Local-counsel pricing confuses people because the role spans a signature to a second chair. The fix is structural: name the tier, paper the scope, and let the letter do the promising.
| Tier | Covers | Fits when |
|---|---|---|
| Sponsorship & mechanics | The LCvR 83.2(c) motion, ECF handling, conformance review, docket watch | Lead counsel runs everything; the District just requires a member's presence |
| Working local counsel | Above, plus conferences covered, local strategy input, chambers intelligence, meet-and-confers | The case has real docket activity and lead counsel is far away |
| Co-counsel | Shared substantive work by agreed division | The matter benefits from a federal-practice second chair, not just a local one |
Scope by task list, not adjectives; rates and any flat components stated; escalation and withdrawal terms named; client-relationship ownership confirmed in a sentence. Fee-division, where any, follows the ethics architecture in the referrals guide. No number appears on this page because no responsible number exists without the docket in view — the letter, not the website, is where pricing lives.
The scoping conversation is how both firms decide fit — terms including any consult component are stated before it if they exist. Nobody gets surprised by a clock they didn't know was running.
Sponsorship-and-mechanics work prices predictably enough for flat structures; active tiers usually run hourly with estimates. The letter picks per engagement.
Either architecture works — direct engagement with the client or subcontract through referring counsel where rules permit. The choice gets made deliberately for privilege and ethics reasons, not by default.