Technology Transactions Is Great Work—If Firms Can Get It
A new report from Thomson Reuters shows that technology transactions practices demonstrated the highest growth in worked rates over the last year, but staffing those practices still isn't for the faint of heart.
January 07, 2020 at 01:00 PM
4 minute read
On Monday Thomson Reuters released its 2020 State of the Legal Market report in conjunction with the The Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown University Law. The good news from the report is that technology transactions and licensing practices look to be a safe bet for firms looking for areas where they can still grow their rates at time when clients are looking to reduce outside legal spend.
"The second half of the year has greatly outperformed the first in terms of demand growth and rate growth in this area. So it seems that if anything, it's picking up steam," said Joe Blackwood, an analyst with Thomson Reuters.
Per the report, which uses peer monitoring data from 160 U.S.-based law firms, technology transactions and licensing practices demonstrated the highest growth in worked rates (the rates a firm agrees to with particular clients for work on a given matter) from 2018 to 2019, averaging an increase of just under 6%. Antitrust practices were close behind with an increase of over 5.5%, followed by patent litigation groups at an increase of more than 4.5%.
So what's the common thread that's allowing those practice areas to continue increasing work rates? Jim Jones, director of the Program on Trends in Law Practice at The Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown, pointed out that the practices leading the way in worked rate growth all require a particular and unique expertise.
"Clients are willing to pay for that experience in a way they might not be willing to pay for all of the activities in a normal M&A transaction, because a lot of that is work that can be done by much lower level lawyers," Jones said.
Steve Charkoudian, co-head of the strategic technology transactions group at Goodwin, attributed at least part of the boon to the overall growth of the knowledge economy. While tech startups who don't have the resources to grow an in-house legal team can represent a sizable portion of that growth, some firms may also be trying to cater to the changing needs of long-time clients who find their own business shifting in the wake of technology.
"Frankly, what you're probably seeing there is firms that didn't typically think of themselves as technology firms have clients who are starting to understand that they are a technology company even if they haven't historically been," Charkoudian said.
But while clients may have a need for technology transactions services, it's not always easy for firms to meet them head-on. Per John Gilluly, a partner and global co-chair of DLA Piper's corporate group, an effective technology transactions practice has to touch upon a variety of disciplines, from regulations to intellectual property or potentially even real estate.
He also noted that high-end clients operating in the technology space tend to be savvy about where they shop their legal needs, preferring talent that has hands on experience maneuvering deals within the industry.
"The clients will know where you have gaps in your skill set," Gilluly said.
Bringing that skill set onto the firm's payroll can be very difficult given the breadth of experience needed. Gilluly's list included legal expertise, technological prowess and an intimate knowledge of a product's marketplace. While law schools may be starting to emphasize technology more heavily within their curriculums, that may not yet be reflected in some of the younger talent firms are seeing.
Charkoudian at Goodwin noted he's probably seen only two or three associates over the last 20-years who came to the firm with a pre-existing desire to enter technology transactions. Making things harder still is that tech companies are also hunting for young legal talent with a background in technology to line their own in-house teams.
Goodwin has attempted to surmount this problem by implementing training and knowledge management programs to help grown talent, something that Charkoudian framed as hard but necessary work.
"What we've found is it's easier to train people than it is to find people laterally," Charkoudian 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Risk & Reward
- 2On The Move: Polsinelli Adds Health Care Litigator in Nashville, Ex-SEC Enforcer Joins BCLP in Atlanta
- 3After Mysterious Parting With Last GC, Photronics Fills Vacancy
- 4Latham Lures Restructuring Partners From Weil, Paul Weiss
- 5Haynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
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