What Makes a Law Firm Innovative? For GCs, It's About Size
The “Global Trends in Hiring Outside Counsel” report found that legal departments regard small law firms as more innovative than their larger counterparts, and are more satisfied with their service.
January 19, 2018 at 01:35 PM
4 minute read
There are several reasons legal departments may look beyond well known, large law firms when choosing their outside counsel. Cost concerns, for example, or wanting local expertise. But according to the “Global Trends in Hiring Outside Counsel” report, many often turn to smaller firms because they believe they are more innovative than their larger counterparts.
The report, a survey of over 300 general counsel and senior in-house lawyers, was commissioned by startup Globality and conducted by The Lawyer Research Service. It found that more legal departments, 19 percent, were dissatisfied with their larger law firm counsel than they were with their smaller ones, 6 percent.
What's more, half of the respondents said they work with smaller firms because they are more innovative, while 63 percent also said they do the same because small firms provide better client services. The survey defined small firms as those with “500 or less lawyers,” said Alex Reynolds, director of legal practice at Globality.
Like larger firms, small firms may likely have introduced things like case, matter, or project management, as well as e-billing or e-discovery technology in-house, Reynolds said.
But unlike larger firms, small firms have a relatively easy time of implementing these technologies, and adjusting to the operational changes they require. “There are less levels of bureaucracy in these firms, they tend to be more agile,” Reynolds said. “So what this means is that they are able to introduce change quicker and implement this change much more effectively.”
What's more, smaller firms are more open to implementing technology and internal changes because “they tend to be less siloed than some of the larger international law firms,” he noted. “There is more of a collaborative function established in these law firms, which makes their ability to innovate much easier and makes access to ideas and the sharing of ideas a lot easier.”
So while larger firms may have more capital to purchase and implement legal technologies, smaller firms are more receptive and able to bring such changes in-house in the first place.
But finding such smaller law firms can be difficult for legal departments, who often do not know where to begin looking. Forty-four percent said they primarily rely on pre-existing relationships in their established personal network to source legal service providers, while 16 percent primarily rely on referrals from their network.
Most legal departments, 86 percent, however, expressed excitement for technologies that allowed them to source and communicate with legal providers outside their network.
Such technologies are already becoming available for corporate legal departments. Globality's core offering, for example, is using a combination of artificial intelligence and in-house experts to match multinational companies with small and midsized firms globally. In November 2017, the startup announced it had raised $25 million from a handful of investors.
But Globality is far from the only outside counsel matching service on the market.
Vendor performance assessment startup Qualmet, for instance, launched in April 2017. The company created a system to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate law firms and other third-party services, and compare them against one another.
Meanwhile, global law firm Dentons has also entered the fold by launching “Nextlaw In-House Solutions,” a consultancy program aimed at helping legal departments select outside counsel, adopt technology and implement project management, among other things.
Other companies, such as Select Counsel, have also sprung up in the industry with the goal of connecting clients to more boutique firms across the United States.
And among calls for more data sharing among corporate legal departments, there may be more outside counsel matching services launching up in the near future. Consultancy AdvanceLaw, for example, is the midst of 18-month project, to determine how best to leverage data on outside counsel to inform spending decisions, such as whether to use preferred provider panels or charge a flat fee. The project, which began in early 2017, is being done with participation from more than 25 general counsel from companies such as MasterCard and Sony Electronics.
The growing development of technology and services may very well be in response to the demand from in-house legal departments. Which means it may only be a matter of time before many legal departments are able to more easily select outside counsel from a broader base— and before small law firms potentially see their client base expand.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Ex-CFO of San Francisco Law Firms Pleads Guilty to $1.3M Embezzlement Scheme, DOJ Announces
- 2What Does Ohio Supreme Court's Opioid Decision Mean for Public Nuisance Claims?
- 3Bucking Industry Trend, Sidley Austin Elects Biggest Class of Partners in Firm History
- 4US Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
- 5‘Really Deflating’: Judges React to Biden Threat to Veto New Judgeships Bill
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