A Third of CLOs Fired Outside Counsel in 2017, and That Number's Set to Rise
A survey from the Association of Corporate Counsel also forecast a growth in legal budgets and a growth in the number of legal department operations professionals.
February 08, 2018 at 03:06 PM
3 minute read
Association of Corporate Counsel office in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi / NLJ
In 2017, one in three chief legal officers and general counsel terminated outside lawyers for failing to meet expectations, a new survey finds. The trend could continue into 2018—43 percent of respondents said they planned to end relationships with firms this year.
The data comes from the Association of Corporate Counsel's Chief Legal Officers 2018 Survey, released Tuesday, which includes responses from 1,275 CLOs and GCs in 48 countries.
There are a number of possible reasons that legal departments are bidding outside lawyers goodbye.
“GCs are thinking more on a program level, [about] diversity issues, [or] how helpful the law firms are for reducing spend,” said Amar Sarwal, chief legal officer and senior vice president of advocacy and legal services.
He explained that ACC members are being more assertive about diversity demands and are “a lot more interested in using the ultimate penalty” if firms don't deliver. Sarwal said that if GCs do use the “ultimate penalty,” it's important to tell firms why so that they can improve—which departments may fail to do.
As some companies dropped their outside lawyers, they also looked at growing their legal department budgets. Some 56 percent of respondents expect an increase in their department's overall budget this year. Last year that number was 43 percent. It's the first time in three years of the CLO survey that the majority of legal leaders expected department budget to increase.
This increase could be tied to a boost in expected mergers and acquisitions, with nearly half of respondents indicating they anticipated their company would be involved in an M&A deal this year.
Sarwal said company expansion and increasing responsibilities for the legal department may also play a role.
“There's a lot of growth [in] these companies,” Sarwal said. “They [CLOs] need more legal spend to be able to address whatever needs the company has.”
A healthy proportion of funds are being spent internally, the survey found. One in 10 CLOs who terminated a firm or provider last year moved that work in-house. More than one in four respondents planned to add in-house staff this year, 28 percent versus last year's 26 percent.
Inside spend allocation rose from 53 percent to 56 percent, since last year's edition of the survey, part of what Sarwal calls a “continuing trend” toward moving responsibilities in-house.
This trend is paired with another, the rise of more legal operations professionals on staff. This year, 47 percent of respondents reported having legal ops staff versus 43 percent last year. Ten percent of respondents said they planned to add legal ops staff this year.
“We're at the growth side of that [legal ops] curve,” Sarwal said. “It is so obvious, [the benefits of being] able to have someone focused on the business side of the practice of law, [who is] able to speak the language of finance or tech.”
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 All'The Show Must Go On': Solo-GC-of-Year Kevin Colby Pulls Off Perpetual Juggling Act
Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
2 minute readHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readAuditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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