How Will Corporate Legal Spend Its Budget Post-Pandemic?
In a post COVID-19 world, some corporate legal departments are focusing their spending on personnel while others could be weighing investments in cloud technology and key security infrastructure.
June 04, 2020 at 04:21 PM
4 minute read
Many corporate entities could still be assessing the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their financial health. But corporate legal departments shouldn't necessarily wait for the smoke to clear before addressing urgent personnel or tech needs.
During the keynote address of Corporate Counsel's weeklong "Legal Operations in a Time of Disruption" web series in May, Susan Hackett of Legal Executive Leadership encouraged participants to take advantage of the remainder of the 2020 budget cycle while they still could.
"How are we going to take the resources that are currently allocated, that haven't been clawed back, that we may not see in the next budget cycle and get some stuff rolling right now so that we can prepare ourselves to not only be addressing all of the needs for agility and the technology needed for remote work to continue and whatever it is that's going to be the priority for our business people," Hackett said.
But not all legal departments are alike. Zach Abramowitz, a consultant in the legal technology space, noted that some of the in-house teams he's spoken with are expecting no disruptions to their spending come the new year. Meanwhile, others have already seen their current 2020 budgets slashed.
However, some legal departments are very much opening their wallets now in anticipation of a more restrictive budget coming down the pike. One key area for new spend may be personnel, with Abramowitz indicating that employers are looking to take advantage of a fresh wave of legal talent emanating from recent displacements at law firms and other corporate entities.
"They are saying, 'Listen, there's never been talent available like this. There's never been people that we could probably get to come over because they are looking at their current department and their current department is firing [people].' There really are great hiring capabilities right now. I think that's what's motivating some departments to spend," Abramowitz said.
Still, this may be one trend that doesn't lend itself to generalizations. Jeff Marple, director of innovation for the legal department at Liberty Mutual Insurance, pointed out that just because revenue at a particular company might be down, that doesn't mean that the amount of legal work that needs to be done will dip as well. He thinks that legal departments facing downward expense pressure may be looking to drive efficiency by embracing automation and implementing artificial intelligence in places where maybe they haven't before.
"They are going to want to look for situations where you can buy something off of the shelf and not necessarily customize," Marple said. "You don't want a long implementation right now or a highly customized implementation. You want something that's pretty easy to pull in and start using."
Ongoing remote working could also play a role in what legal departments are spending on in the immediate future. Christopher Zegers, director of consulting services in legal at Ivionics, believes that legal departments will continue to look for ways to embrace cloud technology, both to support workers at home and limit the capacity for COVID-19 exposures.
"The best way going forward is to reduce your need to touch anything. Reduce the need for people to go into an office and fix some kind of infrastructure, waiting around for parts to show up," Zegers said.
Other practical needs that in-house departments may not be able to push off until 2020 include updates to key infrastructure components within a cybersecurity network that are "end of life" or have reached the expiration date by which a vendor ceases to deliver support services. Meanwhile, other more organizational-centric tools lacking the same urgency may be forced to wait until 2021.
"The records people, they've been wanting to update their records management software for the last 20 years and it gets pushed every year because it's just not in people's face," Zegers 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
© 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 AllLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readTrump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Newly Public Biotech Startup Hires Life Sciences Veteran as GC
Step 1 for Successful Negotiators: Believe in Yourself
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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