A tale of two soft cost recoveries: A lack of trust leads to a lack of returns
Both law firms and inside counsel are feeling increasing economic pressures for cost-efficiency.
February 29, 2012 at 06:31 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It was the best of times
As someone who has been sitting by the side of some of the nation's largest law firms for the past 15 years assisting them with developing an effective soft cost recovery strategy, it is refreshing to be authoring a three part series on how inside counsel can work with their law firm partners to create a soft cost recovery policy that is fair to both parties.
As a starting point, both law firms and inside counsel are feeling increasing economic pressures for cost-efficiency. Law departments are running as lean as possible. The question for both parties becomes how to manage over the long term and reduce costs without surrendering quality of service or staff.
The purpose of soft cost recovery in law firms is to allow for the recovery of the firm's costs for services and products such as copies, facsimiles, scans and prints that are completed in-house for a specific matter. Not only an area of expertise for my consultancy, we also produce a bi-annual cost recovery survey, considered to be the industry standard on soft cost recoveries in law firms. That's a good deal of data.
It was the worst of times
I think both law firms and inside counsel will agree that in the handling and management of a matter, there will be services and products provided to the client that fall outside of the normal business transactions, such as the scanning or copying of 50 boxes of documents for discovery purposes. This is problematic.
Additionally, there are occasionally those clients, especially the larger ones, who can dictate the cost recovery policy and take the position that all soft cost items, even the ones described previously, are part of the firm's billing rates. These clients will push back and refuse pay for these charges, terming them 'extraneous.' This is also problematic.
It was the age of wisdom
For the most part, however, law firm clients will and do pay charges.
In fact, the vast majority of firms (99 percent) still use the traditional soft cost recovery model as we know it. A few have abandoned soft cost recovery overall and even fewer have adopted an alternative model.
However, using black and white copies as an example, most firms have a billable percentage of between 73 and 76 percent with an average rate of 14 to 16 cents. That means out of 100 copies, between 73 and 76 are billed to a valid client matter number. Out of that percentage, 16 to 20 percent are written off internally, usually by the billing attorney and another 11 to 14 percent are written off externally (clients). The net effect of all this is that the average firm has a net realization of between 50 to 57 percent on the copies they produce.
In the overall scheme of things, this is a pretty dismal return and in many situations, the firm is losing money on copies produced on-site.
It was the age of foolishness
Isn't the purpose of a soft cost recovery policy to recover costs? Why is roughly 50 percent being written off with the biggest culprit being the firms themselves?
The answer is pretty simple, when you get down to it: a lack of trust both internally and externally. The internal billing attorneys don't trust that the firm is actually charging the firm's true costs and are not equipped to defend it; the external clients don't trust that they are getting charged the true costs to produce these products and services.
How does this translate when inside counsel work with law firm partners? In my next column, we will discuss bringing the pieces together and building a defensible, verifiable cost recovery policy.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
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