Every local-counsel engagement negotiates the same tension: lead counsel wants signature-level involvement, courts hold the local signer responsible for what gets filed. Pretending otherwise is how both firms end up in a show-cause order.
Judges in this district treat local counsel as counsel: responsible for filings bearing their name, expected to know the case's posture, subject to the same candor duties as the pro hac lawyer they sponsored. Standing orders in some chambers say so explicitly. The 'we're just local' defense has a documented record of failure — which is why this practice declines engagements structured as pure rubber stamps.
Because the signature carries duties to the court that don't delegate — and a local counsel casual about that is one you shouldn't want; the same casualness would spend your client's credibility.
No — conformance review is hours, not re-drafting. The scope letter prices it; surprise is the only thing off the menu.
You. The engagement says so, conduct honors it, and the practice's whole model depends on referring firms trusting exactly that.