In-House Counsel Concerned They Are Spending Too Much on Outside Counsel
"Because of the rising costs of legal fees over time, the need for outside counsel to increase the level of efficiency by using technology or alternative billing approaches has been a topic of conversation for many years," Chris Colvin, founder and general counsel of In The House, said.
June 16, 2020 at 04:37 PM
3 minute read
Approximately 73% of in-house counsel believe their legal departments are spending too much on their outside counsel, according to a report published this month by In The House and LegalBillReview.com.
Chris Colvin, founder and general counsel of In The House in New York, said he is not surprised by the number of respondents who felt they were spending too much on outside counsel.
"Because of the rising costs of legal fees over time, the need for outside counsel to increase the level of efficiency by using technology or alternative billing approaches has been a topic of conversation for many years," Colvin said.
Respondents to the survey indicated they are not getting value for their money and that outside firms take "excessive time to complete tasks."
Colvin said many legal departments are still working to implement those kinds of tools. More than half of the respondents (55%) indicated that one of their top initiatives for 2020 was to reduce outside counsel spend.
He noted that the survey was sent to in-house counsel before the pandemic caused by the new coronavirus began. He said he would expect the number of in-house counsel who think they are spending too much on outside counsel would increase if the survey were done today.
"Anecdotally, there have been a lot of discussions recently calling for law departments to cut spending due to the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic," Colvin said.
Ryan Loro, president of Philadelphia-based LegalBillReview.com, said since the pandemic began chief financial officers are asking in-house counsel to put a greater focus on the business and to find ways to help the bottom line.
One of the ways in-house counsel can have better control over their outside counsel spend is to engage with a third-party bill review system, Loro said. About 70% of respondents indicated that they would like to use some kind of third-party billing review technology. Part of the reason, Colvin said, is because it saves in-house counsel from having an uncomfortable conversation with outside counsel.
Having in-house counsel go over each item in a bill is not the best use of their time, Colvin said. He also explained it is rare that one attorney will catch a glaring error in a bill. He also explained it is hard to tell if outside counsel is providing value by just going over the bill. Further, 48% of respondents indicated they are too busy to review bills carefully.
Loro said respondents indicated that going over bills with their outside counsel puts a strain on the relationship they have with their firms. However, 80% of respondents also noted that adopting bill review technology would not put a strain on their relationship with their firms.
"Our involvement has shown to improve those relationships," Loro said.
Almost half of the respondents (49%) said they believed their firms would come to accept the idea of using a third-party legal bill review service.
A group of 167 general counsel and senior in-house attorneys responded to the survey. The participants are involved in all industries from advertising and marketing to utilities and energy.
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 AllCorporate Counsel's 2024 Award Winners Performed Legal Wizardry, Gave a Hand Up to Others
'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
High-Flying Genetics Testing Firm GeneDx Hires Ex-Zoetis GC as Legal Chief
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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