The Future of Law: How In-House Counsel Will Hire Outside Counsel
Analytics will play a major role in hiring moving forward, forcing many law firms to adjust their strategies.
May 08, 2018 at 12:30 PM
4 minute read
Analytics will define how in house counsel will hire their outside counsel. Just as Facebook mines our personal data to allow advertisers to target us with appropriate ads, companies will require firms who are interested in joining their outside counsel panels to make available all their billing and firm data to measure the firm against their competitors. The data is there to measure a firm's efficiency, responsiveness and success rate.
Consider companies getting access to all of a firm's redacted billing records to evaluate how long it takes for them to prepare for a deposition, a hearing or trial? How long it takes to draft a motion or a research memo? Also, what if companies could access all public records to see how often a firm went to trial and won? How about how often a firm argues discovery motions and wins them? What if that analysis could be done for each lawyer at a given firm?
There are companies already doing this data analysis now. The time will come that if firms want corporations as their clients they will have to turn over reams of data to them and third parties who will mine the data, analyze it, compare it to the data of other firms, give the firm a rating based on the data and make a data driven decision whether to hire the firm, and if so, which attorneys at the firm to hire and handle their matters.
Right now, many clients rely on recommendations from their peers. They're looking for counsel to handle a given matter in a given jurisdiction, and they'll ask their colleagues whom they recommend and why. It's an imperfect and subjective way to choose counsel. The recommendation may be based on incomplete and imperfect information. And if the decision goes south, the in house counsel who hired the outside firm may have to answer to her CEO and the company's board for a runaway verdict.
A data-driven decision, however, is more likely to produce a more scientific result and also provides more cover for the in house counsel pulling the trigger. In case of a runaway verdict, the in house counsel can rely on a stack of data to support her decision. Welcome to data-based CYA.
So what does this mean for law firms? First, efficiency and results matter. Inefficient and ineffective counsel will be identified and forced out of law firms. Firms will take the initiative and start measuring how long it takes their attorneys to complete tasks, assignments, prepare for matters and close out files. They will also measure what their attorneys settle their matters for. These internal analytics will help firms ensure their team is equipped with the best. This exercise will also identify which attorneys are the best at their jobs and those attorneys will be asked to reduce their process to writing and to teach other lawyers at their firms how to be both more effective and more efficient.
This reductionism of the practice will aid less experienced lawyers to better serve their clients. In fact, some firms may reduce this skill set to a reproducible process that, through the assistance of artificial intelligence, may be sold as applications to other firms to help them secure and keep more clients. And why would any firm share its practice secrets? Because the real money to be made by firms in the future is through creating and selling legal technology, not the billable hour.
Getting back to analytics, for this plan to work for companies there has to be (1) data; (2) access to data; and (3) algorithms to evaluate the data. Firms have the data. Many firms will make that data, minus any privileged information, available, in return for being considered as outside counsel. Once a client or a third party has the data, the proper algorithms will flesh out which firms are best suited for their matters. This is all just a matter of time. Welcome to a brave new world of the practice of law.
The Future of Law is a new monthly column by Frank Ramos, the Managing Partner at Clarke Silverglate, a commercial litigation firm in Miami. You can e-mail him at [email protected] or follow him on LinkedIn, where you can download five of his law-related books for free and read his daily practice tips.
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
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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