Big Data May Be Making Portfolio Pricing Easier Than Ever
With a significant amount of matter data to draw from, negotiating a portfolio pricing deal can be a far less risky and arduous endeavor.
May 15, 2019 at 03:59 PM
3 minute read
The Portfolio Pricing Masterclass was one of the first panels on Wednesday agenda at the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium 2019 Institute in Las Vegas, and its early morning lesson was clear: Law firms and their clients need to hold onto matter-related data.
First things first: Portfolio pricing is any kind of fee arrangement covering multiple matters, either under a retainer or a deal that assigns one fee per matter for every single matter that comes through the portfolio.
So why bother? If you're a corporate legal department dealing with a high volume of matters, chances are that you'd rather receive four bills over the course of the year than 1,200.
“It frees up our attorneys; it frees up our staff to do more strategic things,” said Alan Bryan.
For some clients, the portfolio pricing approach also can lend some much needed clarity regarding the annual budget. Negotiating the bulk of your matters under a single portfolio provides more predictability around the chances of hitting a targeted number at the end of the year than negotiating projects one by one.
If you don't anticipate having a bulk of matters, then it's possible that portfolio pricing isn't the right option.
“There's a point where you need a certain amount of volume to make this work on both sides,” Bryan said.
The demand for volume doesn't just apply to the work involved. In order for both parties to ensure that a portfolio pricing deal is the right fit, they should ideally be sharing data that shows some consistency over the type of matters a company deals with year over year and how those costs might shape up on the law firm side.
Matthew Beekhuizen, chief pricing officer at Greenberg Traurig, said his firm typically tries to look at three years of history for a particular client. Some companies don't maintain enough data themselves to paint a very robust picture, but assuming they have been involved with the firm for some time, that history can help fill in the gaps.
“The good part about hourly billing is we do have a lot of data that we can work with,” said Beekhuizen.
Firms can build upon this information to prepare for the work at hand, which in some cases includes going out and hiring new staff members to make sure that they can accommodate the demands of the matters they'll be working on over the course of the portfolio agreement.
Aside from the prep work involved, having enough data to work from can also make the actual negotiation of the portfolio pricing agreement less arduous. For example, having a tangible matter history to draw from can help both sides feel more comfortable that there won't be a slew of sudden developments that someone coming up short.
“Sometimes when you don't have the data and you're not sharing it, you end up having more caveats and conditions in the agreement,” Beekhuizen said.
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