How to use analytics for greater credibility at the business table
What if the GC had the power to respond with facts about the most likely cost to handle matters, both within the organization and at other organizations?
September 17, 2013 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
How much is it going to cost us?
That's the question that faces general counsel (GCs) when meeting with their CFOs. The message to today's GC is clear: It's no longer sufficient to be a great corporate lawyer; it's now a job requirement to be an effective business manager who can also communicate the value of his or her legal department to the company.
Unfortunately, many GCs feel ill-equipped for this challenge. They know they should manage by facts–rather than gut instincts–but they don't know if they have the right facts, or the ability to mine and aggregate those facts, at their fingertips.
GCs empowered by analytics are better equipped to respond to these types of questions from the CFO. When properly analyzed, data about past legal matters and data from across the legal industry as a whole can arm GCs with the information they need to more accurately predict their legal spend and build trust and respect with their CFOs.
Legal analytics answer a few basic questions, including:
- How long should this kind of matter (lawsuit, joint venture, etc.) take to resolve?
- How much will this kind of matter cost us to resolve?
- What are the signals that a specific matter has strayed outside the bounds of predictable norms in terms of time and expense?
The key is not only estimating the cost of a matter but assessing the potential range of costs along with the drivers of that variability. This information brings real value to the company.
Mining legal data using powerful analytics
How can corporate legal professionals extract this type of information? Start with your corporate software systems that generate data about billing, matter management and accounts payable (A/P). Once the data has been aggregated, it can be analyzed for specific characteristics.
Through this analysis, GCs can discover:
- How much matters typically cost through each point of their lifecycle
- Where each matter is within its lifecycle
- Whether the matter has shown any early indications that it is going to deviate from a normal matter of that nature
- The expected total cost for handling a matter and the expected costs through the current fiscal year
For instance, imagine a matter that has been active for 16 months, such as a complex employment litigation case. The employment in-house counsel looks at the information from other employment litigation cases and sees that they typically last 27 months. The next step is to compare this matter to 75 other employment litigation cases over the last four years. The comparison may show that in month six, costs spiked well above the average for this type of work, and then continued to be above average. By looking into the activities in month six, the in-house attorney can figure out what drove up those costs.
This approach to business intelligence is invaluable for forecasting legal costs in two ways. First, general counsel can forecast and budget more accurately for the rest of the year with this information as a benchmark. Second, corporate counsel have the opportunity to better manage similar matters going forward by analyzing what drove up legal costs in month six.
Access to legal analytics also creates a stronger and more informed dialogue between a corporate counsel and the law firm handling the matter. Imagine how powerful it would be for the lawyer who owns this matter to bring the “similar matter” averages to the law firm and discuss whether so many depositions were really needed or why a specific partner was doing so much work. Using facts to guide this conversation changes the dynamic entirely.
Lastly, the aggregation of data for similar matters provides a baseline for early case assessment when new legal matters arise.
Going back to that uncomfortable conversation between the CFO and GC, what if the GC had the power to respond with facts about the most likely cost to handle matters of this nature, both within the organization and at other organizations?
This is the type of information that transforms relationships between executives and builds credibility for the GC. The GC now comes to the table as a key player who predicts, manages and balances costs and risk for the broader organization.
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
- 1State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
- 2$5 Million Settlement Reached With Stone Academy
- 3$15K Family Vacation Turned 'Colossal Nightmare': Lawsuit Filed Against Vail Ski Resorts
- 4Prepare Your Entries! The California Legal Awards Have a New, February Deadline
- 5DOJ Files Antitrust Suit to Block Amex GBT's Acquisition of Competitor
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