Efficiency Remains Elusive as Legal Departments Bring Work In-House
As legal departments look to find the optimal level of in-sourcing, many struggle to streamline their operations, according to the 2017 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report.
November 06, 2017 at 03:23 PM
7 minute read
Photo by Indypendenz/Shutterstock.com.
Empowered by technology and seeking to cut costs, legal departments have been bringing more of their legal services in-house. But departments doing so are hitting limits and running into efficiency challenges, according to Exterro's “2017 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report: Optimizing Legal & E-Discovery Activities.”
The report, a survey of 86 in-house professionals, including general counsel, corporate attorneys, litigation support staff, paralegals and legal directors, found that 51 percent of legal departments conducted at least half of their organization's legal services in-house.
Of those, 17 percent conducted at least 75 percent of such work in-house, while eight percent conducted all their legal services on their own. Over one-third of respondents also said they increased the amount of work they handled in-house over the past year.
Mike Hamilton, director of marketing programs at Exterro Inc., noted that the move toward insourcing is a “trend that has been taking place over the past four or five years. But I think what you're seeing now is that legal departments are looking for that hybrid place, trying to find that happy medium” between bringing work in-house and outsourcing.
For the most part, legal departments are split on how best to find this balance. When asked how they expect their use of outside service providers to change over the next two years, one-third said it would stay the same as it is currently, while 29 percent predicted less use of service providers. However, 21 percent believed they would use more service providers in the years to come.
Interestingly, some of the most and least outsourced operations were those involving e-discovery. A majority of respondents said their legal department's least outsourced services were data preservation and collection, 56 percent and legal hold work, 69 percent. On the other hand, more than a third said the most outsourced services were data processing, 34 percent, data review, 36 percent, and data production, 38 percent.
Hamilton noted that the “most outsourced legal services still fall on the latter-half side of the [Electronic Discovery Reference Model],” because to bring these in-house legal departments “would need to drastically modify their resources, specifically bringing in new personnel and technology.”
And often times, this can be too much of a financial burden for many corporations. “In a lot of their minds, this is not cost-effective,” he added.
Moving more e-discovery operations in-house was also not likely, given that many legal departments struggled to effectively manage their e-discovery costs. Though controlling e-discovery costs was cited by respondents as the top challenge, only 38 percent tracked or measured them.
Hamilton noted that creating such e-discovery cost metrics can be a significant challenge for legal departments because they “can only do it when they have spent the time, the energy, and the resources to build the foundation to create repeatable and consistent e-discovery processes.”
And most legal departments are not there yet. Indeed, many are still slow to turn to technology to more efficiently management their legal projects in the first place.
The survey found that when managing legal projects, 46 percent of legal departments used matter management software in 2017, compared to 44 in 2016, while 25 percent used legal management, a slight increase from 24 percent the past year.
“One of the reasons why there is such slow crawl with adoption with project management tools is that change is hard, and it's hard especially in a field like legal,” Hamilton explained. While efficient project management has become the norm in other industries, he added, it's still the exception rather than the rule in legal.
“Only in the past couple of years have legal departments started to take the idea of efficiency seriously. And really this comes from the top down.”
Photo by Indypendenz/Shutterstock.com.
Empowered by technology and seeking to cut costs, legal departments have been bringing more of their legal services in-house. But departments doing so are hitting limits and running into efficiency challenges, according to Exterro's “2017 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report: Optimizing Legal & E-Discovery Activities.”
The report, a survey of 86 in-house professionals, including general counsel, corporate attorneys, litigation support staff, paralegals and legal directors, found that 51 percent of legal departments conducted at least half of their organization's legal services in-house.
Of those, 17 percent conducted at least 75 percent of such work in-house, while eight percent conducted all their legal services on their own. Over one-third of respondents also said they increased the amount of work they handled in-house over the past year.
Mike Hamilton, director of marketing programs at Exterro Inc., noted that the move toward insourcing is a “trend that has been taking place over the past four or five years. But I think what you're seeing now is that legal departments are looking for that hybrid place, trying to find that happy medium” between bringing work in-house and outsourcing.
For the most part, legal departments are split on how best to find this balance. When asked how they expect their use of outside service providers to change over the next two years, one-third said it would stay the same as it is currently, while 29 percent predicted less use of service providers. However, 21 percent believed they would use more service providers in the years to come.
Interestingly, some of the most and least outsourced operations were those involving e-discovery. A majority of respondents said their legal department's least outsourced services were data preservation and collection, 56 percent and legal hold work, 69 percent. On the other hand, more than a third said the most outsourced services were data processing, 34 percent, data review, 36 percent, and data production, 38 percent.
Hamilton noted that the “most outsourced legal services still fall on the latter-half side of the [Electronic Discovery Reference Model],” because to bring these in-house legal departments “would need to drastically modify their resources, specifically bringing in new personnel and technology.”
And often times, this can be too much of a financial burden for many corporations. “In a lot of their minds, this is not cost-effective,” he added.
Moving more e-discovery operations in-house was also not likely, given that many legal departments struggled to effectively manage their e-discovery costs. Though controlling e-discovery costs was cited by respondents as the top challenge, only 38 percent tracked or measured them.
Hamilton noted that creating such e-discovery cost metrics can be a significant challenge for legal departments because they “can only do it when they have spent the time, the energy, and the resources to build the foundation to create repeatable and consistent e-discovery processes.”
And most legal departments are not there yet. Indeed, many are still slow to turn to technology to more efficiently management their legal projects in the first place.
The survey found that when managing legal projects, 46 percent of legal departments used matter management software in 2017, compared to 44 in 2016, while 25 percent used legal management, a slight increase from 24 percent the past year.
“One of the reasons why there is such slow crawl with adoption with project management tools is that change is hard, and it's hard especially in a field like legal,” Hamilton explained. While efficient project management has become the norm in other industries, he added, it's still the exception rather than the rule in legal.
“Only in the past couple of years have legal departments started to take the idea of efficiency seriously. And really this comes from the top down.”
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 AllTrending 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