The $23bn question – why banks' soaring legal spend is posing problems for law firms
When a single bank announces that it is setting aside more money to cover litigation costs than several countries' GDP, it is unlikely be alone in facing soaring legal spend.
April 10, 2014 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
When a single bank announces that it is setting aside more money to cover litigation costs than several countries' GDP, it is unlikely be alone in facing soaring legal spend.
At $23bn (£13.7bn), the value of JPMorgan Chase's litigation provision is the highest announced by any financial institution so far but, across the board, legal spend has risen steeply in response to wave after wave of financial scandals ranging from payment protection insurance to Libor.
A not-so-quick glance through several banks' annual reports for 2013 shows litigation provisions more than doubled between January and December at Barclays and Credit Suisse, while Lloyds Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland set aside overall provisions of more than £3bn.
Meanwhile, the growing number of banks publicly disclosing the impact legal costs have had on their financial performance means such expenditure has been moved firmly out of the appendices into the limelight.
All of which should be extremely good news for law firms, which, alongside customers being compensated for banks' past foibles, should be among the biggest beneficiaries of this phenomenon. But, as we reveal in this week's lead feature, the benefit is not always as clear cut as you might expect. Because although the overall figure spent on legal fees has grown, the heightened attention the issue is receiving and the increasing volume of work means banks are being tougher than ever on costs. Complaints from banks' non-core advisers that panel places are not always worth it because of how much fees are squeezed are nothing new, but even those winning the biggest mandates can now find themselves under pressure.
Quite simply, as investigations and penalties mount up so does the need to keep costs down – or at the very least justify the expense. And this means banks are increasingly willing to look beyond the most recognised law firm names to save money. Others are calling on the junior Bar rather than law firms to lead reviews, while some are investigating the possibility of appointing just one firm to take on all of their investigations work globally.
All of which are examples of the changing dynamic between bank and legal adviser at a time when the need for quality advice has never been greater. The trick, as ever, is making sure the relationship remains profitable for both sides – a challenge that will clearly require both parties to be as open-minded and innovative as possible.
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 AllLosing its 'Sparkle'? Why Latham Has Faced a Stream of Exits in Europe, UK
6 minute readLinklaters, Slaughter and May and Eversheds Advise on Morrisons Property Deal
Ashurst Hires Partner-Led Italian Finance Team While Geradin Opens Nordic Hub in Helsinki
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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