Most Cost-Effective Legal Departments Invest More in In-House Training, Survey Says
The most cost-effective legal departments made efforts to continuously strengthen their in-house capabilities, the survey found, and invested more in lawyer training and development.
September 05, 2019 at 05:44 PM
5 minute read
A Gartner Inc. survey of 140 in-house legal departments found that the most cost-effective legal departments devoted almost twice as much of their budgets to training as their higher-cost peers.
The most cost-effective legal departments spent 2.04% of their in-house budget on training and development compared to higher-cost departments that spent only 1.04% on training. The researchers concluded that investing in training helped increase productivity while not increasing head count and led to a decrease in spending on expert or outside support.
The most cost-effective legal departments made efforts to continuously strengthen their in-house capabilities, the survey found, and invested more in lawyer training and development. They also assigned more work in-house and standardized work processes using tools and templates.
The 2018 Gartner State of the Legal Function survey examined features of cost-effective legal departments whose spending was in the lowest quartile of their peer group "while managing a similar volume and portfolio of work," to the higher-cost departments, the research group said in a news release.
The survey found that cost-effective legal departments also devoted nearly 8% more of their total budgets to in-house staff salaries, training, information technology systems and software compared with their higher-cost peers.
Michael Mayfield, research director in Gartner's legal and compliance practice, said in a statement, "legal departments have a tendency to hand off complex work to outside counsel, but organizations can achieve significant cost savings by bringing this work in house." He added, "the rate for an in-house attorney is likely going to be significantly less than what outside counsel will bill."
More cost-effective legal departments spent 54.9% of their legal budget in-house, compared to 47.2% for higher-cost departments, the survey found. Mayfield said bringing complex and strategic legal work inside also can improve the quality of services because in-house lawyers are more familiar with business operations.
But James Wilber, a principal of Altman Weil Inc., a management consulting firm to legal organizations, said in an interview Thursday that while many legal matters can be handled internally, the matter of using outside firms is more complex.
"Although I have long held that for legal work that can and should be handled internally, it certainly can be managed in a well-managed law department. That doesn't mean it will be well-managed and necessarily lower cost. There is a lot that goes into it."
Gartner found that 63% of in-house legal work is routine or can be standardized, and that cost-effective legal departments "employ a high level of standardization" by creating self-service tools for business clients and using templates for routine matters. Cost-effective departments also hired dedicated legal operations specialists.
"In order to take advantage of the cost savings by bringing work in-house, general counsel also needs to invest in the right areas to equip their teams to be successful," Mayfield said. "This is most clearly on display when looking at the differential in training spend between cost-effective legal departments and their higher-cost peers."
Law firm expenses made up 93.5% of a legal department's outside spending, according to Gartner, a publicly traded research and advisory company.
More cost-effective departments used outside counsel mainly to work on critical matters, while relying on alternative legal service providers and non-lawyer staff for less risky activities where appropriate, the survey found.
Cost-effective legal departments spent more than 6% of outside dollars on alternative legal service providers, compared with the higher-cost legal departments, who spent less than 2% on alternative providers. Alternative legal service providers were mainly used for e-discovery, contract management and document review and other high-volume but less complex tasks.
After controlling for such variables as industry, work volume and revenue, the survey found that lower-cost legal departments used 55% fewer outside firms than the median.
Lower-cost legal departments used an average of 14 outside firms versus 31 for the higher-cost legal departments. Gartner researchers said having fewer firms lowers the amount of resources needed to manage the outside law firms.
Altman Weil's Wilber said: "Certainly a lot of companies have lowered the number of outside firms they work with, and assigned to a smaller number of firms and asked for bigger discounts but just the number of firms isn't determinative. Are they right for the work in question and are they working as a partner? It's a much more complicated set of topics than the survey draws pretty bold conclusions about."
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 AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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