Legal Resourcing in a Time of Crisis
Some of our in-house colleagues are forgetting they have options outside of Big Law that they can and should consider. Make no mistake, these are unusual times that require creative thinking and different approaches.
June 22, 2020 at 12:59 PM
4 minute read
We've all read the stories—or experienced firsthand: people working from home are overloaded and burnt out. As a longtime businesswoman, attorney and entrepreneur based in Silicon Valley, I've noticed the same thing across legal teams. The stress-inducing WFH dynamic, reduced budgets, furloughs and layoffs within legal teams has left legal teams overwhelmed with work and frantically searching for helpful solutions.
As the founder and CEO of the alternative legal service provider, Zent Law Group, I've been fielding calls from organizations whose legal teams are struggling. I've noticed that some of the legal department leaders are in somewhat of a panic mode, signing up for more support from Big Law regardless of the cost when they could save significantly more with alternative solutions. I've heard several heads of legal operations at client organizations corroborate this panic-purchase phenomenon. Purchasing under duress is never a good idea. We've all witnessed that firsthand with empty supermarket shelves typically holding paper goods and price gouging by unscrupulous suppliers for pandemic-era essentials.
Some of our in-house colleagues are forgetting they have options outside of Big Law that they can and should consider. Make no mistake, these are unusual times that require creative thinking and different approaches.
Here are three cost-effective solutions that will keep morale high while helping to prevent burnout and productivity issues for in-house legal teams:
|- Secondments dedicated to the team: Ideal for clients who need legal resources dedicated to their team. These are normally provided at an all-inclusive cost that is less expensive than hiring an employee for what could be a short-term need. Secondments make sense when budget overruns are not an option. Plus, the added bonus is you can potentially hire the resource after working with them for a period of time.
- Subscriptions address ongoing needs: These are for clients with ongoing needs and a steady stream of work in a certain practice area (such as all transactions for a given line of business) that can be supported off-site. They offer the benefit of a cost-effective pricing structure while budgeting and forecasting legal spend with absolute certainty. Our subscriptions allow clients to manage overflow legal work, spikes in workflow, special projects or any other legal support needed in that given practice area with absolute certainty as to cost.
- Legal operations consulting optimizes efficiency: With the increasing pressures felt by legal teams during this crisis comes a decrease in legal operations efficiencies. Having the ability to evaluate and adjust a wide variety of processes, methodologies and technologies is critical to success. Legal operations consultants put a strong focus on data and metrics to conserve legal spend, maximize legal resources and evaluate processes and solutions within legal departments—all necessary steps at this juncture. At ZentLaw, within our legal operations solutions is a contract administration service. We're finding that legal teams are overwhelmed with contracting needs and having to refine contract processes.
Finally, in this era where a diversity and inclusion program in an organization needs to be far more than lip service, organizations would be wise to walk the walk. This is the time when legal teams should reexamine their in-house culture to assess what can be done to improve it within their department and their company at large.
The bottom line: If your legal team is showing signs of cracking, don't despair. Have an open mind, consider the many alternative solutions out there and simply be better.
Monica Zent is ZentLaw's CEO and founder of LawDesk 360.
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending 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