Morrison on Metrics: Metrics Over Time
A comparison of 2010 to 2011 on two key metrics--change in lawyers per billion dollars of revenue and total legal spending as a percentage of corporate revenue.
March 27, 2011 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In this column, I share some findings about how much law departments vary on key metrics from one year to the next. To start, I looked at data from 60 law departments that participated in the General Counsel Metrics survey last year (providing their 2009 staffing and spending data) and have done so again already this year (with 2010 data). Of those 60 companies, 40 of them are US-based. In total, their 2,500 lawyers supported 2010 revenue of $588 billion.
First I looked at the percentage change from one year to the next in lawyers per billion dollars of revenue. The average difference between the two figures was less than a percent, meaning the average ratio for the group as a whole barely moved. Of the 60 departments, 27 of them showed a difference for the 2010 ratio at 90 percent of the 2009 number– they were within ten percent or less lower on lawyers per billion– and 110 percent– they were ten percent or less higher. The median differential was slightly smaller, at 97.4 percent, so as a group the lawyers-per-revenue median benchmark shrank ever so slightly. A three percent decline might not even be statistically meaningful.
For my second finding I looked at total legal spending as a percentage of corporate revenue. For the same group, the inside budget and the external expense together showed an average increase of 19 percent from the previous year; the median, however, came in about five percent less than the previous year's figures. Putting more reliance on the median, if this result holds more broadly across law departments, it is impressive that general counsel have brought their budgets in below changes in corporate revenue.
The dispersion of change was much greater for total legal spending per revenue than for lawyers per revenue. For the former, only 16 law departments fell in the 90 percent to 110 percent range. Spending can vary more than staffing.
This data set and these analyses suggest that, for the most part, law departments in the aggregate remain relatively stable during a two-year period, at least as to these two fundamental benchmark metrics. The economic plummet and rise during this period appears to have made little difference in these normalized metrics. Notwithstanding the overall figures, as evidenced by the averages and medians for the group on the two metrics, within the companies the changes can be as extreme as 50 percent down and 150percent up.
Since these two benchmark metrics are ratios, such as the number of lawyers divided by the revenue expressed in billions, either side of that fraction can fluctuate, which increases the possibility of variation. As might be expected, the revenue of a company can swing up or down more than the headcount of the law department. It is also apparent from the date that the larger the company, the more stable the year-over-year comparisons become. Finally, metrics regarding paralegals and all other legal staff would probably show more volatility because general counsel focus more on their lawyer positions than on the other two categories.
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