Want to Know Which Legal Spend Management Initiative to Try Next? Enter the Matrix.
A new primer offers a "matrix" that can be used as a tool for in-house lawyers who want to identify the right tactic to help reduce legal spend.
April 02, 2018 at 03:37 PM
3 minute read
The pressure is on legal departments to control outside counsel spend and take a disciplined and strategic approach to using their resources. But which steps should in-house lawyers take? Should they tackle outside counsel guidelines or work on rate and timekeeper management? How about a firm convergence project?
In-house lawyers trying to make these tough decisions may benefit from picking up a new legal spend management primer released Monday from the Buying Legal Council, an international trade organization for professionals involved in legal procurement. The primer outlines some of the most common legal spend management initiatives and provides a “matrix” that rates these initiatives to give legal departments a better idea of where to focus.
“Whoever takes the first step, always needs the most convincing,” said Silvia Hodges Silverstein, the executive director of the council. “Once people believe that so-and-so and this other company is doing [an initiative] as well, then everyone becomes more adventurous and willing to embrace things. If we look at the same matrix in a couple of years it will have shifted.”
The initiatives were chosen by legal consulting and technology firm Elevate's managing director of legal business solutions and consulting Matt Todd and director of legal business solutions Peter Eilhauer, who co-authored the primer, based on their experiences with clients. Each initiative is positioned on the matrix based on its benefits and the time it takes to make an impact. The primer also accounts for change management requirements, which measure how much political or technical resistance a department may face when implementing a given initiative.
Silverstein said whether or not a legal department engages in a new strategy is often ”based on how much resistance there's going to be.” For example, “Panel/Convergence Strategies” are ranked as the most intensive for change management, because some in-house teams may not want to hurt long-standing relationships with firms that wouldn't make the cut.
The initiatives with the least amount of resistance and quickest turnaround, according to the primer, are “Refine Outside Counsel Guidelines and Implement Invoice Review,” “Law Firm Selection and Management” and “Rate and Timekeeper Management.” These yield smaller returns than most of the longer-term strategies.
“Matter Level Budgeting and Project Management” is ranked in the middle of the matrix for time to achieve benefits and change management, and it's also ranked as one of the most effective initiatives. But each department should start with the initiative that best meets their needs.
“I have seen folks approach [these initiatives] in a number of different ways. It depends on the level of maturity of your organization,” Eilhauer said.
“Because depending on the shape of your spend, it may make sense to do a panel convergence first. If you've shaped your firms and know who your preferred firms are, then it's less of a priority for you,” he added.
In late April, Eilhauer will present the matrix at the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium's annual institute in Las Vegas. He'll be going through how in-house teams can apply the matrix to their own decision-making on spend initiatives, even if they're not considering something on the primer.
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 All'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Am Law 50's Runaway Rates Put Onus on Legal Departments to Stiffen Resistance
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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