Staffing and resource optimization as a component of outside counsel management
An important component of an outside counsel management program is to consider what work should be sent to outside counsel and how it should be staffed.
September 06, 2013 at 05:00 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In my last article, I discussed how an eBilling system supports core components of an outside counsel management program. Today, I will be discussing how technology can support staffing and resource optimization decisions.
An important component of an outside counsel management program is to consider what work should be sent to outside counsel and how it should be staffed. Philosophically, most departments will send work outside in one of three scenarios: when there is a need for special expertise, when there is overflow work and/or for routine work that could potentially be managed more efficiently by an outside organization because the organization has effective tools or processes. Some law departments are using data from their matter management and eBilling systems to analyze these situations and to determine if further refinement to outsourcing and staffing strategies can be made, thereby achieving greater cost savings or additional value for services retained.
Staffing Based on Matter Type & Risk Profiles
Departments seeking to exercise more rigor around matter staffing have constructed methodologies for determining when to send work outside. One approach is to formally consider the risk or significance of certain types of work. As part of matter initiation, a matter management system can prompt the user to consider elements that make a matter riskier (e.g., reputational risk or the amount of exposure) and ultimately help the user to assign a significance rating to a matter. Though most lawyers have a gut instinct for the level of risk involved in a matter, providing a framework that enables a lawyer to systematically demonstrate a matter is low enough risk that sending work to a lower cost resource is acceptable usually results in more of the appropriate work being transferred to lower cost resources.
Staffing Mix/Pushing Work Down
Another philosophy is to push work down to the lowest level thereby freeing more senior resources to work on higher value activities. Departments often request that their vendors follow this philosophy. Tasks such as document editing or routine data collection can and should be pushed to lower cost resources when possible. Departments that have asked their outside counsel to utilize UTBMS codes to categorize the tasks on which they are spending time can look at large volumes of outside time to see which vendors are more effectively pushing routine tasks down to lower levels. Departments that reward vendors for following this philosophy tend to experience overall cost reductions over time (holding all else equal).
Cost Projections
Once a department has built a history of invoices containing information about staffing levels and hours spent on matter tasks, it is possible to begin predicting costs for similar future work. Hours spent on tasks can be trended over time to understand averages as well as variability. Assuming the department has negotiated rates, it is then possible to project matter costs and validate budget estimates submitted by outside counsel.
Tracking Outcomes
Though all of the aforementioned activities should encourage practices that result in lower outside costs, the net benefit may be less if service quality and matter outcomes suffer as a result. It is important for departments to consistently track matter outcomes to ensure that staffing and resource optimization measures are in fact “optimizing” results. At a minimum, departments should monitor the percentage of matters that end favorably to ensure that percentage at the very least stays steady.
Next month's article will talk about summarizing a vendor's performance within a scorecard and preparing for the annual rate meeting.
In my last article, I discussed how an eBilling system supports core components of an outside counsel management program. Today, I will be discussing how technology can support staffing and resource optimization decisions.
An important component of an outside counsel management program is to consider what work should be sent to outside counsel and how it should be staffed. Philosophically, most departments will send work outside in one of three scenarios: when there is a need for special expertise, when there is overflow work and/or for routine work that could potentially be managed more efficiently by an outside organization because the organization has effective tools or processes. Some law departments are using data from their matter management and eBilling systems to analyze these situations and to determine if further refinement to outsourcing and staffing strategies can be made, thereby achieving greater cost savings or additional value for services retained.
Staffing Based on Matter Type & Risk Profiles
Departments seeking to exercise more rigor around matter staffing have constructed methodologies for determining when to send work outside. One approach is to formally consider the risk or significance of certain types of work. As part of matter initiation, a matter management system can prompt the user to consider elements that make a matter riskier (e.g., reputational risk or the amount of exposure) and ultimately help the user to assign a significance rating to a matter. Though most lawyers have a gut instinct for the level of risk involved in a matter, providing a framework that enables a lawyer to systematically demonstrate a matter is low enough risk that sending work to a lower cost resource is acceptable usually results in more of the appropriate work being transferred to lower cost resources.
Staffing Mix/Pushing Work Down
Another philosophy is to push work down to the lowest level thereby freeing more senior resources to work on higher value activities. Departments often request that their vendors follow this philosophy. Tasks such as document editing or routine data collection can and should be pushed to lower cost resources when possible. Departments that have asked their outside counsel to utilize UTBMS codes to categorize the tasks on which they are spending time can look at large volumes of outside time to see which vendors are more effectively pushing routine tasks down to lower levels. Departments that reward vendors for following this philosophy tend to experience overall cost reductions over time (holding all else equal).
Cost Projections
Once a department has built a history of invoices containing information about staffing levels and hours spent on matter tasks, it is possible to begin predicting costs for similar future work. Hours spent on tasks can be trended over time to understand averages as well as variability. Assuming the department has negotiated rates, it is then possible to project matter costs and validate budget estimates submitted by outside counsel.
Tracking Outcomes
Though all of the aforementioned activities should encourage practices that result in lower outside costs, the net benefit may be less if service quality and matter outcomes suffer as a result. It is important for departments to consistently track matter outcomes to ensure that staffing and resource optimization measures are in fact “optimizing” results. At a minimum, departments should monitor the percentage of matters that end favorably to ensure that percentage at the very least stays steady.
Next month's article will talk about summarizing a vendor's performance within a scorecard and preparing for the annual rate meeting.
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
- 1The Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Push Into Law Firms
- 2Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 3'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 4Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 5Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
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