Most In-House Law Departments Spend 'Inefficiently,' Study Says
The study from Acritas Research specified an ideal range for internal legal spend as a proportion of total spend.
November 08, 2017 at 03:19 PM
5 minute read
Acritas legal spend chart. Courtesy of Acritas.
Six out of 10 in-house law departments allocate their legal spend inefficiently, according to a new study from the global legal researcher Acritas Research.
U.S. companies should allocate 40 percent to 70 percent of their legal spend internally, the study recommended—or else run the risk of not being able to optimize their dollars.
The figures come from Acritas' annual Sharplegal study, for which it conducts over 2,000 interviews with senior in-house counsel in large organizations around the world each year.
Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of U.K.-based Acritas, said in an interview Wednesday, “It was interesting to note how economies of scale came into play in terms of the internal team size required to service different sized organizations.”
Hart Shepherd said legal departments with less than $200 million in revenue had more than 10 times the number of lawyers per $100 million of revenue than larger departments with more than $20 billion in revenue. “And yet the average balance of budget allocated internally didn't really change by size,” she added.
She cautioned, though, that the pattern of law department spending can differ by country and industry sector. The study said in higher spending countries, it appears keeping too much budget in-house drives inefficiency. The 40 to 70 percent optimal range applies specifically to U.S. companies.
“Russian companies, for example, have far lower external spend and much bigger in-house teams,” Hart Shepherd explained. “So it's important to find a relevant peer group benchmark.”
The report showed that, on average, organizations reported 0.4 lawyers per $100 million of revenue. This varied according to company size, with the smallest companies in the study (revenue $50 to $500 million) having 0.9 lawyers per $100 million of revenue, and the largest companies (revenue $6 billion-plus) having 0.2 lawyers per $100 million of revenue.
Hart Shepherd said she was surprised by the relatively small number of lawyers most organizations have. “On average, a $1 billion company has four in-house lawyers,” she said. “Surely there must be benefits to having a larger team for many organizations, both from a cost perspective and ensuring advice is integrated into the business.”
She said the trend is for in-house legal teams to spend more internally. “We have seen the internal spend grow in recent years, and it's increased by 11 percent since we first measured it in 2012,” Hart Shepherd said.
In a related study the research firm reported in May that companies in the United States spend 166 percent more on legal services per dollar of revenue compared to companies in other parts of the world.
Acritas legal spend chart. Courtesy of Acritas.
Six out of 10
U.S. companies should allocate 40 percent to 70 percent of their legal spend internally, the study recommended—or else run the risk of not being able to optimize their dollars.
The figures come from Acritas' annual Sharplegal study, for which it conducts over 2,000 interviews with senior in-house counsel in large organizations around the world each year.
Lisa Hart Shepherd, CEO of U.K.-based Acritas, said in an interview Wednesday, “It was interesting to note how economies of scale came into play in terms of the internal team size required to service different sized organizations.”
Hart Shepherd said legal departments with less than $200 million in revenue had more than 10 times the number of lawyers per $100 million of revenue than larger departments with more than $20 billion in revenue. “And yet the average balance of budget allocated internally didn't really change by size,” she added.
She cautioned, though, that the pattern of law department spending can differ by country and industry sector. The study said in higher spending countries, it appears keeping too much budget in-house drives inefficiency. The 40 to 70 percent optimal range applies specifically to U.S. companies.
“Russian companies, for example, have far lower external spend and much bigger in-house teams,” Hart Shepherd explained. “So it's important to find a relevant peer group benchmark.”
The report showed that, on average, organizations reported 0.4 lawyers per $100 million of revenue. This varied according to company size, with the smallest companies in the study (revenue $50 to $500 million) having 0.9 lawyers per $100 million of revenue, and the largest companies (revenue $6 billion-plus) having 0.2 lawyers per $100 million of revenue.
Hart Shepherd said she was surprised by the relatively small number of lawyers most organizations have. “On average, a $1 billion company has four in-house lawyers,” she said. “Surely there must be benefits to having a larger team for many organizations, both from a cost perspective and ensuring advice is integrated into the business.”
She said the trend is for in-house legal teams to spend more internally. “We have seen the internal spend grow in recent years, and it's increased by 11 percent since we first measured it in 2012,” Hart Shepherd said.
In a related study the research firm reported in May that companies in the United States spend 166 percent more on legal services per dollar of revenue compared to companies in other parts of the world.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllChasing Goals Won't Give Frazzled In-House Lawyers Inner Peace, But a 'Mental Cleanse' Might
With 'Fractional' C-Suite Advisers, Midsize Firms Balance Expertise With Expense
4 minute readSome Clients Are Pushing for Transparency Surrounding Origination Credits
5 minute readThe AI Revolution Is Here. Who Will Be the Winners and Losers in Legal Services?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trailblazing Broward Judge Retires; Legacy Includes Bush v. Gore
- 2Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 3'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 4Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 5As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250