpointing errors made by the other firm, clearly aimed at undermining their credibility with the client.

While it’s true that having more legal minds on a case can enhance the quality of the work, it's crucial for clients to consider if the benefits outweigh the inefficiencies. Competition between firms can divert attention from the main goal - serving the client's best interests efficiently. Often, hiring one law firm to manage an entire legal matter eliminates the complexities and potential conflicts inherent in splitting responsibilities.

Clients should weigh the pros and cons carefully and perhaps favor a streamlined approach unless absolutely necessary. Opting for a single firm that can handle the entire case not only simplifies administrative processes but also aligns all efforts towards a unified goal, potentially saving time and reducing costs while still delivering high-quality legal representation.