Managing legal spend is a team sport. What if you could put the right legal spend information into the hands of the right stakeholder — at the right time?

To accomplish this, aligning your people, technologies, and processes into a single strategy will be paramount – especially as law firm rates continue to climb and internal resource constraints increase the pressure on legal departments. The right spend management platform can give you complete control over your financial management process with transparency into outcome metrics to help you deliver accurate forecasting and best-in-class value.

Sponsored by Hike 2 and vLex

Join CLOC San Francisco for this thought-provoking forum exploring how in-house legal teams are realizing value through AI today. Learn how companies are leveraging their outside counsel firms and prioritizing use cases to actualize these transformative changes in how we work internally and in our ecosystems of law firms, service providers, and vendors.

Agenda

Seats are limited and available on a first come, first served basis. Please register promptly to secure your spot. Due to limited seating – if something changes your ability to attend, please notify CLOC at your earliest opportunity so that someone else may have the opportunity to attend.

Event Location: Salesforce Tower, 415 Mission Street, 6th Floor-Room C01, San Francisco, CA 94105

Associated with San Francisco

Brought to you by the CLOC Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging Council 

Fewer in-house legal departments are making law firm diversity information a high priority when deciding to hire outside counsel.  17% in 2023 reported it as a high priority versus 23% in 2022, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute Law Department Operations. In addition, 39% reported in 2023 that their in-house functions had a diversity initiative in place compared to 47% in 2022. This apparent reduction in priority has more to do with a fast-changing and dynamic risk landscape and regulatory framework and less to do with D&I lessening as a priority. Indeed, the importance of D&I as a main source of talent attraction is not going away soon. So, how can legal departments provide ongoing efficiency in the operations of legal functions as the scope of their responsibilities expands, while at the same time continue to drive efficiency in outside counsel D&I metrics and reporting?  What tools are the most useful?  In this session, you will hear from two legal ops professionals on the innovative practices and tools they are using to ensure their D&I initiatives remain a high priority amongst an ever-increasing workload.   

Rates are still going up: the recent State of the Legal Market report from the Thomson Reuters Institute shows that negotiated rates rose 6% in 2023, for the fifth straight year of major increases. In-house counsel are responding with better tools and more data to manage spending.  Beyond that, some are aggressively moving work to smaller or cheaper firms. 

But how do you ensure that you’re getting quality work and consistent outcomes when increasing efficiency? And how do you manage the relationship with those big firms that are now getting a smaller piece of the pie, but still handling your most important, bet-the-business work? 

Join us for a webinar with Thomson Reuters that will discuss both what data-driven matter pricing looks like, and how to get there. An expert panel will cover: 

• Why RFPs are vital, and how to use them well. 
• How automation can help price individual matters consistently. 
• Introducing competition to drive cost and performance benefits. 
• Using spend and outcome data effectively. 
• Managing change within your department and with outside counsel. 
• Making clear comparisons among hourly rates, AFAs and other options. 

Presented by

The 2023 CLOC Global Institute provided a great opportunity to connect with legal operations professionals and listen to them talk about what they are looking for in their legal ops solutions. We were also pleased to host a panel session called “Reaching the Summit on Legal Spend” featuring Ryan O’Leary, Research Director, Privacy and Legal Technology at ICD and Stacy Lettie Chief of Staff to the GC and Director of Strategic Planning at Organon, along with Jeff Solomon, our Vice President and Segment Leader for LegalVIEW® BillAnalyzer.

For those who were not able to join us, we’re summarizing a couple of highlights from the session. Among the topics our panelists covered, three of the most compelling for the audience were the discussions on billing guidelines, vendor management, and artificial intelligence.

Billing guideline enforcement

Billing guidelines are an important tool for legal departments seeking to control costs and maximize outside counsel value. When beginning the effort to improve enforcement, legal teams should consider benchmarking their guidelines against industry standards. This can help identify areas where the current guidelines may be lacking. Improving the guidelines themselves will help improved enforcement to deliver even more value.

