The Law Firm Disrupted: Just How Fast is the CLOC Ticking?
At the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium's annual institute in Las Vegas, many are ready to proclaim a new era in the delivery of legal services. Just how fast that change occurs, however, depends on a few key factors.
April 27, 2018 at 07:30 AM
7 minute read
I'm back from vacation, and in this week's Law Firm Disrupted we'll look at how fast the movement that CLOC represents can drive real change in the legal market.
Please tell me what you think! I'm Roy Strom, the author of this weekly briefing, and I'm reachable at [email protected].
➤➤ Want to receive The Law Firm Disrupted as an email? Click here to sign up.
|
Just How Fast is the CLOC Ticking?
I didn't have the chance to make it to the CLOC conference this past week. Poor planning of a vacation on my part.
But I've tried to keep up through some reporting my colleagues have done on the conference dedicated to legal business change. And the kind souls on legal Twitter have also been up to the task of relaying the messages from Las Vegas.
I also did cover one piece of news coming out of Sin City. Something like this: A public company teamed up with Elevate Services Inc. (which also affiliated with a new law firm) in an effort to cut the company's outside legal spend by 50 percent.
I'm going to try and use that news as a way to answer one of the biggest questions CLOC raises: Just how fast will the legal operations movement affect meaningful change in the legal market?
Jeffrey Carr, the general counsel of chemical distribution company Univar Inc., is the man behind the plan. He is no stranger to reinventing legal departments. At another Chicago-based chemical distribution company, FMC Corp., where Carr served as GC for 13 years, he pioneered a strict program to pay his outside counsel based on his valuations of their performance.
This billing program, known as “ACES,” includes a holdback of 20 percent of all fees followed by a payment of the holdback at between 0 and 200 percent based upon a report card that determines value. Value is defined as a combination of effectiveness, efficiency and client experience (known as “E3”).
“We focus on project budgets and we expect work to be done by the lowest cost resources capable of delivering value to us as the customer,” states a copy of Univar's new billing guidelines. “This is the essence of E3.”
Carr insists he will only work with law firms who agree to this set-up. They use his engagement letters; not the other way around. He says he is the customer. He gets to choose how he purchases services. And in that way, Carr is purchasing in a style that nobody would think is bizarre outside “Law Land.”
“Law Land has thought of itself as being exempt from these things because it is special,” Carr said. “Law Land is not special.”
You tell me: Is this an example of a “mature” in-house legal operation? Is it the type of program that would drive serious change (efficiency, communication and billing certainty) among Univar's outside counsel?
It seems like it to me. But what do I know? Let the in-house lawyers tell us.
Consider this survey from the Blickstein Group released in December, which asked legal departments to rank themselves from 1 to 5 on how mature they consider their legal operations departments. More than 42 percent of respondents answered a “4” or “5.”
So, 42 percent of legal departments are at least 80 percent of the way there? Is an “E3-style” billing program a “4” or “5” on that scale? If it is, 42 percent of legal departments are budgeting their work and paying law firms based on value? Could that be?
Seriously, if you were at CLOC, which for the uninitiated is a fast-growing organization that stands for Corporate Legal Operations Consortium, let me know what you think.
It seems like a hard sell. Even people involved with the survey doubted the results.
“Considering how new many law department operations functions are, and how much there is to be done, it's very surprising that so many consider themselves to be mature,” said Reese Arrowsmith, head of legal operations at Campbell Soup Co., who was involved in the survey.
Arrowsmith went further and noted that only 36 percent of respondents said they were using a preferred provider network, and “very few” were, for instance, measuring total case costs and making purchasing decisions based on that data.
Univar's news is the start of a possible success story. It is the start (perhaps the middle) of a meaningful change at the company.
But what about the bigger question: How fast will the industry change?
Univar spends about $7 million a year on outside counsel. Even if Univar hits what it considers a “moonshot” target of reducing that number by 50 percent, the legal market is out a mere $3.5 million. A top (and busy) partner can make that in a year billing about 2,900 hours at $1,200 a pop.
So the question is about scale. How many other legal departments will start on an adventure like Carr? Frankly, if 42 percent of in-house leaders think they are already there, the legal operations march won't drive much change.
So, I would echo the words of Arrowsmith (the Campbell legal ops head) in the Blickstein report. There is a “laundry list” of things in-house departments need to do before they are considered “mature.” For the sake of a lot of people betting on shaking up the legal market, hopefully the conference in Las Vegas energized in-house lawyers to set the bar higher.
➤➤ Are you enjoying The Law Firm Disrupted? Check out more briefings from my Law.com colleagues on the topics that matter most to your practice.
|
Roy's Reading Corner
On CLOC (some more): Reporting from the center of the universe—I mean the CLOC conference—my colleague Caroline Spiezio relays details from a panel on the future of data-sharing between clients and law firms. Featuring David Cunningham, the CIO at Winston & Strawn; ASOS.com general counsel Andrew Magowan; and T-Mobile's senior manager of legal department operations Winston Yeung, the group discussed the different things law firms and clients measure and what might happen if they shared those things with one another.
One interesting tidbit was the idea of clients sharing information on how efficiently different firms were handling their work. “Some firms will really enjoy that, and some firms are the ones swimming naked when the tide goes out,” Cunningham said.
On Collaboration: Toby Brown, chief practice management officer at Perkins Coie, writes here about what he views as an oft-forgotten aspect of what legal operations is all about: Driving change in the way lawyers work.
It is a useful read if you are looking for an actual example of change. He writes about a way to reduce the cost of acquisitions by 10 percent. It may seem obvious that tying change to a specific type of work is a practical way to achieve savings, he says, but there are challenges that often come down to communication between firms and in-house departments.
From Brown: “Innovation is more than selecting options. It must include a conversation around 1) a willingness to try new approaches, and 2) a willingness to adjust the structure of the fee deal so that both parties benefit. It also demonstrates that real change in the way legal services are delivered will benefit greatly from client/law firm collaboration. Win-win outcomes will be significantly more difficult to reach absent this combined effort.”
That's it for this week! Thanks again for reading, and please let me know what you think at [email protected].
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 AllInside Track: Lawyers for Big Tech Give Harris Benefit of Doubt, Despite Pummeling They Took Under Biden
6th Circuit Judge Thapar on Making Originalism Work in Trial Courts
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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