Operational Efficiency Gives Law Firms Edge Against ALSPs, Says Survey
The Aderant survey found an increasing percentage of law firms citing alternative legal service providers as their greatest competitive threat.
August 12, 2019 at 02:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
Operational efficiency and pricing pressure remain the top challenges for law firms as they try to maintain a competitive edge in an increasingly crowded industry, according to Aderant’s 2019 Business of Law and Technology Survey.
One related finding was the shift in where firms see competition, said Chris Cartrett, executive vice president of Aderant, an Atlanta-based provider of legal business management software.
The percentage of law firms citing alternative legal service providers as their greatest competitive threat increased from 5% in 2017 to 15% this year, while those citing other law firms as their greatest competition decreased from 62% in 2017 to 53%. (The percentage of firms citing legal work moving in-house decreased from 29% to 22%.)
Firms that have implemented well-functioning business processes are more likely to be competing against alternative legal service providers for work that is higher volume and lower margin, Cartrett explained. “It’s good business—but you’ve got to have operational efficiencies to make money on that.”
To Cartrett, the increase in firms seeing alternative service providers as a threat could indicate that these firms are going after the same kind of business. “To compete, you have to provide that same kind of value,” he said.
This is the third year that Aderant has conducted the survey on how legal technology impacts firms’ business.
The survey’s respondents are legal business professionals at law firms—not lawyers—including C-suite staff, financial and IT personnel, project managers and firm administrators. Most of the 147 respondents work at larger firms. Fully 85% were at firms with more than 25 lawyers and, of those, 54% were at firms with more than 100 lawyers.
“There’s an underlying common thread in this survey about increasing operational efficiency,” Cartrett said. “The clients that our law firm clients are working with are becoming more complex. Serving them creates greater complexities for the firm, which strains current resources and ways of doing business.”
Making operations more efficient is a way to reduce those strains, he said.
For the survey’s respondents, 31% said operational efficiency was a top concern and 29% cited pricing pressure—outpacing increasing new business from existing clients (19%), winning new business (18%) and cybersecurity (17%).
One aspect of operational efficiency is timely invoicing of clients. Only about one-third of respondents (29%) said half or more of their firm’s invoices are processed through an e-billing or client spend-management system. But that’s up from 9% in 2018.
Fully 62% of firms said they publish client invoices in two weeks or less—38% in a week or less and 24% in one to two weeks. Another 20% said it takes two to three weeks, and 7% said it takes more than three weeks.
Delays in entering time, printing paper copies and lags in client adoption of e-billing technology were the friction points, according to the survey’s results.
One competitive advantage for law firms could be to provide clients a matter-management dashboard that allows real-time tracking of matters’ status and costs, Cartrett said. “It’s a way to provide greater value for your clients, so they have a stronger relationship with the firm.”
But such systems are still very rare, he said. “Some firms are still struggling to share documents.”
Business Growth
More than 90% of the survey’s respondents said business this year is at least as good as last year. That said, 8% said things have gotten worse.
Comments from respondents who said business was better said that they are growing by expanding into other markets or are seeing higher demand and utilization or are retaining more clients with more profitable cases.
For firms saying business is worse, respondents’ comments attributed that to lower productivity and demand for their services or to changes in the insurance defense industry.
Interestingly, respondents at firms with leadership supporting legal tech and business initiatives were more likely to say this year is better—and were more likely to say they get invoices out the door in a week or less.
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
© 2025 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
- 1Public Notices/Calendars
- 2Wednesday Newspaper
- 3Decision of the Day: Qui Tam Relators Do Not Plausibly Claim Firm Avoided Tax Obligations Through Visa Applications, Circuit Finds
- 4Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-116
- 5Big Law Firms Sheppard Mullin, Morgan Lewis and Baker Botts Add Partners in Houston
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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