Litigation: Getting the most from legal project management
The time has come for in-house counsel to stop accepting excuses and instead start demanding that their outside counsel develop an effective program for Legal Practice Management (LPM).
October 25, 2012 at 07:00 AM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The time has come for in-house counsel to stop accepting excuses and instead start demanding that their outside counsel develop an effective program for Legal Practice Management (LPM). In LPM, outside counsel collaborates with in-house counsel to manage the scope, budget and schedule of legal work. This collaborative process allows for completion of legal work in a more efficient and predictable manner. LPM has many benefits for in-house counsel, including gaining more control over their legal budgets and receiving more information about how outside counsel is working toward a favorable outcome.
In-house counsel also gets the benefits of representation built on their established wants, needs and goals because, with each new legal project, the LPM process evolves towards an increasingly customized level of representation. This increased knowledge can then be leveraged so that the efficiency, predictability, and the overall quality of legal work improves as the relationship between in-house counsel and outside counsel grows.
Assessing the credibility of any LPM process first requires an understanding of LPM's core principles of scope, budget and schedule. While each stands on its own, they are linked together, such that if one principle shifts, the other two also need to be re-evaluated. In-house counsel can get the most from the LPM process by understanding the key inquires driving these core components.
Scope: Defining the Work
In order to define the scope, outside and in-house counsel meet at the outset of a project and discuss the who, what, why and when questions inherent to the legal issues involved. Key questions should include:
- What is the business issue?
- Why do we have it?
- What are the acceptable outcomes?
- What business drivers are in play?
- What business restrictions exist?
- Are there any outside forces to consider?
- Who needs to be involved?
- What is the end goal and how will we achieve it?
- When do we need this done? Any timing considerations?
- What do we know about opposing counsel?
With these answers, the overall case plan is mapped out.
Budget: Making a Realistic Plan
Once the scope is determined, discussion can move to forecasting costs. Outside counsel should be ready to show how the financials and earned experience go into determinations regarding typical cost. This is also the time to consider use of an Alternative Fee Arrangement (AFA). Using an AFA is the ultimate way for a firm to partner with in-house counsel to share risks and gains. During these discussions, the elephant in the room needs to be front and center. In other words, if there are clear budget-busters, a good LPM process will identify them and include them at the top of the budget so that if and when they occur, they can be quickly managed.
Many tools exist to help with budget creation and the budget monitoring process. Our firm created our own software program, OneBudget, that draws directly from accounting systems to help deliver real-time budget information and management. Whatever tool is proposed, outside counsel must make sure it will be used daily by all attorneys at every level in order for the tool to provide value to in-house counsel.
Schedule: Matching Talent to Task
Scheduling is the people-side of the equation in the LPM process. This involves the critical questions of who is doing what, how is it moving the project forward, and can it be done better and more efficiently. In other words, legal work in the LPM process needs to be intentional through the use of best practices. The right LPM manager will pick the right person for the right work and then share the results broadly to each team member. Good LPM processes also entail using critical thinking to make sure that in-house counsel's end goals are being advanced efficiently and creatively.
Conclusion
LPM is a holistic approach to legal work. By working collaboratively through the LPM process on scoping, budgeting and scheduling, outside counsel's client teams draw on the knowledge of the entire team, including that of in-house counsel. The best LPM processes will enable outside counsel to manage cases efficiently and responsibly, while continuing to build on the overall value and results they provide to their in-house counsel clientele.
The time has come for in-house counsel to stop accepting excuses and instead start demanding that their outside counsel develop an effective program for Legal Practice Management (LPM). In LPM, outside counsel collaborates with in-house counsel to manage the scope, budget and schedule of legal work. This collaborative process allows for completion of legal work in a more efficient and predictable manner. LPM has many benefits for in-house counsel, including gaining more control over their legal budgets and receiving more information about how outside counsel is working toward a favorable outcome.
In-house counsel also gets the benefits of representation built on their established wants, needs and goals because, with each new legal project, the LPM process evolves towards an increasingly customized level of representation. This increased knowledge can then be leveraged so that the efficiency, predictability, and the overall quality of legal work improves as the relationship between in-house counsel and outside counsel grows.
Assessing the credibility of any LPM process first requires an understanding of LPM's core principles of scope, budget and schedule. While each stands on its own, they are linked together, such that if one principle shifts, the other two also need to be re-evaluated. In-house counsel can get the most from the LPM process by understanding the key inquires driving these core components.
Scope: Defining the Work
In order to define the scope, outside and in-house counsel meet at the outset of a project and discuss the who, what, why and when questions inherent to the legal issues involved. Key questions should include:
- What is the business issue?
- Why do we have it?
- What are the acceptable outcomes?
- What business drivers are in play?
- What business restrictions exist?
- Are there any outside forces to consider?
- Who needs to be involved?
- What is the end goal and how will we achieve it?
- When do we need this done? Any timing considerations?
- What do we know about opposing counsel?
With these answers, the overall case plan is mapped out.
Budget: Making a Realistic Plan
Once the scope is determined, discussion can move to forecasting costs. Outside counsel should be ready to show how the financials and earned experience go into determinations regarding typical cost. This is also the time to consider use of an Alternative Fee Arrangement (AFA). Using an AFA is the ultimate way for a firm to partner with in-house counsel to share risks and gains. During these discussions, the elephant in the room needs to be front and center. In other words, if there are clear budget-busters, a good LPM process will identify them and include them at the top of the budget so that if and when they occur, they can be quickly managed.
Many tools exist to help with budget creation and the budget monitoring process. Our firm created our own software program, OneBudget, that draws directly from accounting systems to help deliver real-time budget information and management. Whatever tool is proposed, outside counsel must make sure it will be used daily by all attorneys at every level in order for the tool to provide value to in-house counsel.
Schedule: Matching Talent to Task
Scheduling is the people-side of the equation in the LPM process. This involves the critical questions of who is doing what, how is it moving the project forward, and can it be done better and more efficiently. In other words, legal work in the LPM process needs to be intentional through the use of best practices. The right LPM manager will pick the right person for the right work and then share the results broadly to each team member. Good LPM processes also entail using critical thinking to make sure that in-house counsel's end goals are being advanced efficiently and creatively.
Conclusion
LPM is a holistic approach to legal work. By working collaboratively through the LPM process on scoping, budgeting and scheduling, outside counsel's client teams draw on the knowledge of the entire team, including that of in-house counsel. The best LPM processes will enable outside counsel to manage cases efficiently and responsibly, while continuing to build on the overall value and results they provide to their in-house counsel clientele.
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 AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1The Coordinate Jurisdiction Rule on Insurance Bad Faith Litigation
- 2South Carolina Physicians Challenge Abortion Ban Under Religious Freedom Claims
- 3Special Series Part 5: The State’s Bond Lock Impermissibly Delegates Legislative Authority
- 4President-Elect Donald Trump Sentenced to Unconditional Discharge
- 5JCPenney Customer's Slip-and-Fall From Bodily Substance Suit Best Left for a Jury to Decide, Judge Rules
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