New Survey to Examine Outside Counsel Guidelines From the Firm Perspective
The Association of Legal Administrators and timekeeping software company Bellefield Systems are launching a survey that looks to help bridge the gap between corporate expectations and law firm reality.
August 14, 2019 at 01:33 PM
3 minute read
The goal of outside counsel guidelines is to make the corporate/law firm transaction process more transparent and efficient. And their use is only growing—Altman Weil’s 2018 Chief Legal Officer survey found that 79% of legal departments provide guidelines for billing, expenses, matter staffing and matter management, and 66% are actively enforcing those guidelines.
But are OCGs actually effective? Corporate legal department surveys seem to think so, but one new survey is hoping to receive more answers from the opposite side of the equation.
The Association of Legal Administrators and timekeeping software company Bellefield Systems announced today that they’re launching a survey aimed at measuring the impact of outside counsel guidelines, e-billing and billing compliance on law firms. The survey looks to help bridge that gap between corporate expectations and reality for law firms, providing figures on OCGs by practice area, firms’ level of compliance, partner/lawyer involvement in OCG compliance, and more.
Bellefield president Gabriela Isturiz told Legaltech News that the impetus for the survey is the frustration a lot of her clients and ALA members have had keeping up with these ever-more complex guidelines. “When you go into the law firm side, what happens is every single law firm is extremely frustrated,” she explained. “And not only are they extremely frustrated, they are losing a significant amount of revenue because of the challenges to comply with that.”
Indeed, she noted that in her anecdotal experience, law firms have to comply with around 20 new guidelines a month. Especially given all that goes into these guidelines, including metrics as wide-ranging as cybersecurity and diversity, she said that law firms “don’t really have the time to sit back, think and optimize. They’re really in reaction mode.”
When it comes to what the modern OCG entails—well, that sometimes is not an easy thing to parse, Isturiz said. The process of vetting an OCG involves a number of parties that often don’t come into contact: “For example, you have the risk manager, who is never going to talk to the billing manager. Then you have H.R., because there are diversity clauses you need to meet, but H.R. is never going to talk to the conflicts manager.”
But many law firms—Isturiz estimated around 80% of the ones she speaks with—are not even doing that level of research. OCGs often run by the desk of the client’s supervising attorney first. And as she explains, “They are so desperate to win the business. They receive this contract, and they are going to do everything to comply and agree to these. So there is not much pushback.”
That makes standardization potentially a pipe dream for OCGs as long as this competition exists. But understanding in the form of a survey could be a first step towards at least some optimization of the process. And that could mean cost savings for law firms when they realize what’s at stake with non-compliance.
“For one practice leader, it could be $20,000,” Isturiz said. “For another practice leader, it could be $30,000. But when you have 50 of those, it adds up.”
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
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