Legal organizations should also carefully evaluate historical invoices to truly understand what outside counsel firms have been billing for and how well that conforms to the guidelines. This can be a time-consuming project, but it is very important to fully understand the starting point in order to measure the success of the improvement effort later on. The output of this analysis will also be helpful in opening a dialog with law firms about their level of guideline compliance and where they should focus in order to improve it.

Vendor management

An effective program of vendor management leads to positive law firm relationships and well-managed legal spend. Here are two of the keys to successful vendor management, emphasized by our speakers.

Law firm panels: Consolidating the legal department’s work with a select list of firms is essential because it allows the corporate legal team to leverage their spend and improve their buying power. Panel creation is the ideal opportunity to pre-negotiate rates and to ask for the billing discount you want and expect.

Vendor scorecards: Legal operations teams should use a scorecarding tool that facilitates law firm evaluations based on outcomes, as well as more nuanced traits such as billing practices, feedback from business partners, diversity trends, and budget performance. Legal professionals should use these scorecards in annual or biannual meetings with firms and should use them to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons of all the firms they engage.

AI in legal ops

Our speakers encourage the use of artificial intelligence but recommend a well-thought-out approach to the technology. For example, generative AI can be helpful to some legal professionals, but users should never enter sensitive data into large language models (such as ChatGPT) because there is no way to be certain that the service provider will keep it safe.

Also, their recommendation is to look for opportunities for AI to improve existing processes and programs, rather than assuming AI should be leveraged everywhere in the legal department. They suggest developing a gap analysis that can help flag those areas where the organization can get the greatest benefit for the most modest investment.

We are grateful to our guests Stacy Lettie and Ryan O’Leary for helping to make our time at the 2023 CLOC Global Institute such a success. Thanks to everyone who joined us!

About Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions:

Wolters Kluwer ELM Solutions is the market-leading global provider of enterprise legal spend and matter management and legal analytics solutions. It provides a comprehensive suite of tools that address the growing needs of corporate legal operations departments to increase operational efficiency and reduce costs. Corporate legal and insurance claims departments trust its innovative technology and end-to-end customer experience to drive world-class business outcomes. The company’s LegalVIEW® Bill Analyzer leverages both artificial intelligence and human expertise to help increase legal billing guideline compliance.

“How do I know I’m getting a good price from my law firms?”

Traditionally, that type of data simply hasn’t been available to in-house teams or firms — a fact that causes widespread discrepancies in cost across the legal industry.

In this article, we’ll show you a process PERSUIT uses to find what we call the “true market price” for a legal matter.

It may seem counterintuitive, but finding a true market price makes the price less important when you select your firm for a matter. By doing so, you can empower your team to better manage risk by choosing the best firm — not just the one with the best rate.

What is a True Market Price?

A “true market price” is the average transaction price that buyers and sellers can commonly be expected to agree upon for a particular good or service. But without transparency and competition within a market — like in legal services — it’s difficult to discover what a true market price actually is.

In legal, that’s starting to change.

In-house teams are under pressure to demonstrate their value to the business more than ever before — and to justify and document their decisions around external spend.

For all these reasons, legal teams are increasingly adopting a new process for engaging outside counsel — one that introduces transparency and competition so a true market price can emerge.

A Four-Step Process to Find the True Market Price for Legal Services

At PERSUIT, we teach in-house teams a process they can use to determine a fair market price for legal services.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Segment the matter by milestones and deliverables

Most legal work falls into repeatable patterns. You may not know exactly how a matter will go, but you know the types of activities that often happen.

For example, in litigation, you know there will be depositions, even if you don’t know exactly how many you’ll need. Nearly any matter can be broken down into predictable phases and activities to arrive at the “deliverable” or outcome.

In our litigation example, those milestones and deliverables would include depositions, discovery, pre-trial, trial, appeals, etc. The same concept can be applied to advice or transactional matters as well.

