Better, Faster, Cheaper: Pick Two (Or Maybe Not Anymore)

Before I was a trial lawyer, I worked in video production. Every shop I knew had the same saying taped to a wall somewhere: "Better, faster, cheaper. Pick two."

Every client wanted all three. You could never give them all three. The saying was a shortcut for an honest conversation about tradeoffs, and it saved a lot of frustration on both sides.

Over the last several years, technology has narrowed that gap a lot. But the framework still holds, and it's still one of the most useful ways I know to think through any project, whether it's a video shoot, a deposition, or a trial.

The three levers

Better is quality. On a shoot, that means a sharper picture, cleaner audio, a tighter edit, and fewer mistakes. In law, it's the stronger brief, the cleaner deposition record, and the trial graphic the jury actually remembers.

Faster is turnaround, meaning how soon the client has the finished work in hand. Think rush jobs, overnight transcripts, and the exhibit you need before the witness takes the stand tomorrow morning.

Cheaper is cost: hours billed, gear rented, people staffed. It's what the client pays, and what you can afford to put into the job.

The three tradeoffs

Better and faster, but not cheaper. You throw people and premium tools at it: the top crew, an overnight edit, rush fees. You get great work on time, and you pay for it. Sometimes that's the right call, like when a hearing moves up a week or a key witness is only available tomorrow.

Better and cheaper, but not faster. You give it time. A small team, or one skilled person, works through it carefully. You get a great result at a fair price, as long as you can wait. This is the sweet spot when the deadline is far off and the budget is tight.

Faster and cheaper, but not better. You get it quickly and on budget, but it may not have the polish you'd want. Think of it as a solid first cut, not the final version. That's often exactly right for an internal draft, a quick assessment, or a first look at a document set. Just know that's the deal you're making.

What technology changed

For most of my career, those three options were the whole menu. Technology has changed the math.

Work that used to need a crew and a week can now be done by one person in an afternoon. AI can do a first pass on review, summaries, and transcripts in minutes. Remote depositions cut out travel without hurting the record. Trial presentation software lets one person handle what used to take a whole graphics team.

None of that makes the tradeoff disappear. Tools are only as good as the people using them, and a fast, cheap tool used badly still gives you a fast, cheap result. What has changed is how far you can push all three at once.

The goal: stop picking two

The question I ask now isn't "which two?" It's "how can I use technology to push all three as far as they'll go?"

In practice, that means a few things:

• Automate the grunt work: first-pass review, transcription, formatting, and scheduling.
• Keep people on the judgment calls: strategy, witness prep, and what actually goes in front of the jury.
• Be honest about the tradeoff that's left. When something has to give, say which one, and why.

Better, faster, cheaper is still a valid way to think through a project. With the right tools and the right people, though, you don't have to settle for two as often as you used to.