Half of Australian GCs Turning to 'Innovative Solutions' in Face of Budget Cuts
Almost half of the in-house legal departments in Australia anticipate cuts to their legal budgets this year, according to a survey by Acritas and Thomson Reuters.
April 19, 2019 at 01:00 AM
2 minute read
By John Kang
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Australian legal departments are more likely to be cutting their legal budgets this year than most of their counterparts around the world plan to, a recent survey has found.
Almost half of the in-house legal departments in Australia anticipate cuts to their legal budgets this year, according to a survey by London-based research firm Acritas included in a report jointly published by Thomson Reuters.
The report, published earlier this month, found that 45 percent of the 73 senior legal counsel surveyed in Australia expect legal spending cuts in 2019.
This rate is nearly twice the global average, which had 24 percent of the 1,703 respondents saying they expect cuts. In comparison, 26 percent of 408 respondents in the United States foresee budget cuts, and the rate in China was 14 percent based on 56 respondents.
Meanwhile, the workload for corporate legal departments has increased, according to the report, citing as factors global economic and political uncertainty, increasing regulatory requirements and heightened scrutiny of corporate behaviors. In February, a yearlong public inquiry into misconduct in Australia's banking and financial service industry ended with a final report calling for tougher regulations.
As in-house legal teams in Australia continue to do more with less, general counsel have been looking to improve efficiency with innovation. The report indicated that 48 percent of 143 general counsel in Australia implemented “innovative solutions” to handle legal work in the past two years, including investing in document and data management systems, as well as contract management and generation software.
In-house lawyers also increasingly expect external counsel to be more practical, as opposed to the black-letter law technical approach, the report said. Out of 213 respondents in Australia, 16 percent of in-house teams favored law firms that demonstrate commercial sense, compared with just 4 percent of 1,155 respondents in the U.S. and the global average of 5 percent from 4,696 respondents.
This content has been archived.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
- 1Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 2From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 3Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
- 49th Circuit Judges Weigh if Section 230 Shields Grindr From Defective Design Claims
- 5TikTok Hit With Class Action Claiming It Circumvented Age Verification Measures and Monetized Children's Data
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