In-house lawyers: we don't necessarily want to see you, but alternative fees would be nice
The Am Law Daily chuckled a little bit when we read the section of the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual survey of chief legal officers (CLOs) in which they were asked to identify any number of ways outside counsel could improve their relationship with in-house lawyers. Only 7% of respondents wanted more on-site visits from their law firm, but 60% said they would prefer firms to use alternative fee arrangements more often. So: face-to-face contact ranks far below the almighty buck, though, in fairness, 49% of respondents did say they would like more frequent communication with firm lawyers.
April 27, 2009 at 08:03 PM
3 minute read
The Am Law Daily chuckled a little bit when we read the section of the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual survey of chief legal officers (CLOs) in which they were asked to identify any number of ways outside counsel could improve their relationship with in-house lawyers. Only 7% of respondents wanted more on-site visits from their law firm, but 60% said they would prefer firms to use alternative fee arrangements more often.
So: face-to-face contact ranks far below the almighty buck, though, in fairness, 49% of respondents did say they would like more frequent communication with firm lawyers.
The survey also shows that while alternative fee arrangements may be the next Big Thing, their time is slow in coming. Seventy-eight percent of respondents say that 0%-10% of their annual spend goes toward alternative fee arrangements. The second-biggest chunk of respondents – about 14% – say they spend 11%-25% percent of their department's budget on such arrangements.
One thing they can all agree on: the billable hour is problematic. More than 90% of the CLOs feel a major "disconnect" between the billable hour system and the fee-based structure they would prefer.
Other interesting nuggets from the survey:
- More in-house departments are cutting paralegals and staff, but those that are keeping their paralegals and support staff are working them harder. About 68% of respondents said their staff included paralegals and legal assistants, a 7% drop from the 2008 survey numbers. But about half of the respondents said one of the main ways they are saving money is by giving more work to paralegals and support staff.
- Hiring is down, which is no surprise. Less than one-quarter of respondents said they are planning to hire lawyers or staff this year, down from 32% in the 2008 survey.
- In-house lawyers are stressed out about increasing government regulation. Nearly half of respondents – 48% – ranked increased government scrutiny as a factor ranging from "little importance" (which actually ranks eighth out of 10 on an escalating scale of importance) to "highly important" (the maximum '10′ on the scale). Only 20% of respondents put government oversight in that range in the prior survey.
More than one-third of respondents said the heavy scrutiny could impact their decision to retire or look for another job.
This article first appeared in the Am Law Daily, Legal Week's US sister title.
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
© 2024 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 AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
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