Should Clients Do More to Force Law Firms to Innovate?
Panelists told an audience at Legalweek in New York that when it comes to innovation, client demand is key. But law firms can also gain an edge by standing out.
January 29, 2019 at 06:39 PM
4 minute read
Corporate legal departments have a critical role to play in advancing innovation in the industry, panelists from the law firm and in-house counsel worlds said Tuesday during a discussion at ALM's Legalweek conference.
Meanwhile, law firms that adopt new approaches to delivering legal services—whether through technology or through other efforts to increase efficiency and lower costs—can position themselves ahead of their peers, panelists said.
During a discussion on innovation in the legal industry at Legalweek's Business of Law Forum, Linda Novosel, who serves as Blank Rome's chief innovation and value officer, likened innovation to other areas, such as diversity, in which in-house law departments have pushed their outside counsel for change.
If law firm clients demand innovative approaches of their outside counsel—and threaten to strip business from those firms that don't innovate—it would force the industry as a whole to find ways to provide better value to clients. As for her firm, Novosel said her role in part comes down to focusing Blank Rome's efforts on areas that further its clients' business goals.
"We're engaging with clients on a regular basis to figure out what their goals are, what their needs are," she said. "It's so important to understand the underlying objectives of the client. How do they define success or performing well?"
A sophisticated approach to technology, panelists said, can also make a difference in reducing spending on legal services. DHL Supply Chain Americas general counsel and chief compliance officer Mark Smolik explained that while he can't control the ever-increasing hourly rates at outside law firms, his department can require its outside firms to rely on certain e-discovery vendors, for instance.
Smolik also noted that the current state of innovation in the legal services space means that there are opportunities for outside law firms to stand out by proactively taking steps to show they're committed to finding new ways to help their clients.
Later on Tuesday afternoon, a similar idea emerged during a separate panel discussion on globalization, with TPG Global general counsel Bradford Berenson suggesting that law firms have a wealth of data on their clients' legal needs that could be leveraged.
"An area that gets less focus, but is even harder," Berenson said, is "knowledge management—where a law firm is aggregating data, on a confidential basis, from across its clients in an industry, and using data analytics to develop actual insights for its clients."
At DHL, one of Smolik's key focuses has been providing evaluations to the company's outside firms, in which the legal department ideally partners with those firms to improve performance. He said that effort has both helped the legal department contain its costs and has strengthened the company's relationship with its outside firms.
"Our relationship is as strong as it is because we communicate," Smolik said. "The bottom-line message I have for you is there is nothing magic to innovation."
Deborah Read, managing partner of Thompson Hine, noted that her firm has implemented a mandatory budgeting policy within the firm, in which partners have a certain length of time—60 days for litigation matters, 45 days for transactions—to craft a budget for the matter. If they don't complete the budget by that deadline, the partner cannot bill time until the budget comes in.
Read said the budgeting requirements have both helped keep partners on task and created consistency across the firm. But it's also signaled to clients and prospective clients that Thompson Hine is committed to delivering legal services efficiently in a way that stands out from other firms. When the program first rolled out in 2014, she said, the firm's budgeting program covered $14 million in business litigation matters. But now that figure has increased to some $68.5 million.
"What ended up happening in our case is that we started getting real work from this," Read said.
This story has been updated to clarify aspects of Thomspon Hine's mandatory budgeting policy.
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 AllAkin, Baker Botts, Vinson & Elkins Are First Texas Big Law Firms to Match Milbank Bonuses
4 minute readBCLP Exploring Merger Prospects as Profitability Lags, Partnership Shrinks
Anticipating a New Era of 'Extreme Vetting,' Big Law Immigration Attys Prep for Demand Surge
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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