Morrison on Metrics: Differences in a key benchmark across geographic regions and some consequences
Data suggests costs of legal services swing widely across different parts of the world.
July 05, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Data from the 500-plus legal departments so far in the General Counsel Metrics (GCM) benchmark survey highlight how the costs of legal services swing widely across different parts of the world. For example, consider total legal spending–inside budget plus fees paid external counsel–expressed as a percentage of corporate revenue. That fundamental metric makes clear material differences in costs between law departments headquartered in different regions of the world.
To start, I took data from 201 legal departments in the GCM set whose companies are from the U.S. and analyzed them as a “Region.” Then I took 72 legal departments who have their home base in continental Europe and called that region “Europe,” which excludes the former Soviet bloc countries as well as the U.K. and Ireland.
The comparison between the U.S. and the European “Regions” on the fundamental benchmark metric was dramatic. For total legal spending as a percentage of revenue, the U.S. was twice as high
When we look at Canada's 47 participants as a “Region” and the U.K./Ireland's 27 participants as a Region, the differences from the US figure are small. Canada is 10 percent lower while the UK is 10 percent higher–but all three medians are far above Europe's.
Why would European legal departments spend half as much as their counterparts in the other three Regions? Europe has a civil code rather than a common-law patchwork of judge-made law. Europe has very different labor laws, notably work councils; a patchwork of privileges for attorney-client privilege accorded in-house lawyers, as well as a loser-pays system and other measures that dampen litigation. Each of those elements might result in lower legal costs.
What might drive up European legal costs, however, include stricter privacy laws, European Common Market directives, and no uniformity among national laws (although the U.S. has 50 states that spew out legislation and regulation). GCM's larger sets of benchmark departments will clarify the reasons for these gaps and ultimately we will be positioned to draw country-by-country conclusions.
What are some of the consequences of regional differences in benchmarks? Four come to mind.
When benchmarking, we might need to adjust for the differential, somewhat like we do for cost of living adjustments (COLA) or purchasing power parity when we decide compensation. Comparisons between two law departments or two groups of law departments will be adjusted for the known differential
To the degree that regional variations swamp industry differences, we will need to accept that industry loses some of its primacy as the benchmark attribute of choice.
It will become clear that if the differential in legal costs between the two regions looms as large as two to one, subsidiaries of European companies operating significantly in America should not be held up against their purely European competitors.
We will push to recognize and explore pervasive management differences between Regions that account for the variability, such as the broader scope of responsibility of general counsel of U.S. companies, different inclinations toward reporting structures, or the use of panels.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC 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'
Trending Stories
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