What clients want: Looking Glass Report 2015
In this article, Lucinda Case, head of customer segments & strategy at Thomson Reuters Legal UK & Ireland, discusses findings from the Looking Glass Report 2015, produced by Thomson Reuters, Winmark and Mayer Brown
April 17, 2015 at 06:33 AM
3 minute read
We gained some fascinating insight this spring into legal trends with the publishing of the Looking Glass report. The research surveyed 122 in-house counsel and 160 law firm partners – 85% of law firms interviewed were in the £22m-plus revenue bracket.
Misalignments between buy and sell-side
Of particular interest are the top factors influencing the decisions by in-house counsel to instruct a new firm or retain an existing firm. By plotting the perceptions of in-house counsel on these factors, against those of law firms, we start to see some interesting misalignments.
Both law firm partners and in-house counsel agreed about the importance of quality of work, technical expertise, communication and responsiveness. But in other areas, law firms underestimated the importance of their offering to clients.
One respondent, a senior in-house lawyer in a top 20 global bank, commented: "Currently, traditional law firms risk heading in the direction of the dodo. The way they run their businesses isn't keeping pace with what in-house legal functions need."
Those areas most underestimated by law firms were:
• Collaboration with other firms
• Diversity
• Providing training
• Senior partner involvement
• Use of technology
• Hospitality
Would you have predicted these?
Use of technology
In-house counsel rated technology use as an important factor in instructing a new law firm, but they also indicated that law firms do not perform well in this area. Perhaps not so surprising, since the law firms surveyed in our research rated technology a bottom-three opportunity and a low strategic priority.
Our report also highlights that law firms are still struggling with differentiation: might innovative use of technology help here? As one general counsel of a FTSE 100 company commented: "Firms that did not come up with anything innovative or different did not make it on the panel".
Faced with competition, now including the Big Four accountancy firms with their investment in superior technology, strong brands and commercial approach (such that 30% of in-house respondents said that they were willing to purchase legal services from accountancy firms), the importance of technology use by law firms should not be underestimated.
The view from in-house
Our research showed that in-house counsel rate technology and innovation as a big opportunity. Yet, they often struggle to convince the business of this.
To invest in technology that can help make the legal function more efficient at a time when in-house resource is much strained, in-house teams need to make strong business cases (possibly benchmarking themselves to legal team IT budgets in other businesses) to persuade their internal stakeholders and make creative use where they can of technology resources that are already available.
Despite these challenges, in-house functions do see technology and innovation as a key opportunity, and expect their suppliers to keep up, or even lead the way, in this area.
To access the full Looking Glass 2015 report, please contact: [email protected]
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 AllA&O Shearman, Cleary Gottlieb Act on $700M Dunlop Tire Brand Sale to Japan's Sumitomo
Stewarts and DAC Beachcroft Lead on £2B Leicester City Helicopter Crash Litigation
Trending 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