Editor's Comment: Whose dysfunction?
You can make a strong case to support the assertion of Peter Kurer, UBS' general counsel, that the legal services market is "dysfunctional". Kurer argued in a recent Legal Week debate (see pages 26-27) that surging profits at leading firms were largely the result of rising legal bills and proof that the market for law just isn't working properly. His comments are timely, coming so soon after the Commerce & Industry Group's recent report on fees once again illustrated simmering client anger over costs. With partner profits having more than doubled over the last decade, it does seem evident that something is not right with the market.
October 17, 2007 at 10:53 PM
3 minute read
You can make a strong case to support the assertion of Peter Kurer, UBS' general counsel, that the legal services market is "dysfunctional". Kurer argued in a recent Legal Week debate that surging profits at leading firms were largely the result of rising legal bills and proof that the market for law just isn't working properly. His comments are timely, coming so soon after the Commerce & Industry Group's recent report on fees once again illustrated simmering client anger over costs. With partner profits having more than doubled over the last decade, it does seem evident that something is not right with the market.
Yet it seems hard to fathom why general counsel believe the primary fault lies with advisers. Ultimately, the responsibility to assert purchasing power is the client's. Legal advisers, much like any other service provider, will charge what the market will bear, no more. So the fact that fee inflation has soared during the period in which the panel system has gained currency raises awkward questions for clients.
Some reply that they are 'forced' to instruct a small band of firms, especially for premium work. But if a broader spectrum of firms can handle the work then it is the duty of clients to spread that work around more widely, which would impact swiftly on fee levels. The rarely-articulated reality is that general counsel will sometimes instruct certain 'brand' firms for the insurance factor should anything go wrong. And insurance does tend to cost more than we like paying.
Leaving supply-and-demand aside, many target the hourly rate. As there is substantial incentive to be inefficient in any time-based charging, this is understandable, but it is surely, to a considerable extent, the job of in-house teams to manage this tension.
It is also a mistake to think City lawyers are opposed to value-based billing. The hourly model forces firms to churn out massive hours to be profitable rather than basing their services on strategic nous. General counsel should be aware that value-based billing in a transactional environment would probably put booster rockets on fees for high-end work judging by the experiences of the Manhattan firms that have used such models, though mid-market fees would likely slump. Perhaps that is the way the market should develop; perhaps a mature discussion between client and counsel will develop better ideas. Either way, the lead must come from clients.
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 AllKMPG Moves to Provide Legal Services in the US—Now All Eyes Are on Its Big Four Peers
International Arbitration: Key Developments of 2024 and Emerging Trends for 2025
4 minute readThe Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Calculated Push Into Law Firms
5 minute read'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Lavish 'Lies' Led to Investors Being Fleeced in Nine-Figure International Crypto Scam
- 2AstraZeneca Files Flurry of Lawsuits to Protect Cancer Treatment Drug
- 3American Airlines Legal Chief Departs for Warner Bros. Discovery
- 4New Montgomery Bar President Aims to Boost Lawyer Referral Service
- 5Deadline Extended for Southeastern Legal Awards
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