No Pain, No Gain for Law Firms as Client Demands Get More Extreme
Clients have more leverage than ever in law firm bidding wars, and they're not afraid to use it.
November 14, 2017 at 01:57 PM
6 minute read
![](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/405/2017/11/Hands-On-Trophy-Article-201711141629.jpg)
It's the nature of the market for legal work—especially during so-called beauty contests to select outside law firms—that clients are in control. But with demand still slack and competition among top firms fiercer than ever, corporate clients are finding new ways to exploit their advantage.
More companies have begun expecting law-firm bidders to offer once unthinkable commitments that go beyond the scope of traditional legal work. These can include:
• Access to law firms' work product gleaned from other client matters, in the form of “de-identified” data related to litigation or transactional activity.
• Associates on loan or “seconded” to clients' law departments—with the outside firm bearing the expense.
• Push-the-envelope alternative fee arrangements, including, sometimes, giveaway legal work.
• Deep-dive figures on the firms' diversity, including questions related to credit and compensation allocated to women and minorities.
• “Hotlines” for free, instant answers to client questions.
Lauren Goldman, an appellate group leader at Mayer Brown who is on the firm's management committee, said that when it comes to requests from prospective clients during bidding competitions: “We don't reject anything outright.”
“In the ever-shifting leverage dynamic, it is increasingly becoming a clients' market,” said Brad Karp, chairman of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Like 'Monopoly Money'
Companies' expectations have changed for firms responding to requests for proposals, making pitches for individual assignments or hoping to sit on a bench of preferred outside firms. The race to offer “value adds”—services beyond the traditional scope of legal work—is part of that, with the overarching recognition by both sides that clients have the upper hand.
“These law firms have no choice. It's now completely a buyers' market,” said Mark Smolik, DHL Supply Chain Americas general counsel.
Law firms “are feeling more downward pressure than they have ever felt,” said Kent Zimmermann, a legal consultant at the Zeughauser Group, who also called the state of affairs a “buyers' market.”
In such a market, it's only natural that clients are looking for more ways to maximize the services their outside firms deliver.
“GCs speak to each other, and share best practices, with much greater frequency than they did in the past,” Karp said.
According to Karp, Zimmermann, and Sharis Pozen, a senior GE lawyer who oversees its regular outside counsel roster, law firm associate secondments are one of the most frequently proposed “value adds” by clients.
“Secondment requests have become increasingly common among both large and more modest-sized clients. We try to accommodate our clients' requests, to the extent practicable, and view our relationships as collaborative, long-term partnerships,” Karp said.
The practice of paying young lawyers to work for someone else can offer benefits to the firms, though not necessarily to their bottom lines—at least directly.
“The reason to do it is not for the financial benefit of the firm,” Zimmermann said. Besides ingratiating themselves with a client, firms may see it as a way to cope with a temporary or chronic oversupply of litigators.
Secondments offer the firms a chance to make a client happy and to keep an associate—or two—Zimmermann said. “It's almost like monopoly money,” he said.
Beyond Discounts
Dennis Tracey III, a partner and head of litigation for Hogan Lovells, said he has embraced some new forms of alternative fee arrangements that clients have requested during RFP bidding from his firm.
“I love them. I think they really drive performance in lawyers,” Tracey said of alternative billing structures, which can include flat fees, success fees, or portfolio pricing for multiple matters.
Sometimes the requests go further. One prospective client, for example, proposed that Hogan Lovells absorb the entire cost of a motion to dismiss—effectively litigating for free. Tracey agreed, with the understanding that the client would pay for the work plus a 25 percent premium if the motion were successful.
As it happened, the client learned its insurer would cover the costs of the litigation. And the insurer picked another firm, not Hogan Lovells, for the paid assignment. But Tracey said the would-be client told him other firms have agreed to file motions to dismiss as freebies if they lose.
Hogan Lovells and other firms have also agreed to give prospective clients work product developed previously for other clients. In one instance, Hogan Lovells landed on the regular outside counsel roster for “a major global client” after agreeing to provide training sessions to the company's in-house legal staff members. Those sessions included distributing vendor-and seller-side contracts used previously for other clients, but with those clients' names stripped from the documents.
“We took those other clients' names out of the contracts and gave them our best templates,” Tracey said.
Tracey recognized that the training, and the templates, made it easier for the company's law department to complete tasks on its own that it previously paid its outside lawyers to do. But these days outside law firms must adapt their business strategies to accommodate clients' demands even when those demands shift work away from the firms.
“We have to continually rise to the next level of innovations,” Tracey said.
'Free Work and Free Help'
GE's Pozen acts as an “ambassador” to the company's lineup of outside firms and oversees its GE Select preferred counsel program. She said her team regularly seeks “bells and whistles” from firms that go beyond discounted rates. (Last August the company hired Chris Ende, who had previously been a managing director focused on pricing at Goodwin Procter, as its law firm pricing, solutions, and panel management leader.)
Pozen described how one law firm, seeking to work for GE, offered to take a fixed fee of $300,000 for an appeal that would cost the firm $600,000. The firm would seek the other half of its costs, as a success fee, only if its lawyers prevailed. “We went back to another firm and got a better arrangement,” Pozen said. “We asked them, would you beat this or meet this?”
She acknowledged that companies may be getting “free work and free help” from their firms in some cases, citing exclusive legal advice hotlines and associate secondments. But she said the arrangements, particularly seconded lawyers, represent “win-wins” for her company and the outside firms. Those associates, for example, ultimately return to their firms better informed about the needs of GE, she said.
“We are not trying to press a firm to go below cost without any margin built in,” Pozen said. “They have every right to earn a living. We are looking for a sustainable model.”
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
© 2025 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 All![U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out' U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/ea/56/920bdb1d42d59b3af46660326473/us-china-flags-767x633.jpg)
U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out'
![DeepSeek Isn’t Yet Impacting Legal Tech Development. But That Could Soon Change. DeepSeek Isn’t Yet Impacting Legal Tech Development. But That Could Soon Change.](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/4a/f6/62f476814a4bbe57b17e0afd2bdd/deepseek-app-4-767x633.jpg)
DeepSeek Isn’t Yet Impacting Legal Tech Development. But That Could Soon Change.
6 minute read![From Laggards to Tech Founders: Law Firm Innovation Is Flourishing From Laggards to Tech Founders: Law Firm Innovation Is Flourishing](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/63/74/61a893a843c39ae2db900dec4650/ai-machine-learning-767x633.jpg)
From Laggards to Tech Founders: Law Firm Innovation Is Flourishing
![Government Contracting Clients Look to Firms to Stay on Top of Trump Policy Changes Government Contracting Clients Look to Firms to Stay on Top of Trump Policy Changes](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/45/3f/b91069094ef6b905916d7299f2dc/donald-trump-767x633.jpg)
Government Contracting Clients Look to Firms to Stay on Top of Trump Policy Changes
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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