Corporate Counsel
  • Home
  • News
  • Surveys
  • Resources
  • Lawjobs
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Bookstore
  • Contact

Topics » IP Insider | Labor & Employment | From the Experts | On the Job | Moves | DC Watch | International

Home > Who Represents America's Biggest Companies 2012

Font Size: increase font decrease font

Who Represents America's Biggest Companies 2012

The economic crisis has led to changes in the client-firm relationship—in lots of little ways.

By Anthony Paonita All Articles 

Corporate Counsel

October 1, 2012

  •    
  •    
  •    
  •       Comments (1)
 

Three years ago, we plastered the determined faces of four prominent general counsel across alternate covers of this magazine. We asked, "Is It Their Hour?" The legal chiefs in question were champions of alternative fees and, generally, pressuring their outside law firms to change their way of doing business. The context was the previous autumn's financial meltdown and the resultant recession. It's painful to remember even four years on, but it was a time when two major automakers were basically nationalized, and many large financial institutions were still in business because they were propped up by the federal government.

At the time, we and many others believed that the economic meltdown would lead to a major upheaval in the relationship between corporate legal departments and their outside law firms. I wrote in my editor's note, "The current downturn isn't behaving like normal ones, during which growth heads into reverse gear, but then everyone expects to go back to their old habits afterward. Instead, this year some corporate legal departments are taking the opportunity to make good on previous threats to change how they hire and deploy outside counsel."

Who Reps 2012

  • The Fortune 100
  • Litigation Kings
  • Kings of IP
  • Caterpillar Inc.
  • Medtronic Inc.
  • United Rentals Inc.
  • Working in Tandem

Brave words. Four years after the crash, however, has that revolution come about? Is the in-house/outside firm relationship different? Are law firms changing age-old practices and doing everything they can to keep their cherished clients? Well, yes and no.

There is no question that the rhetoric has ratcheted up. Go to any conference with chief legal officers in attendance, and you will hear talk about restructuring the business of law, about value challenges and alternative fee arrangements, about getting more value from law firms. You'll hear panelists discuss outsourcing, the disaggregation of legal work, and the fall of the law firm superstar. The law firm partners in attendance will laugh nervously and make supplicating noises, murmuring that yes, they get it.

You can say that these hoped-for changes in how legal services are provided were overdue. General counsel, even absent a recession, are under constant pressure to reduce costs, and get more from vendors and their own staff. And big firms recognize that pressure, even if they may not like it. "Things have certainly changed since 2008, but those changes were a long time coming. The economic crisis just made the situation more acute," says White & Case chairman Hugh Verrier. "We work closely with our clients around the world to make sure we deliver our services in the way that is most appropriate and makes sense for them."

The revolution has in reality been a slow-moving evolution. It's even simplistic to talk about a unified movement, says Susan Hackett, former general counsel of the Association of Corporate Counsel and currently CEO and CLO of Legal Executive Leadership LLC. Change is happening, but like most change, it's not proceeding in a predictable, orderly fashion, she and other interested observers say. That dance, again. Law firms adapt in various ways, and so do the departments that hire them.

"I describe it as the difference between feeling pressure and feeling pain," says Daniel DiLucchio, a principal at Altman Weil Inc. in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, talking about what law firms are dealing with these days. "Is there more pressure?" he asks. "Yes. Pain? No."

But first, the survey. Back in prehistory, before most of the people on this magazine's masthead worked here, this survey was launched. The method was simple, even if the logistics weren't. We asked law departments which firms they used. The editor in charge temporarily hired a platoon of college students and recent graduates, gave them phones and lists, and they made cold calls. (This was pre-Web, mind you.) She tabulated the responses, and the survey went to the press.

The process was refined over the years from an informal phone survey, to a mail-in campaign, to an online survey. We were always looking to improve our methodology. Self-reporting meant that some legal departments would decline to respond—apparently, some departments consider what we can glean from any number of court papers a trade secret. Or different people tasked with filling out the questionnaire would give different answers from year to year, out of serendipity, a desire not to offend a firm, or simply a lack of access to their department's data. Besides, we'd ask for their "primary" law firms, and we found out that the word "primary" means many things to many people.

