Value add: What it means and how to provide it
To find out what's truly valued by clients, one must ask the client. And every individual with whom the firm has a relationship at any given organization may have a different answer.
March 24, 2014 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
A week, and sometimes a day, doesn't go by without those of us in the legal industry hearing about adding value. Value add is often determined by service providers deciding what will be valuable to their clients. To find out what's truly valued by clients, one must ask the client. And every individual with whom the firm has a relationship at any given organization may have a different answer.
Defining value isn't easy for in-house counsel either. During a recent round of client surveys, we asked 18 in-house counsel this question: “What does 'value add' mean to you?” We received a range of responses from these GCs and senior litigation counsel, including:
From a global insurer: “Value is a function of how satisfied I am with the representation overall. If the firm is providing competent, relevant, appropriate legal advice that is consistent with the company's strategy and objectives, I'm not going to shop around.”
From a technology giant: “It should speak volumes that we fired a lower-cost national firm and hired this firm. If you don't understand our business and we have to spend time going through things like our CEO's tolerance for risk or our distribution channels or our suppliers and the industry challenges, then we're not interested in your firm no matter how good the lawyers are. There are a lot of good lawyers. You can't provide value if you don't understand our business as well as we do.”
Snell & Wilmer's litigation head Barbara Dawson knows alignment with clients is critical and seeks out ways to listen and add value. Her perspective: “I like to try to understand client internal priorities. Organizations have unique personalities based upon what is most important to them. Being able to see legal issues within the framework of an organization's own priorities helps outside counsel to add value, as the client would define it.”
One partner who asked not to be identified provided this thought: “We value our clients and work diligently at understanding what they value and how we may better align with their goals and expectations. We do this on our own clock and do not charge the client for any time we spend learning about their business and what will be of value to them. That said, there are times in-house counsel could provide their outside counsel with guidelines and suggestions on how to best add value, how to meet the business people behind the deal/case, and how to retain clients. This is a two-way street after all.”
Some may see these comments as arrogant; they were said with good intent and sincerity. These challenging times for the industry affect both in-house and outside counsel. And as inside counsel know well, their company's customers are also demanding more value, so it's a circle that continues on through their service providers and vendors.
One senior IP litigation counsel from a larger financial institution suggested: “One of the ways in which outside counsel might add value from my perspective is to show you care about the relationship. For example, I am a Miami Heat fan even though I live in San Francisco. Call me for a few minutes and talk about the game. …Our days as in-house counsel are very busy; our time is scheduled for us and we are in many meetings. Sometimes it's a welcome break to know someone is thinking of me even if I only have a few minutes for the call. It's an interesting way to show you care and that is valuable to me.”
Whether it's in-house counsel or outside counsel, it's wise to ask clients how the firm or the department may add value. Client input, after all, is invaluable.
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 All3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
Ten Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 2'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 3Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 4Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
- 5Defense Verdict: Alston & Bird Beat Back $35M Claim Against Nokia
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