Amid 'Innovation' Buzz, Surveys Point to Law Firm-Client Mismatch
Law firms say they want to follow the "voice of the client." But clients aren't necessarily offering much direction.
November 19, 2018 at 05:16 PM
3 minute read
Law firm innovation leaders often talk about the “voice of the client.” As in: Outside lawyers should be listening to the pain points of clients in order to develop solutions for them.
But what happens when the client is silent?
Two recent surveys—one from the law firm side and one from the client side—suggest there is something of a communication breakdown between law firms and clients. Put bluntly, clients want cheaper legal services, but it gets left to law firms to determine just how to accomplish that. That can lead to law firms pursuing innovation that is not aligned with what clients want.
A survey of more than 250 legal department leaders released last week by Altman Weil asked what three innovations clients were most interested in. “Greater cost reduction” was the only “innovation” that more than 50 percent of clients (58 percent) said they were looking for. Nonhourly based pricing structures, improved budget forecasting, more efficient project management and more efficient project staffing were the only other “innovations” sought out by more than 30 percent of respondents.
Meanwhile, a less rigorous survey of 29 innovation leaders within law firms said that many clients do not explicitly demand that legal advisers seek ways to change their delivery models. Rather, they expect law firms to bring their ideas to them. The report from Jomati Consultants said the “lack of overt pressure” from clients was a source of frustration among innovation leaders.
The solution to this frustration, some law firm innovation leaders said, was to take a more proactive consulting approach to their clients. Clients are more than willing to discuss what they need from law firms. They just need to be asked. Clients often need help on analyzing new legal technologies, the Jomati report said.
“If there is one positive takeaway from this current lack of legal tech savviness from the in-house legal community, it is that some forward-thinking law firms have turned corporate counsels' collective lack of awareness into a business opportunity: Essentially, these law firms are now starting to offer legal tech consultancy services to their clients,” the report said.
Still, there is little indication that clients will increase explicit pressure on law firms to change their service delivery models. The Altman Weil survey noted that for the first time since 2011, more legal departments were planning this year to increase their budget for outside counsel (41.5 percent of respondents) compared with those who were going to decrease that spending (31.9 percent).
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 AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute readArnold & Porter Matches Market Year-End Bonus, Requires Billable Threshold for Special Bonuses
3 minute readGrabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
Trending Stories
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