Morrison on Metrics: Total cost of resolution ought to include internal time
Data on the value of time consumed internally for legal matters is murky.
August 29, 2011 at 07:05 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The most common metric law that departments track regarding amounts spent on matters is outside counsel fees and expenses. Matter management systems handle that tracking with precision, or accounts payable systems aggregate those figures more grossly. Some law departments go a step further and track settlement payments; some even track settlement receipts. But what law departments do not collect is data on the value of time consumed internally by clients of the law department or those within the law department. If your law department tracks lawyer and paralegal time to specific matters, those numbers also can contribute figures regarding a law department's internal investment in particular matters. This column focuses on the former: client time.
It would prove impossible to pin down the amount of time individual employees devote to particular legal matters. To try to tease out “legal time” defies practicality and sensibility because legal issues and decisions weave through so many aspects of transactions and decisions.
If clients are caught up in a lawsuit, however, there could be some estimates about time spent by custodians of records in the discovery context. There could be estimates of time spent in preparation for depositions and in the depositions themselves. Lawyers would have a handle, to some degree, on how much time employees spent in meetings to discuss to strategy or settlement. Even so, lawsuit-related time would be painstaking to keep track of, many people would forget, and even those clumsy numbers would not signal the end of the effort. Someone would need to convert the hours spent into fully loaded costs. True, for each of these pools of time there could be rules of thumb and assumptions, but the end result would be a very squishy figure.
Not surprisingly, actual data on this internal cost of resolution—what is incurred within a company but outside the law department—rarely surfaces. When companies seek recovery of their legal fees, they don't seek recovery of their internal employee costs for lost time.
And, after all the prodding, estimating and correcting, it might turn out that the law department and its direct expenditures account for 90 percent of the corporate legal expenditures, so all the rest carries little water.
In short, the total legal costs of litigation resolution (ignoring transactional law-related costs) consists of a couple of components that can be relied on, notably external counsel fees, some vendor costs such as for e-discovery, and cash paid for settlements or judgments. Other components remain elusive: the internal law department investment of time, and even more so, the investment by others in the company remains opaque.
The most common metric law that departments track regarding amounts spent on matters is outside counsel fees and expenses. Matter management systems handle that tracking with precision, or accounts payable systems aggregate those figures more grossly. Some law departments go a step further and track settlement payments; some even track settlement receipts. But what law departments do not collect is data on the value of time consumed internally by clients of the law department or those within the law department. If your law department tracks lawyer and paralegal time to specific matters, those numbers also can contribute figures regarding a law department's internal investment in particular matters. This column focuses on the former: client time.
It would prove impossible to pin down the amount of time individual employees devote to particular legal matters. To try to tease out “legal time” defies practicality and sensibility because legal issues and decisions weave through so many aspects of transactions and decisions.
If clients are caught up in a lawsuit, however, there could be some estimates about time spent by custodians of records in the discovery context. There could be estimates of time spent in preparation for depositions and in the depositions themselves. Lawyers would have a handle, to some degree, on how much time employees spent in meetings to discuss to strategy or settlement. Even so, lawsuit-related time would be painstaking to keep track of, many people would forget, and even those clumsy numbers would not signal the end of the effort. Someone would need to convert the hours spent into fully loaded costs. True, for each of these pools of time there could be rules of thumb and assumptions, but the end result would be a very squishy figure.
Not surprisingly, actual data on this internal cost of resolution—what is incurred within a company but outside the law department—rarely surfaces. When companies seek recovery of their legal fees, they don't seek recovery of their internal employee costs for lost time.
And, after all the prodding, estimating and correcting, it might turn out that the law department and its direct expenditures account for 90 percent of the corporate legal expenditures, so all the rest carries little water.
In short, the total legal costs of litigation resolution (ignoring transactional law-related costs) consists of a couple of components that can be relied on, notably external counsel fees, some vendor costs such as for e-discovery, and cash paid for settlements or judgments. Other components remain elusive: the internal law department investment of time, and even more so, the investment by others in the company remains opaque.
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
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