Getting the Most Out of Your E-RFP Process
A few simple steps will get the most out of an expedited RFP process with your law firms.
March 31, 2011 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
It is the week of the winter holidays and you have just been notified that a lawsuit has been filed against your company. There is not much time to go through the typical selection process to retain outside counsel, yet you need to find the firm that combines the best expertise, value and “fit” for your organization. Sound familiar? With increasing frequency, my team often identifies the right firm through an Expedited Request for Proposal (E-RFP) process.
As a former law firm partner, I recall RFPs being an extraordinarily time-consuming and ponderous endeavor: A large volume of information was required, the response was like a tome and the selection process was lengthy and tedious. The E-RFP process my corporate legal team uses is streamlined to enable us to make engagement decisions quickly and confidently.
Here are a few guidelines we use:
Selective use. If your department has a list of trusted counsel with a proven track record for handling routine matters, the E-RFP is probably not the best vehicle. In our experience, the E-RFP is best suited to significant matters or those that require a unique expertise or legal skill set.
Small number of candidates. Cast a small net. An E-RFP is most effective when it focuses on firms that clearly make sense for the particular matter.
Effective format. The format of the E-RFP should reflect your office culture. The in-house attorneys on my team do much of their work via e-mail, so we are comfortable sending out an E-RFP electronically. As for the content, the best E-RFPs contain a brief description of the engagement, a copy of the complaint in a litigation matter, and a request for the proposed strategy for handling the project, proposed staffing, experience in handling similar projects and estimated fees or costs. Limiting the E-RFP to these items keeps the responses concise and free of unnecessary material.
Evaluating the responses. We typically ask that the E-RFP response be returned to us by e-mail with a rapid turnaround time–sometimes as little as 48 hours. This helps us evaluate the nimbleness of the firm's attorneys preparing the response, their attention to detail, their capacity for handling the matter and their eagerness for the representation. Our most important criterion is the expertise of the proposed team in successfully and efficiently handling similar cases or projects. Beyond that, what sets firms apart for us is the originality of their work, their communication style and their understanding of our business and our goals.
Meeting with the finalists. If time permits, set up in-person meetings with the top three finalists. This is an invaluable opportunity to get to know the attorneys with whom your organization will work. An in-person discussion gives you the chance to see the attorneys “in action” and to gauge their “fit” with your organization. We tend to rule out counsel who merely regale us with “war stories,” as opposed to engaging in practical conversation. You may well find that the in-person meetings change the preferences you formed based on the written responses.
Selection. Once you have selected the best fit, it is important to notify all of the E-RFP candidates quickly. It takes a lot of effort to put together a compelling E-RFP response–particularly on short notice. Your candidates deserve a response and recognition of their hard work, even if they were not selected. Additionally, the attorneys who were not selected still may have impressed you, and this is a chance to establish a foundation for working with them in the future.
The E-RFP can be an excellent resource for corporate counsel. With a little forethought and structure, it can drive you quickly toward expertise, efficiency and enhanced relationships with your legal vendors.
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
- 1Will Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
- 2Mayer Brown’s Hong Kong Split to Take Effect
- 3Simpson Thacher Launches in Luxembourg With Hires From A&O Shearman, Clifford Chance
- 4How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 5Big Firms May See 'Uncomfortable Flashbacks' as Cost Pressure Grows
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