Looking for Efficiency: Project Management Matters
Construct the most sophisticated AFAs in the world, but they won't make up for lack of process.
February 28, 2010 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
To read the full feature story on alternative fee arrangements, click here.
-
If you are incorporating AFAs, it might be a lot of work at first–and it might be tempting to think that they will make all the difference. But alternative fee arrangements are most effective when they are a piece of a wider departmental strategy to stay on point, cut costs and build efficiency. And while many companies live and die by Six Sigma-type programs on the business side, that doesn't always take root in the legal department.
“Now that everyone is talking about alternative fee arrangements, it may be a kneejerk reaction,” says Jayne Rothman, corporate counsel for Epiq Systems, a legal technology provider. “But alternative billing is only one piece of the puzzle–it isn't going to mask inefficiencies. The only way to know where you are in the process is to have a solid project management plan and to check it often.”
On the business side, Epiq Systems is accustomed to guiding clients to a desired outcome by forming a clear project plan, including resources estimates and key milestones, and then scrutinizing it for potential efficiency-builders. It's just the type of project management that often is ignored by law firms–as well as clients who fail to provide adequate oversight or who don't understand their own processes.
And a clear understanding of what's to come, on both sides, also makes structuring AFAs for unpredictable litigation that much easier.
“For many law firms, what's lacking is strong, innovative, tech-based processes that can allow them to be more efficient and better manage flat fee work,” says Jennifer Wolfe, founder of Wolfe LPA. “What I need from our client [to help me do that], and what is the most difficult thing to get from them, is for them to spend time with me so I can really understand their business and how they get things done internally. Then we can look at how we can either improve that or blend it so we can deliver more value on a flat fee.”
To read the full feature story on alternative fee arrangements, click here.
-
If you are incorporating AFAs, it might be a lot of work at first–and it might be tempting to think that they will make all the difference. But alternative fee arrangements are most effective when they are a piece of a wider departmental strategy to stay on point, cut costs and build efficiency. And while many companies live and die by Six Sigma-type programs on the business side, that doesn't always take root in the legal department.
“Now that everyone is talking about alternative fee arrangements, it may be a kneejerk reaction,” says Jayne Rothman, corporate counsel for Epiq Systems, a legal technology provider. “But alternative billing is only one piece of the puzzle–it isn't going to mask inefficiencies. The only way to know where you are in the process is to have a solid project management plan and to check it often.”
On the business side, Epiq Systems is accustomed to guiding clients to a desired outcome by forming a clear project plan, including resources estimates and key milestones, and then scrutinizing it for potential efficiency-builders. It's just the type of project management that often is ignored by law firms–as well as clients who fail to provide adequate oversight or who don't understand their own processes.
And a clear understanding of what's to come, on both sides, also makes structuring AFAs for unpredictable litigation that much easier.
“For many law firms, what's lacking is strong, innovative, tech-based processes that can allow them to be more efficient and better manage flat fee work,” says Jennifer Wolfe, founder of Wolfe LPA. “What I need from our client [to help me do that], and what is the most difficult thing to get from them, is for them to spend time with me so I can really understand their business and how they get things done internally. Then we can look at how we can either improve that or blend it so we can deliver more value on a flat fee.”
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 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