GCs feel advisers have little cause for complaint
If law firms are hoping that announcing their worst financial results since the early 1990s recession will cut them more slack with cost-conscious clients, they had better think again. Discussing the feelings of clients with regard to the profits generated at major UK law firms in 2008-09, it is clear that general counsel believe large law firms, at least, are still doing very nicely by most yardsticks.
August 04, 2009 at 04:31 AM
6 minute read
Alex Aldridge gauges the reaction of leading general counsel to this year's Legal Week top 50 law firm results – and finds many in the mood to share a little more pain
If law firms are hoping that announcing their worst financial results since the early 1990s recession will cut them more slack with cost-conscious clients, they had better think again.
Discussing the feelings of clients with regard to the profits generated at major UK law firms in 2008-09, it is clear that general counsel believe large law firms, at least, are still doing very nicely by most yardsticks.
So while Legal Week's recent top 50 results showed profit per equity partner (PEP) fell on average by 17.3% across the group, and considerably more in the case of many firms, the legal industry remains very profitable.
Indeed, given that law firms largely managed to maintain their revenues at 2008 levels despite the sharp recession that has gripped the global economy over the last year, a fair number of legal heads say there has been little change on fees firms are charging.
Coca Cola European GC Chris Barnard says: "It looks as though there may be further room for negotiating with firms over fees and pushing for more alternative billing arrangements."
He added that a 'hotline' service which he established earlier this year with certain panel firms to provide advice on small matters is the sort of cost-cutting initiative that he hopes to build upon during the months ahead.
Jeremy Barton, general counsel at Boston Consulting Group, described the last 12 months as "business as usual" for law firms. He said that although discounting of 10%-15% by firms was now not uncommon, there had been "no really big gestures of the sort which might have been expected if the market had become much worse". Barton also questioned how competitive the recent spate of panel reviews had been in practice: "Although there were a lot of them, I did not get the impression that the competition was actually all that cut-throat," he comments.
British Telecom Retail legal head Gordon Moir agreed that the rates charged by law firms were little changed on those during the boom. "There has not been as much softening on fees on a per hour basis as one might have expected." However, Moir says that value-added arrangements, such as deals over secondees, had made up for the lack of direct rates reductions.
"We have certainly pushed for more secondees from law firms – and during the last year I would say we have had an extra 50% loaned out to us on fairly favourable terms," he comments, adding that he has been looking into greater sharing of precedents and other key documents with his panel firms.
However, not everyone is interpreting the results as a green light for more hard-bargaining with external counsel. Thomson Reuters EMEA legal head Daragh Fagan cited the significant drop in PEP revealed in the results as evidence that firms are not immune to economic conditions: "That is quite a significant decrease, and indicates to me that firms are sharing the economic difficulties being faced by their clients to some degree."
He continued: "The more important thing is long-term relationships rather than one-off short-term discounts."
Nick Deeming, GC of auction house Christie's, was similarly focused on the long term, emphasising the importance of "constant dialogue" between clients and advisers.
"I just do not see firms responding well to demands to cut fees by large amounts. Without taking a longer term view it could potentially lead to conflict. Given the complexity of legal services provision, savings and value need to be achieved through intelligent debate, rather than taking out a hammer to squash firms when they are at a weak point," he argues
Leah Cooper (pictured), managing attorney at Rio Tinto, was one of several in-house lawyers who emphasised the need for clients to take responsibility for securing value from their advisers – regardless of the financial results law firms were producing.
"I do not believe we can look at statistics indicating firms' revenues and simply complain about fees. It is up to us, as the client, to ensure we are getting the value we think we should on the work we send to external counsel," she comments.
Mark Chapman, European general counsel of investment bank Nomura, agreed that clients should focus more on the value they are getting from advisers and general market conditions, rather than the finances of advisers.
"Our relationships with law firms are impacted far less by their results than by broader market conditions," he comments.
"Of course, if one of our preferred firms suffered particularly poor results we would take an interest in why and what, if anything, that meant for us; just as we would if one produced extraordinary profits. But, generally speaking, it is not something we focus on."
Andrew Williams, EMEA general counsel of investment bank UBS, has a similar take: "What is driving banks to seek greater discounts from relationship firms is not the profitability of those firms, but the lack of profitability of the banks," he says, arguing that banks will continue to look for better terms from law firms for the foreseeable future. "It is very simple. If I get a new job, I am going to go out to three firms for a capped figure. And generally the best price will win."
Williams, however, conceded his surprise at how well law firm business models have held up given the traditional reliance of leading City law firms on banking clients.
"Considering how badly some of the banks have done over the last couple of years, the law firm model – especially the well diversified one – has performed remarkably well," he observes.
Sign up to receive In-house News Briefing, Legal Week's new digital newsletter
Click here to join Legal Week's LinkedIn In-house lawyers group
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
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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