Want Clients to Pay for Expenses? Try Asking Them
A new survey suggests law firms are changing their approach to recovering back-office expenses—and pushback from clients may be steadying.
October 24, 2018 at 12:22 PM
3 minute read
Law firms have been leaving money on the table for years by failing to collect on back-office expenses—as much as millions of dollars for the largest firms. And while client pushback on law firm administrative expenses remains strong, it may be reaching a plateau, a new survey suggests.
Legal support services consulting firm Mattern & Associates, based in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, released its biannual cost recovery survey Tuesday.
The survey showed a net realization rate of 37 percent for such back-office expenses as copying and printing, litigation support and legal research, showing a slight increase from the 2016 survey.
“We've definitely seen that the decline in net realizations is really starting to level off,” said Stephen Cole, Mattern's director of client technology and strategy. “Pushback is still prevalent, but it seems to be managed.”
Cost recovery was flat in many categories and increased with regard to printing and legal research, Mattern found. Realization for printing costs went up 30 percent and legal research realization increased 48 percent, according to the survey.
Cole said the survey determines net realization by factoring in whether a soft cost incurred is determined to be billable, whether it is actually billed and, finally, whether the client then pays for it. From 2016 to 2018, the stage where firms saw an increase was in actually billing for costs that were deemed billable.
If a cost actually makes it onto an invoice, Cole said, chances are high that the client will pay for it.
“These are significant dollars for firms. When we get to the bigger firms, these are millions of dollars falling to the bottom line,” Cole said.
Still, the report said, legal research is a major area where clients push back against costs, along with photocopying, telephone and word processing costs.
And, in a sign of the times, the survey found that firms are becoming more aggressive about recovering costs for electronic data storage. Fifty-six percent of respondents recovered these costs from clients in the 2018 survey, while only 36 percent did in the 2016 survey.
At the same time, Mattern's survey found that law firms are looking at other ways to cover these expenses. About a quarter of respondents have implemented alternative cost recovery models, the report said.
Of those who have sought alternative methods, one-third have simply stopped charging for cost recovery, and 20 percent have adjusted their rates to include cost recovery, while 40 percent have combined those two strategies.
Mattern has been conducting the cost recovery survey every other year since 2004. This year's survey was sent to 212 firms, and 34 firms of various sizes and geographic footprints participated.
READ MORE:
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 AllDechert 'Spark Tank' Competition Encourages Firmwide Innovation Focus
Akerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readDLA Piper Sued by 2 Houston Companies, Alleging a 'Fake Lawyer' Represented Them in Argentina
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How I Made Partner: 'Develop a Practice Area You Really Care About ,' Says Jennifer Gniady of Stradley Ronon
- 2Indian Billionaire Gautam Adani Indicted in Brooklyn for Alleged Orchestration of $250 Million Bribery Plot
- 3St. Ivo: Patron Saint of Lawyers
- 4Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
- 5GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
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