Monetizing Gains and Avoiding Commoditization
Legal professionals can maximize value with data-driven decisions and extra service.
January 31, 2011 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
As this issue of InsideCounsel discusses in-house counsel compensation and outside counsel relationships, I'd like to identify some techniques and trends that I believe will impact each.
Inside Counsel: In my view, legal departments should hire fewer full-time employees, give them broader responsibilities and pay them more.
Start with the denominator. Are you capturing all of the company's spend on legal services? Are human resources, facilities and IT spending money on outside counsel? Is finance getting international tax (or other legal advice) from lawyers at the auditors?
Try drafting an e-mail saying all invoices for legal services need to copy the legal department. You're not stealing anyone's budget, you are just gathering data.
Data-driven decisions. With that data in hand, you can begin to explore how to improve legal services currently outside your domain. Do you recall the formerly big-firm employment lawyers you know who have set up their own shops? Can someone in your network come in and do construction law training for facilities or export classification training for logistics for an hour or two? The $50 legal spends on funding sandwiches for those brown-baggers may be the best investment you make all year.
Monetizing the gains. Once you've shown your internal clients that you can get them better and perhaps cheaper alternatives, you can then discuss sharing the savings. Even if they want to keep all the savings for themselves, you can still point out how legal has reduced the company's aggregate costs. Maybe even throw in the results of a little customer satisfaction survey from HR/facilities. That gives you more ammunition to keep your budget dollars and spend them on your people.
Outside Counsel: I can still recall the first time, as outside counsel, that I was referred to as a “vendor.” Me, a $600-an-hour professional with 15 years experience, being lumped in with janitorial services and copier maintenance? That hurt.
And yet, for commoditized services, the analogy is not far off. Accordingly, as outside counsel, your goals should be to avoid commoditization where you can, and get the client's largest market share where you can't.
Avoiding commoditization. The bad news for law firm lawyers is there's not much you can do about this. If your firm's rate structure does not permit you to compete in your niche, you either need to get a new practice or get a new firm.
It's still true that clients hire lawyers, not law firms. In a post-backdating, Sarbanes-Oxley world, inside counsel can't blame suboptimal counsel on the letterhead. If we don't get the best answer available at a price point, we're gone.
So if you feel the commoditization train coming, start talking to your current firm's management about their plan to help you deal with it, or start calculating how you can capture a higher percentage of what your current and prospective clients have to spend in your niche.
Dealing with commoditization. How does the lawn guy keep from being replaced? For starters, he hits his minimum deliverables. If the lawn is supposed to be mowed on Tuesdays, it'd be good to deliver at least that.
If you're the vendor, first build in a cushion. Answering calls, e-mails and texts quickly is also a nice touch; quick acknowledgement of the message will often suffice. Second, people fire friends last. For some, friendships may still be built over lunch or Lakers games. But for most people, the most precious gift is the gift of time.
How do you give back time? When is the last time you offered to take a long conference call at the client's office? Ghost an e-mail for the client to send? Volunteered your colleagues to give that free lunch-time seminar?
Bonus points if you bring in Schlotzsky's.
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
Trending Stories
- 1Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 2A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 3Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 45th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 5Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
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