80% of GCs see cost as important but most slow to measure value and efficiency of efforts
Fewer than half of general counsel are taking steps to drive down legal spend, despite the fact 80% acknowledge the importance of being more cost-effective, according to new research. Nabarro's second annual report on attitudes among general counsel found that only 45% of respondents were actively addressing the cost effectiveness of both external legal spend and the legal function as a whole.
November 16, 2011 at 07:03 PM
4 minute read
Flagship report from Nabarro finds many GCs struggle to develop practical tools to deliver value
Fewer than half of general counsel are taking steps to drive down legal spend, despite the fact 80% acknowledge the importance of being more cost-effective, according to new research.
Nabarro's second annual report on attitudes among general counsel found that only 45% of respondents were actively addressing the cost effectiveness of both external legal spend and the legal function as a whole.
The firm's General Counsel: Vague About Value? report, which involved interviews with more than 100 GCs, heads of legal and other senior in-house lawyers, found that the same percentage (45%) had no plans to address the issue at all.
The findings show that only a minority of companies have introduced sophisticated measures to analyse cost either internally or externally, despite the fact many companies have introduced panel processes as a means to drive down spending.
Only 53% of responding GCs said they consult with external legal advisers about how they can jointly deliver financial value, with a further 15% indicating that they might do so in the future. Fewer than half (45%) of GCs see their external counsel as essential partners in delivering financial value.
In addition, only 43% of respondents said they had implemented value-based billing arrangements with their external law firms, with a further 47% admitting they had never discussed this. Those that had made progress in the area focused mainly on fixed-fee arrangements and capped fees.
Meanwhile, looking at the overall performance of their internal legal teams, only 21% of GCs said they were using some form of key performance indicator (KPI) to assess the value the legal function adds to the business, with most (65%) having no intention of introducing KPIs.
This comes despite the fact that only a little more than half (55%) of GCs surveyed said they were sure their in-house legal teams were recognised internally as adding value to the business, with many finding it difficult to change perceptions and gain recognition.
Understanding the commercial objectives of the business was seen as the single most important factor in senior management's recognition of the value of the legal team, with many seeing technical legal skills taken as a given by other parts of the business.
Nabarro disputes partner Jonathan Warne commented: "The findings reveal that many GCs are not actively consulting with external legal providers on ways in which to deliver greater financial value. Metrics may help demonstrate improvements, but collaboration between in-house lawyers and external counsel is the starting point."
The report includes five in-depth case studies with those who are taking steps to address the issue of value.
Vodafone GC Rosemary Martin (pictured) commented in the report: "Beyond dealing with legal and corporate reputation issues, cost is the number one item on my agenda…. Having just set up a legal panel, I will be reviewing panel members' performances in a more organised way."
She added: "We have spent a lot of time talking to them about fees and how they go about structuring them. We are also interested in what else they can offer to help us further shape the legal function we want."
Other findings contained within the report include the fact that while GCs believe it important to improve the efficiency of the legal function, most are doing nothing about it.
While law firms have been making increasing use of legal process outsourcing, Nabarro's survey found it unpopular with clients. In relation to the subject, 78% of interviewees said they did not use it, with the majority feeling it inappropriate for their business.
- Click here to see Nabarro's full report on Legal Week Law
- Related: Warts and all – an unusually realistic take on GC life
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 AllWorkload and Getting It All Done Top Challenges for In-house Counsel: Survey
4 minute readAmazon Corporate Counsel in Brussels Returns to US Firm in ‘Boomerang Hire’
2 minute readFormer Miral GC Brings Commercial Insight to BCLP’s Middle East Real Estate Practice
4 minute read‘A Slave Drivers' Contract’: Evri Legal Director Grilled by MPs
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