The same holds true even for complex matters such as IP litigation. Certain phases and types of work, like claim construction and the Markman hearing, can be scoped and outlined. It will take some up-front investment, but the process will yield a better environment for competition and transparency with your firms.

Having a library of pre-built templates for many types of matters also helps make the scoping process significantly easier.

Step 2: Invite preferred firms to submit proposals

After you’ve scoped your matter by phase, invite three to four of your preferred firms to submit proposals detailing how they’ll approach the work.

Ask them to submit their price estimate, a summary of how they’ll approach the matter, and any other information you’ll consider when awarding the work (DEI, relevant experience, etc.)

If you’re doing this manually, you can send emails inviting the proposals. Or use a firm relationship platform to simplify the process.

When appropriate, some companies invite bidding firms to ask questions and further scope the matter, helping you ensure a true “apples to apples” comparison when you receive proposals.

Step 3: Use a competitive process

Sometimes, the proposals you receive will have similar price quotes.

In those cases, the competitive RFP process — on its own — has revealed a “true market price.” This gives you confidence that you’re not overpaying for the matter.

There are other cases where you’ll receive proposals with price estimates that are wildly different. In that case, you can’t know if the prices you’re looking at are a true “market price.” It may be that the firms simply don’t know what other firms are charging for similar types of services.

In this scenario, the process we recommend is a “reverse auction” — a competitive process where you set a time window, show the price quotes (or their rankings) you received from firms, then give those firms a chance to revise their price quote.

This is usually done as a live event with a time limit between 30 minutes to an hour.

Here’s an illustration of a real reverse auction taken from the PERSUIT platform.

At the start of the auction, there was a $1.275 million spread between the highest-priced quote and the lowest.

One hour and six minutes later, the price spread had narrowed dramatically, with all four firms having price quotes within $270,000.

In this case, the “true market price” is about $1 million — the price the firms are grouping around at the end of the auction.

Step 4: Choose the firm you think has the best chance of giving you the result you need

At the end of this competitive process, you and your team can evaluate the proposals and make a choice about who to work with for the matter.

It may be counterintuitive, but a competitive process actually makes price less of a factor when choosing a firm.

At the beginning of the auction illustrated above, there was little chance that an in-house team could justify paying an extra $1.275 million to engage with the highest-priced firm competing for the work — unless it was a “bet-the-company” type matter.

By the end of the auction, however, the bid spread had been reduced to only $270,000 between all four firms; even less between the top three.

With the emergence of a true market price for the matter, the decision becomes less about price and more about who is the best team to manage the relative risk and drive the right outcomes.

The Payoff: Make Price Matter Less When Selecting Outside Counsel

Our internal data — which includes over $8 billion in proposals and $1 billion in legal work awarded through the platform — show that time and again the competitive process detailed above takes large price differences out of the equation.

By driving firms closer to a consensus price, or true market value, cost becomes less of a deciding factor than in a traditional RFP process. This price convergence empowers in-house teams to move beyond price in deciding which firm is the best fit based on the things that really matter — experience, strategic insights, diversity and ESG metrics, and more.

You can read more about the benefits of competitive sourcing in our recent report, 5 Myths About Reverse Auctions in Legal. You can also hear about how competitive sourcing strengthens the relationship between in-house teams and their firms in our webinar featuring Gopal Burgher, partner at BurgherGrey, and Kimberly Williams, head of Legal Operations at SMBC.

Ready to uncover the true market price for your matters? Sign up for a demo today.

PERSUIT is used by the world’s leading in-house legal teams to engage outside counsel in a way that’s more fair, more objective, more diverse, more equitable, and more effective for everyone involved. Learn more about PERSUIT.

This guide is intended to provide an overview of the work product developed by the LPM 2.0 committee and to provide the CLOC membership with a guide to implementation of best practices for matter life cycle management incorporating LPM principles. This guide is also designed to be used internally and in collaboration with external resources or vendors.

