At CodeX, LexisNexis GC Talks Legal Tech, Sticking to a Budget and the Rise of In-House Counsel
Ian McDougall, the general counsel of LexisNexis, offered his predictions on legal tech adoption, increasing legal department sizes and changing inside-outside counsel relationships at an event hosted by the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics.
March 07, 2019 at 03:43 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
The general counsel of legal research company LexisNexis Group offered his predictions for the industry's future at a Stanford University event Wednesday.
Ian McDougall, LexisNexis' general counsel and executive vice president, led the ”2008-2018: Decade of Disruption?” discussion, which was hosted by CodeX: the Stanford Center for Legal Informatics in Palo Alto, California. He began by walking attendees through mid-2000s legal industry trends he claims were exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis: in-house hiring and tech use.
“Why were companies jumping on the rise of the in-house counsel bandwagon? Because the global financial crisis required companies to be more cost conscious than ever before,” McDougall said. “The advantage to a company of the in-house counsel is certainty of cost.”
The recession didn't just accelerate an exodus in-house, McDougall said. It's also led to a stronger focus on value, or quality over quantity, when it comes to hiring outside counsel. He noted more companies have adopted a panel model of firms and alternative fee arrangements in recent years.
That's because alternative fee arrangements and structured relationships with firms provide more cost certainty—something crucial to general counsel sticking to a tight budget.
“I have conversations with law firms very often … and I'm sure they don't believe me when I say to them that we are after quality and not necessarily the cheapest one,” McDougall said. “We're after value for money. And one of the biggest elements of that is predictability. Can you give me a predictable cost?”
An increased focus on efficiency and value has also led in-house counsel to tap into advancing legal tech, according to McDougall. General counsel don't want to pay outside counsel high rates for a job that could be done by a computer.
That doesn't mean firms are going away. But he predicts firm lawyers' relationship with in-house counsel, and the value they provide clients, will change. He said outside counsel will no longer “regurgitate law” to clients. Instead, they'll walk them through an unfamiliar process.
They'll also provide a deep understanding of legal technology, McDougall predicted, as will in-house counsel to internal clients. Lawyers adopting and embracing a new era of legal tech are the ones “who are going to survive” changes in the industry, he warned.
“Companies of all kinds have to have a clear strategy, in my view, to deal with the technological changes,” McDougall said.
Read More:
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
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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