Corporate Counsel’s Opinions of Their Outside Counsel
Undoubtedly most of you have heard about the Altman-Weil study which identifies most in-house counsel as “deeply skeptical” of their outside counsels’ commitment to changing pricing and staffing models.
“This is a dramatic vote of no confidence from Chief Legal Officers,” said Altman Weil’s Dan DiLucchio, in a statement. “Either many law firms just don’t understand that clients today expect greater value and predictability in staffing and pricing legal work, or firms are failing to adequately communicate their understanding and willingness to make real change. In either case, it’s a big problem.”
The Business Journal provides some more discussion of the study. From my perspective, this is actually heartening news. Too often businesses and their inside counsel, acting out of habit or familiarity, return time and time again to law firms that do not provide the best service or the best value. But comfort and history are two luxuries that are becoming less affordable all the time.
Merely changing staffing models isn’t going to do the trick — outside counsel have to prosecute the litigation as part of the client’s overall business strategy. This means that alternative billing arrangements should be discussed, in an open manner with a variety of options, including fee caps, blended fee agreements, litigation support economies, and other alternatives to the almighty billable hour. If both the client and the lawyer want to be in business together, there’s generally a way to make it work for both.
There’s no question that some measure of “you get what you pay for” applies in litigation. I’ve seen too many clients, in the face of stark evidence of who is the better lawyer, choose only the cheaper lawyer. As with everything, there must be balancing of the often competing interests of victory and cost, as well as a clear identification of a client’s goals. In my mind, the value of a law firm’s service should be measured by its contribution to its clients’ success.
Mike Dillon has a great discussion of this issue from the perspective of a general counsel, at his blog the legal thing.
