Verizon: May the Best Bid Win
When Verizon Communications Inc. selects outside law firms, two factors weigh heavily in the decision-making process: cost and diversity.
October 25, 2017 at 07:31 PM
4 minute read
William Petersen, VP and associate GC at Verizon.
When Verizon Communications Inc. selects outside law firms, two factors weigh heavily in the decision-making process: cost and diversity.
The telecommunications behemoth has been able to move in the right direction in both areas because of a bidding process in which firms make the case for why they should win the work, says William Petersen, senior vice president and deputy general counsel in charge of litigation at Verizon.
The process begins with an informal prescreening phase, says Petersen. “We have a group of what I think of as preferred providers, firms that we regularly work with … that we're very confident are going to deliver really excellent work,” he explains. That list, which Petersen says is not static, is the starting point, though there are some instances in which a member of Verizon's litigation team, which includes 20 lawyers, may push to add a firm not on the list to the mix.
From there, anywhere from three to five firms are invited to bid on a matter, Petersen continues, adding that, while not an exhaustive list, current go-to firms include: Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick; Munger, Tolles & Olson; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; and McGuireWoods.
Because firms are prescreened, lawyering excellence is a given, according to Petersen, so it's other aspects of a bid that distinguish one firm from others. Where a firm can stand out, for instance, is in getting “creative in how they propose to charge us,” Petersen says. This may include a proposed flat fee, a flat fee for certain sections of a case or a flat fee with a collar, Petersen offers as examples. Verizon isn't generally interested in hourly billing, notes Petersen, except on rare occasions, such as when a firm has very specific expertise. “To us, the hourly model just feels almost a little adversarial,” he says. “In-house lawyers are reviewing bills and are asking their outside counsel: 'Well, why were there five people at this meeting? Why did you use a junior partner here instead of an associate?' To me, that's always felt almost disrespectful to the firms. … I want them to have the freedom to manage the cases the way they want to, consistent with providing excellent work to us.”
Petersen notes that the bidding process also allows Verizon to reward firms that have worked hard on diversity. “What we really want is diverse lawyers to be actively engaged and to be part of the case in a very meaningful and substantial way,” he says. To show how this process plays out, Petersen points to a recent “complicated dispute” in which there was concern that there could be collateral consequences depending on how the litigation went. One bidder's price was two and half times higher than the lowest bid, he says, and the lowest bidder seemed to “not completely understand the complexity of the case.”
The firm selected was the second-lowest bidder, Petersen says. “It was a firm that not only, as with all the firms, we felt comfortable with, but it was also a firm that really seemed to appreciate the subtleties of the case and the potential impact the case could have in other ways. And then that firm also provided us with a very, very diverse team that was going to work on the case … what really won the bid for them, more than anything else, was the diversity.”
This method for selecting outside counsel was first used with intellectual property matters before it was expanded to all other types of litigation, Petersen says. And while not all work at this point goes through the bidding model, that's the direction the legal department is headed as it allows for deeper relationships with fewer firms, cost savings and a big jump in diversity. “Since we have put this process in place, we have more than doubled our percentage of spending with diverse lawyers,” Petersen says.
“We still have a lot more work to do, but we're very encouraged by the direction.”
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
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
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