California Client Legal Needs, In-House Opportunities on the Rise, Survey Finds
California's legal teams are larger than average and likely growing, a new survey finds. According to the report, legal demands in the Golden State are expected to rise in 2019.
December 18, 2018 at 06:49 PM
4 minute read
Demand for legal services is on the rise for California companies, a newly released survey finds.
The 2018 HBR Consulting Law Department Survey results showed that California legal departments are spending more, and looking to hire in-house more, than the average respondent worldwide. Out of 208 respondent companies, 30 were from California. More than a third of California companies were in the tech sector.
The average California company that responded had $11 billion in revenue, compared to a $9.5 billion average worldwide. California companies also had larger legal teams, an average of 49 versus 28.5, and higher legal spending, an average of $62.5 million versus $30.6 million.
“There are definitely regional differences in the types of companies that make up that region. So in California a lot of our participants that are contributing to the data are tech companies,” said HBR managing director Lauren Chung. She said the tech industry may have more legal activity than other spaces.
That spend could rise more next year. Seventy percent of California respondents said they expect their legal needs to increase in 2019.
All that increase won't just go to outside counsel, according to the survey. Nearly two-thirds said their legal team plans to increase the number of lawyers in-house. More than 40 percent said their department would increase use of current technology, and 29 percent said they planned to re-engineer work processes.
From 2016 to 2017, 43 percent of California respondents' legal departments grew, compared with 47 percent of worldwide respondents. And outside counsel will likely see business pick up as well, Chung said, just not as much as in the past.
“There is always going to be a place for outside counsel. The need and demand for outside counsel will continue. Outside counsel spending did increase 3 percent in California,” Chung said. “We're also seeing law departments that are thinking about alternative service providers, nontraditional law firms to help in certain areas of work that might be more routine that can go to a lower-cost provider.”
Nearly all companies reported they've taken measures to reduce outside counsel spending. In California, the most-used initiative to decrease outside spending was “more consistent use of planning and budgeting” at 94 percent, followed by alternative fee arrangements and “tougher enforcement of outside counsel billing guidelines.”
California legal teams were more likely to have a dedicated legal operations manager than the average respondent company. Nearly 80 percent of California teams reported having a legal ops professional, compared with 58 percent of worldwide participant companies.
“California really has been a front-runner in the whole legal operations space,” Chung said.
Companies in the Golden State also, perhaps unsurprisingly, had high implementation rates for legal tech. All California respondents said they use an e-billing system. Matter management systems were used by 88 percent of California respondents and 79 percent used e-signatures.
More than a third of California companies said they are considering implementing artificial intelligence in the next two years. One-third are looking into real-time technology to track legal spending, and 24 percent are considering contract management tools.
“There's a higher level of maturity among California companies when it comes to things like legal ops, when it comes to things like technology implementation,” Chung said. “Because what you're seeing here is the table stakes technology like e-billing and matter management—they got it. And when you look at what they're considering in the next one to two years, it's kind of that next level, next tier of technologies that others are starting to explore.”
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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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