Report Finds Law Firms Playing Catch-Up on Competitive Intelligence
Firms know they need intelligence about their rivals to compete effectively, but few are gathering and using all the data at their disposal, a new report found.
October 04, 2017 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
Law firms are thirsty for data that could make them more competitive, but few are using it for proactive, strategic planning, a new survey has found.
Just 8 percent of firms believe their competitive intelligence functions are highly effective, according to a report released Wednesday by legal market intelligence provider Acritas and The Tilt Institute, a strategic consulting firm. The findings were compiled from interviews with 123 individuals at 85 law firms, including Global 100 and Am Law 200 firms.
“Increasingly, law firms are tuning into the concept of data-driven decision-making,” said Elizabeth Duffy, a vice president at Acritas. But “it's one of those areas that is, as our results have shown, in many incidences described as nascent as a function.”
Law firms seem to know they need to improve their competitive intelligence abilities. Survey respondents gave their CI function a low average score for effectiveness, and more than three-quarters of law firms surveyed said they plan to make changes to CI in the next year.
“Outside the legal industry, competitive intelligence is very much a part of the decision-making at the executive and leadership level,” said Marcie Borgal Shunk, founder of the Tilt Insititute. “I was most pleased to see… that there's a clear acknowledgement that the CI functions have a ways to go, and that there is an opportunity to invest.”
Law firm CI teams should be accessing information from both within and outside their firms, Borgal Shunk said—something they're just beginning to do. And CI teams should be integrated with the rest of the firm's functions, she said.
But those teams also tend to be quite small, Duffy said, so they are already stretched thin when reacting to routine requests.
The survey found 38 percent of law firms have a formal CI function, while 14 percent have other full-time employees working on CI in addition to a formal CI role. But 47 percent of firms have no formalized CI function at all.
Just 5 percent of firms said CI professionals are contained in their strategy departments. The vast majority, 71 percent, said CI employees are in their business development or marketing departments, and 39 percent include them in library services. Another 6 percent of firms have CI professionals in their information technology departments.
In defining competitive intelligence, law firms' focus on business development was clear, with 70 percent including understanding clients and prospects in their definition. They are also interested in their competitors, as nearly half of firms included analysis of peer firms in their CI definition, in terms of clients and markets served.
The report also found a connection between having effective CI functions and employing a trained CI professional. That person “could be a businessperson or a lawyer, but they have a trained CI background,” said Borgal Shunk.
Duffy said the ability to work across departments, including with lawyers, is key to that role, in addition to the analytical abilities. That requires lawyers, firm leaders and other departments to meet in the middle, she said, and be open to collaboration. Law firms have seen that happen in other departments like marketing and business development, she noted, so they could do the same for CI teams.
Centralizing CI teams and creating a clear reporting structure is the next step in getting those professionals involved in strategic planning, Borgal Shunk said. From there, they should be integrated with strategic planning teams, she said, and firm leadership should make a point of seeking out data from CI before making major decisions.
Clients may not see the inner workings behind those decisions, Duffy said, but they will notice the results. When functioning properly, she said, CI “can really make a difference in tailoring a pitch to a client.”
“There's an expectation that the law firms they work with are more data savvy,” Duffy said. “It's the norm at this point.”
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 AllDepartures, Layoffs and Breakups at the Likes of Kirkland, Skadden and Mayer Brown: Asia's Top Stories 2024
As Big Law Walks a Tightrope, Herbert Smith Freehills Refuses to Lose Its Footing
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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