Report: Cost Concerns Force Law Departments to Focus on Existing Internal Resources, Alternative Providers
A majority of corporate legal departments believe it is more important to maximize existing internal resources to control costs than to actively hire new in-house attorneys, according to the 2019 HBR Consulting Law Department Survey released on Tuesday.
November 05, 2019 at 11:23 AM
3 minute read
A majority of corporate legal departments believe it is more important to maximize existing internal resources to control costs than to actively hire new in-house attorneys, according to the 2019 HBR Consulting Law Department Survey released on Tuesday.
Most respondents indicated they expect their legal needs to increase in 2019. However, the majority believe they should use the resources they have rather than hiring more in-house staff. Only 37% of respondents reported an increase in in-house legal staff in 2019. Last year, 52% of respondents to the survey said they hired more legal staff.
"We've seen over the last couple of years that law departments are building internal capabilities to do more work in-house," Lauren Chung, managing director at HBR Consulting, said.
Rather than hiring more attorneys or looking for additional outside counsel, legal departments are increasing the workload of existing resources, standardizing work processes, and redistributing work to more appropriate resources.
Chung said there are a number of contributing factors to why companies want to do more work in-house.
"Law departments are seeing from a cost-control perspective that doing more internally costs less," Chung said.
She explained that law departments are recognizing how to allocate work internally.
"Law departments are beginning to think much more strategically about what work is going to whom," Chung explained.
Finding ways to bring more work in-house is only partially due to the rise in legal operations, Chung said.
"I think legal operations has a role in that for sure, but I think it is strategically from a GC's perspective trying to think about legal demand increasing and legal budgets are not at the same rate," Chung said. "I think it's about law department leadership looking at alternative options."
Law departments overall have become more used to the idea of using alternative legal service providers, according to the report. Chung said there has been an 11% increase in the number of companies who are willing to use nonlaw firm resources for work.
More than costs, Chung said, law departments are focusing on service delivery and are finding that law departments can be the most effective service for their client, rather than a law firm.
"It is cost control, but it is also law departments looking for new service delivery models. It is a desire to recognize that law departments built internal capabilities over the last several years by bringing work in-house," Chung said.
She explained that alternative legal service providers can help tap into the flex resourcing model.
"These types of alternative models for service delivery, I think, is what is driving law department leadership to explore ALSPs more than ever," Chung said.
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 AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readEx-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
Trending Stories
- 1The Appropriate Exemption in Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
- 2DOJ, 10 State AGs File Amended Antitrust Complaint Against RealPage and Big Landlords
- 3New Partners at Cummings & Lockwood, Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey
- 4'Extra Government'?: NY Top Court Eyes Ethics Commission's Constitutionality
- 5South Texas College of Law Houston Selects New Dean
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