General Counsel Looking to Increase Outside Counsel Spend in 2018
This year a common post-recession trend—a decrease in outside counsel spend—appears to be moving in reverse.
November 14, 2017 at 04:50 PM
3 minute read
For the first time since 2007, more in-house legal departments plan increases rather than decreases in outside counsel spending next year, according to the 2017 Chief Legal Officer Survey from Altman Weil Inc.
This is the 18th year that Altman Weil, which provides management consulting services to legal organizations, has conducted the survey. Respondents included 280 law department leaders from companies of all sizes.
The report said 40 percent of respondents plan to increase their outside counsel spend in 2018, while only 33 percent anticipate a decrease. While that hasn't happened since before the financial crisis of 2008, the report said the gap between internal and outside counsel spend has been narrowing over the last three years.
“After years of belt-tightening, perhaps some of the [financial] pressure is easing,” said Rees Morrison, an Altman Weil principal and co-author of the report. “And perhaps some people are just being more honest. For years it's been politically correct to say they were doing more with less every year.”
Morrison said one of the most important takeaways for general counsel from the report is a range of techniques for managing both internal efficiency and spend on outside counsel. “The range has different applicability, depending on your department's size and personal philosophy of management,” he explained.
About 79 percent of the legal departments said they provide billing and expense guidelines to their outside counsel. When asked what techniques were most effective in managing outside counsel, enforcing these guidelines was the top answer.
But despite respondents' enthusiasm about this tactic, only 60 percent said they routinely enforce their guidelines.
“To set standards and then fail to enforce them is an obvious and unnecessary omission—and one that should not stand in any law department that is serious about effectively managing law firms,” the report chastised.
Asked what percentage of outside counsel fees last year were for work that could have been done by many different law firms, the median response was 41 percent to 50 percent. This suggests “that law departments have considerable negotiating power,” the report added.
Morrison noted, “It may be that many law firms can do a fair portion of your work, but you still have to find them and get comfortable with them. It doesn't mean we know who they are.”
The report also found:
• Some 45 percent of law departments increased total spend in 2017; 36 percent decreased spend, and for 19 percent it stayed the same.
• But in larger law departments—with over 50 lawyers—only 22 percent increased their total spend in 2017 while 50 percent made cuts.
• The top cost control technique last year was price reductions from outside counsel, reported by 64 percent of all respondents and by 78 percent of the larger departments.
• The most frequently used efficiency tactic was a greater use of technology tools, cited by 58 percent of all respondents and by 81 percent of the larger departments.
• Outsourcing to non-law firm vendors scored highest in effectiveness to achieve efficiency and cost control, but was one of the least-used tactics.
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 AllChasing Goals Won't Give Frazzled In-House Lawyers Inner Peace, But a 'Mental Cleanse' Might
With 'Fractional' C-Suite Advisers, Midsize Firms Balance Expertise With Expense
4 minute readSome Clients Are Pushing for Transparency Surrounding Origination Credits
5 minute readThe AI Revolution Is Here. Who Will Be the Winners and Losers in Legal Services?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 2European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 3UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 4For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 5Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
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