So we switched gears and combed court filings—thousands of them, in fact. Then the ALM editorial data team eliminated duplicates and tabulated the number of mentions a given law firm got. The results appear in the charts of top mentions ["Litigation Kings"] and the large one that accompanies this package ["They've Got Your Back"]. The survey is an accurate picture of matters in court and before some regulatory agencies. (We apologize in advance to some law firms that do an admirable job of keeping their clients out of court; they inevitably get short shrift.)

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

Continue reading

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Next



Subscribe to Corporate Counsel

You must be signed in to comment on an article

 

Reader Comments

  • Janet Craycroft

    September 20, 2012 10:40 AM

    Unfortunately, at least one list I reviewed for who represents Fortune 100 companies is not accurate which throws into question the accuracy of all the lists.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Post a Comment »
Find similar content

Firms mentioned

    
  • Dewey & LeBoeuf
  • Kirkland & Ellis
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
  • White & Case

Companies, agencies mentioned

    
  • Altman Weil
  • ALM
  • Best Legal Departments
  • Legal Executive Leadership LLC. Change
  • Nemours and Company
  • Association of Corporate Counsel
  • United Rentals Inc.
  • Pfizer Inc.
  • Medtronic Inc.

Key categories

    
  • Corporate & Business Law

Most viewed stories

    
  1. What to Look for in a Board's Risk Director
    •      
  2. Safeguarding Brand Reputation In Social Media
    •      
  3. Patent Board's SAP Ruling is First Under New AIA Rules
    •      
  4. Are GCs More Than Just Legally Trained Executives?
    •      
  5. Another SEC Whistleblower, More On the Way
    •      
lawjobs.com

TOP JOBS

MORE JOBS

POST A JOB

From the Law.com Network

SEC Issues Whistleblower Award; More on the Horizon

Fixing Outside Counsel Budget Forecasting With Data

Proskauer, Former CFO Settle Bias Suit

Global Firms Cope With Istanbul Unrest

D.C. Circuit Nominations a Defining Moment

D.C. Circuit Nominees Widely Respected Within the Bar

iPad Competition Heats Up

Discovery on Discovery Demands Cost-Shifting

The Recorder 25: California Golden Again for Many Firms
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Capital Accounts: Judicial Branch's Brothers Don't See Eye to Eye
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Miami Photographer Sues Pop Star Justin Bieber
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Jeremy Alters Settles With Argentinian Firm For $1 Million
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Alcotest Should Be Discontinued Right Away, DWI Lawyers Say

Lawyer's Fudging of HUD Forms Draws Supreme Court Censure
  •      
    • Subscription Required

The Affordable State-Specific Practice Solution
Available in NY, NJ, PA and CT editions - research, draft and prepare even the most complex cases with ease.

Restaurant in Union Square Park Ruled Permissible
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Magistrate Judge Finds Few Benefits to Class in Settlement
  •      
    • Subscription Required

3rd Circuit Could See Rise in Pay-for-Delay Litigation

Cozen Debt Forgiveness Is Campaign Contribution, Court Says
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Sorry, Charlie, Your Wife Won't Support You

Top Reasons to Take Your Husband's Name

Texas DA Faces Removal Suits Over DWI, Alleged Misconduct
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Court Upholds Disqualification of Bickel & Brewer
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Fighting Over The Fifth
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Atlanta School Defendants Rely On New Jersey Officers' Case
  •      
    • Subscription Required

Chimp Attack Victim Is Denied $150M State Lawsuit

Auto Body Case May Lead To CUTPA Reassessment
  •      
    • Subscription Required

  • About Corporate Counsel   |
  • Contact Corporate Counsel   |
  • Advertise with Us   |
  • Sitemap
  • About |
  • ALM Properties |
  • ALM Reprints |
  • Customer Support |
  • Privacy Policy (updated 6/14/13) |
  • Terms & Conditions |
  • ALM User License Agreement
ALM Media