Legal Departments See Cost-Controlling Value in Technology
The 2nd Annual Study of Legal Spend Management found that legal departments still have room to mature in how they measure and control their legal spend.
May 02, 2018 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
As legal departments move to build out their internal operations, many recognize the value of legal technology tools and processes in helping them control their spend, according to the 2nd Annual Study of Legal Spend Management, a survey of 59 in-house legal professionals conducted by The Blickstein Group and Exterro.
The survey found that, this year, almost the same number of legal departments are increasing their outside legal spend as decreasing it. More legal departments, however, are increasing their inside legal spend, rather than decreasing it or keeping such spend steady.
Still, outside legal spend accounts for a higher nominal amount of most legal departments' overall budget than internal legal spend. Almost half, 46 percent, of legal departments budgeted $25 million or more on outside legal spend, compared with 36 percent who budgeted the same on internal legal spend.
Most of that outside legal spend was directed at law firms. The survey found that 62 percent of respondents spent more than 80 percent of their outside legal spend on their outside counsel.
Bill Piwonka, chief marketing officer at Exterro, noted this could be partly because legal departments are slow to turn away from relying on outside counsel, which they have done for most of their history. But it could also be because “a number of law firms are offering additional services,” he added, pointing to law firms like Reed Smith that are offering more technology and managed services akin to alternative legal providers.
Legal departments had a number of ways of controlling and minimizing the amount they spend internally and externally. Most effective, however, were those centered on technology. Respondents ranked e-billing enforcement of guidelines, for instance, as one of the most helpful tools in controlling budgets.
E-billing is useful in managing spend, Piwonka said, because it “is going to give you insight where you are spending and start giving you ideas about how you can start optimizing that and gain efficiencies.”
Brad Blickstein, principal at Blickstein Group, added that such a tool was also particularly helpful for enforcing compliance with outside counsel guidelines, noting that, “without e-billing, there is just no way to tell if they are being lived up to.”
Other tech tools and processes were also ranked highly for their ability to control spend, such as key performance indicators to track law firm performance and automated invoice review. But unlike e-billing, these tools were not widely used by many legal departments.
Blickstein, however, noted that it may only be a matter of time before corporate law becomes more sophisticated with how they control cost, “especially with legal operations people taking more power in law departments. They are starting to manage those departments like other divisions or departments in the company.”
Many legal departments are looking to control their spend by moving some operations in-house, with most aiming to insource contract review, followed by litigation services and IP work.
The survey also found that most legal departments, 56 percent, moved to rein in their e-discovery spend due to the C-suite's demands for cost controls, while 12 percent of departments did so because of directives from their general counsel. On average, the biggest impediments to controlling e-discovery costs were undefined e-discovery processes that needed to be re-worked, and lack of reporting on e-discovery-related expenses.
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
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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