Legal Departments Are Insourcing More Litigation Work Than Ever Before
Exterro's '2018 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report' found that legal departments are leveraging technology and new workflows to handle more work themselves. But many still plan to rely on outside help.
November 07, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
Relying on streamlined processes and legal technology, legal departments are insourcing more work than ever before, according to Exterro's “2018 In-House Legal Benchmarking Report,” a survey of over 110 in-house legal or legal operations staff.
Almost one-third, 29 percent, of survey respondents said they conducted at least 75 percent of their litigation and e-discovery work in-house, compared to 17 percent in 2017. What's more, 20 percent conducted all such work internally.
While an additional 20 percent brought in at least half of their litigation and e-discovery work in-house, 31 percent insourced under half.
Bill Piwonka, chief marketing officer at Exterro, noted that more insourcing is “absolutely a continuation of an [ongoing] trend … it comes down to the same thing we've been seeing for the past few years, which is just that the C-suite is looking to the legal department to become more efficient and productive.”
“And the way the legal department has in general reacted is they are bringing more functions in-house, they're taking a more process-centric approach, basically in the same way every other department in the organization has,” he said.
Unsurprisingly, legal holds were the least likely task to be outsourced, while processing and data review were most likely to be outsourced.
A wide majority, 84 percent, of respondents said they were at least “somewhat satisfied” with their in-house legal team's performance, compared to the 71 percent who said the same about their outsourced legal services.
Almost half, 46 percent, however, said their legal department's use of outside service providers will likely remain the same over the next five years, while 16 percent predicted more outsourcing and 26 percent predicted less outsourcing.
The survey found that in 2018, 69 percent of legal departments used between two and 10 legal service providers, while 38 percent used between two and 10 outside counsel firms and 25 percent used 11 to 25 firms.
To enable themselves to take on more work, legal departments were leveraging technology and streamlining operations in-house. Around 20 percent of respondents defined their legal project management process as “managed,” meaning it had a well-defined roles, a dedicated budget and executive sponsorship.
Over one-third, 39 percent, also defined their legal project management processes as “structured,” which is similar to “managed” though with less clearly defined roles.
What's more, 60 percent of legal departments used document management technology in-house, while slightly over half of all respondents, 53 percent, had legal hold technology as well. Slightly under half also used e-billing (47 percent), matter management (46 percent), and collection and processing technology (44 percent).
For Piwonka, legal departments' tech adoption still has a ways to go. “I absolutely think that the adoption of legal technology across the board is going to continue to increase.”
But he added that for some legal departments, technology may not always be the answer. “If you're an organization that maybe has one to two matters a year you have to ask yourself does it make sense to purchase technology to manage this, or can we manage it just manage with the tools we already have in place?
In addition to leveraging technology, over one-third, 36 percent, of legal departments also had an IT team solely dedicated to their legal department, while 14 percent had a mix of a dedicated and external IT teams.
Despite all these efficiencies, however, only 23 percent of legal departments were at least “very confident” in their ability to preserve social media data, while 35 percent said the same about their ability to collect mobile data. When asked what their preferred preservation method was, 43 percent of legal departments said preservation by data collection, while 28 percent relied on their employees to preserve their own data.
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
- 1ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 2Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 3Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 4Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 5Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
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