Morrison on Metrics: Do the Minions Know the Metrics?
Junior lawyers are less likely to know the department's benchmark metrics.
September 05, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
To what extent do lawyers in legal departments know their department's benchmark metrics? I wondered about this because more than 60 percent of the participants in the General Counsel Metrics (GCM) global benchmarking survey are general counsel (and, by the way, has your department joined the 600 others? Click on the left icon). The most probable reason is that general counsel are more likely to get e-invitations. Moreover, they belong to various general counsel groups and learn about them that way. General counsel also have the authority to decide to submit proprietary corporate data. Finally, a general counsel, far more than any other lawyer, has a reason to obtain benchmark metrics too, whether try to fortify the budget, justify new hiring, amplify management insights or exemplify the law department's value to fellow executives.
All of that being true, it does not answer whether lawyers below the general counsel know such numbers as total staffing of the department or external spend on legal matters. To be sure, quite a few people other than general counsel have responded to the GCM benchmark survey, but some of them are presumably acting at the direction of the general counsel. For example about 10 percent are direct reports to the general counsel and about 10 percent are law department administrators.
I suspect that quite often people in the department do not understand the fundamental performance metrics of their department. They do not know how many law firms are retained; they do not know what proportion of their company's legal spending goes to which law firms, they haven't the foggiest notion of expenditures on service providers other than law firms; and on through the important metrics. The figures just don't make a difference to their day-to-day activities.
They may learn about metrics on a need-to-know basis. Direct reports hear about quarterly figures provide the Board and on other occasions they can glean some of the numbers. Administrators know them because they have to work up the numbers.
I doubt that a grand conspiracy tries to keep the minions in the dark on metrics. I think junior lawyers feel properly distant from department-wide numbers and reluctant to disclose proprietary information. They may not want to ask for permission to do so. After all, to obtain and understand numbers is to be able to criticize them. Perhaps some of the requests for anonymity I get result from people's reluctance to expose themselves. It also seems to me that procurement either does not want to know about legal spending or they can't obtain the relevant information to participate. Only a handful of procurement or sourcing professionals have submitted law department data.
In short, I favor internal transparency of information – the members of law department know people and pennies, so to speak – but they refrain from unilateral disclosure of such information on staffing and spending for good and valid reasons.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC 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'
Trending Stories
- 1Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
- 2Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 3Norton Rose Sues South Africa Government Over Ethnicity Score System
- 4KMPG Wants to Provide Legal Services in the US. Now All Eyes Are on Their Big Four Peers
- 5Friday Newspaper
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