Corporate Counsel: Clients look for detailed staff and billing info from external counsel
More corporate counsel following Wal-Mart to demand detailed information from advisers who try to push through higher charge-out rates as clients push outside counsel for more transparency. Michelle Madsen reports
November 28, 2007 at 07:09 PM
4 minute read
More corporate counsel following Wal-Mart to demand detailed information from advisers who try to push through higher charge-out rates as clients push outside counsel for more transparency. Michelle Madsen reports
General counsel are pressing advisers for more internal information about how they run their business, according to new research which shows that half of the companies surveyed ask external counsel about their salary levels.
According to the results of this month's The Verdict survey, conducted in association with Davies Arnold Cooper, 50% of corporate counsel ask their advisers for information about how much they pay their lawyers either 'often' or 'sometimes'. A further 22% said they requested such information occasionally.
The finding comes amid growing feelings that internal recruitment costs are being passed on to clients in the form of higher rates and suggests that the response of corporate counsel will be to demand more information from their law firms.
The results come just weeks after US retail giant Wal-Mart released a memo to its advisers demanding that they freeze charge-out rate increases, saying that it would only consider individual requests for rate increases for top-performing lawyers proven to have "added value". Wal-Mart's robust approach to rate increases was spurred by the supermarket chain's concerns over the impact of associate pay rises on legal rates.
The Verdict poll found that 56% of clients had asked their firms to stop putting up their charge-out rates. According to the poll, UK corporate counsel are also increasingly concerned by law firms' transparency over what drives charge-out rates, with 84% saying they felt advisers should offer detailed explanations to clients every time they considered raising their charge-out rates, with a further 11% stating that firms should offer details of rates to clients when asked.
While the majority of corporate counsel want to keep a close eye on their firm's salary policies with a mind on how it may affect their bills, a handful of in-house lawyers say that it is not their concern how firms decide salaries and rates. Five percent of respondents claimed that they did not expect any transparency from firms over rates and more than a quarter (26%) said that they felt that firms' salary policies are their own business.
Gulf Oil UK general counsel Richard Hoare argued that too much focus on how associate salaries affect rates could distract attention from the service provided.
"Our firms generally give details of their rates at the beginning of a job – they are very transparent with
us," he said. "However, important as cost is, it is not the most important element of a relationship."
One general counsel at a major investment bank said that they watched associate salaries not so much to see what impact increases would have on external spend, but to judge the expectations of candidates in the recruitment market. "We keep a close track on what associates are being paid; our staff do as well. Firms are very real competitors in the war for talent and associate salaries are a very clear indicator of what is going on in the market – not so much as a tool to keep down external legal spend but as an indicator of what recruits expect to be paid."
A number of clients said that concerns about charge-out rates, which can often top £600-an-hour for a senior City partner, have been eased by the trend for law firms to discount their rates, often in return for volume of instructions.
One respondent argued that clients rarely, if ever, pay the headline rates charged for firms, with in-house counsel more often than not agreeing to fixed-term rates which are not prey to salary increases or changes in the market.
Tony Wales, international general counsel at internet company AOL argued that law firms had become a lot more transparent and straightforward in recent years when discussing fees with clients.
"I do not think it is particularly helpful to know how firms calculate their rates," he said. "We go to outside counsel for specialist advice; at that level I do not think that there is a huge correlation between salary hikes and any increases in fees."
Wales added that while corporates with slim profit margins like Wal-Mart would put the same pressure on law firms to hold down their rates as they applied to any other supplier, those clients turning to outside counsel for advice on high-value matters were not likely to be concerned with transparency over billing – they just want the best lawyer for the job.
However, for some general counsel, the reason behind huge rate increases is already all too clear.
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 AllWill a Market Dominated by Small- to Mid-Cap Deals Give Rise to This Dark Horse US Firm in China?
Big Law Sidelined as Asian IPOs in New York Dominated by Small Cap Listings
X-odus: Why Germany’s Federal Court of Justice and Others Are Leaving X
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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