SuperConference: GCs Urged to Implement Alternative Fee Arrangements
InsideCounsel SuperConference panel says fees should be based on results, not hours.
May 24, 2010 at 08:00 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
FMC Technologies General Counsel Jeffrey Carr speaks about alternative fee arrangements at InsideCounsel's SuperConference. Photo by Chris Lake
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) with outside counsel are just good business practice, panelists at InsideCounsel's SuperConference said Tuesday.
For Jeffrey Carr, general counsel of FMC Technologies, who pioneered what he calls value-based fees, it's a matter of doing his job.
“In our company, FMC Technologies, it is really simple,” he said. “One million dollars saved in legal fees is a half cent per share in earnings per share (EPS), and that's how the company is valued. The higher the EPS, the higher the stock price. If I am not doing everything I can to save money on legal costs, I've breached my duty to the shareholders.”
In Carr's view, it's all about results. “GCs should be looking for results. If you pay by the hour, you are paying for hours, not results,” he said.
Patrick Lamb, founding member of the Valorem Law Group, said a common misperception standing in the way of AFAs is that “it matters how long it takes to do something. … At the end of the day, it is about results. When we get a good result, we should be rewarded for it.”
Carr contends that even small legal departments can implement AFAs and that virtually all legal work can be billed on an alternative fee basis.
Mary Clark, deputy general counsel of LexisNexis, agreed. “I've never seen any matter that can't be done on alternative fees,” she said. She urged in-house counsel to implement AFAs now, while law firms are looking for work and willing to consider alternative arrangements.
“Think about what is going to happen in two years when [the economy] is going gangbusters and law firms are raising rates,” she said. “Our [in-house] budgets probably won't go up that much. So what will happen if you don't have those conversations [with your law firms] now?”
Lamb agreed that it is currently a buyer's market. But, he said, “if you let your law firms charge ever-increasing rates, they will charge ever-increasing rates. You have to create an incentive for them to lower prices.”
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) with outside counsel are just good business practice, panelists at InsideCounsel's SuperConference said Tuesday.
For Jeffrey Carr, general counsel of
“In our company,
In Carr's view, it's all about results. “GCs should be looking for results. If you pay by the hour, you are paying for hours, not results,” he said.
Patrick Lamb, founding member of the Valorem Law Group, said a common misperception standing in the way of AFAs is that “it matters how long it takes to do something. … At the end of the day, it is about results. When we get a good result, we should be rewarded for it.”
Carr contends that even small legal departments can implement AFAs and that virtually all legal work can be billed on an alternative fee basis.
Mary Clark, deputy general counsel of
“Think about what is going to happen in two years when [the economy] is going gangbusters and law firms are raising rates,” she said. “Our [in-house] budgets probably won't go up that much. So what will happen if you don't have those conversations [with your law firms] now?”
Lamb agreed that it is currently a buyer's market. But, he said, “if you let your law firms charge ever-increasing rates, they will charge ever-increasing rates. You have to create an incentive for them to lower prices.”
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
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