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 AllAfter Recasting ACC Into Global Enterprise, CEO Veta Richardson Plans 2025 Exit
GC Who Helped Fanatics Pull Off Growth Tear Joins Acquisitive Provider of Live Event Logistics
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
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