CLOC members have access to the full collection of artifacts (documents and templates) created by the committee in support of MLM that are outlined in this eBook. The zip file can be downloaded through Community Connect.

Download the eBook PDF

Corporate General Counsel and outside counsel fundamentally want the same thing – to be strategic partners to the organizations they serve. There is, therefore, a strong incentive to work collaboratively towards business outcomes.

Yet relationships with law firms can often become adversarial. Money is a particularly challenging issue. Many clients don’t engage law firms as early as might be ideal (for both sides) because they worry that the law firm will be “on the clock”. At the tail end of an engagement, there is the risk of surprise fees and errors which cause invoices to be challenged.

But why does the money matter so much? Because it’s a barrier. The commercial relationship automatically creates an arms’ length approach and a risk of being transactional, when in fact what every business wants is external advisers who are as connected, capable and proactive as the in-house team. A business wants partners, not service providers.

Moving to, and maintaining, an honest and open relationship therefore requires a proactive approach. It will take effort on both sides to escape the traditional approaches of the past. Here are some practical steps you can take:

1. Act now, because now is the right time

COVID-19 has changed everyone’s expectations overnight. Network Rail GC Dan Kayne commented in our recent webinar, “Conversations are more collaborative; I think there is a much more human approach to what we’re doing. And that’s essential. I don’t think we can allow something of this magnitude to happen and not see a shift in working styles, patterns and behaviors.”

Smart firms are recognizing the inherent value of collaboration itself. Addleshaw Goddard’s Anna Heaton also noted, “One thing we found really useful is to create small communities of GCs and other clients in similar sectors, who then have an outlet to swap ideas and share experiences. What has changed for the positive is that people are much more prepared to collaborate. The need to find answers quickly is so important that they are okay talking to their competitors at the moment, if it’s allowing them to gain more insight for the greater good. I know that sounds somewhat utopian, but I do think there is a genuine change in terms of how people are working together.”

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rewrite the rules of collaboration.

2. Invest time in communication

The move from a client-supplier relationship to involving law firms as valued, trusted advisers takes time. It requires law firms to understand their clients’ strategies and priorities. This works both ways though: GCs also need to invest time, by explaining their requirements to outside counsel. Meet your law firms quarterly for an exclusively forward-looking (rather than a business as usual) conversation.

Damian Honey, Partner at HFW, said, “What I’ve found useful is to have fixed, regular meetings across a broad range of skill-sets, that we as a firm are providing to the client; where you can sit down and have an open and honest conversation. Relationships are two way, and we as a law firm can provide constructive feedback as to how the client could be more efficient, but equally, we want to know how we are performing and how we can be more efficient.”

3. Work out loud

Futurist (and former IBM Global Managing Partner) Andrew Grill recently told an Apperio webinar of legal professionals, “You’re probably using tools like Zoom, Slack or Yammer right now. But the way to use them properly is to adopt a methodology called ‘working out loud’. It means talking to our communities and networks about the things we’re working on. That doesn’t mean breaching client confidentiality; it means sharing ideas by default, so that others can chip in with their ideas and contributions. Because your value to an organization isn’t what you know, it’s what you share. In the old days, information was power: I would guard what I was working on, and I would become more powerful. In the new age of work, it’s more important and advantageous to share what you’re doing. That sharing then becomes valuable to the organization.”

Share across the client/provider boundary and you’ll create real partnerships.

4. Set some KPIs

Trust is built on relationships, but also shared expectations. Consider agreeing common goals and related metrics. By acknowledging what’s important to each side, you can build a successful win-win relationship, with quantifiable outcomes. As well as professional and service targets, with fiscal transparency your KPIs can, for example, include the number of matters going over budget and ratio of complaints to open matters.

5. Make time to make contact without an agenda

Dan Kayne commented, “It’s so important to have regular conversations that don’t necessarily worry too much about specific issues – just to check in and see how people are doing. Law firms have often struggled with that historically – they don’t want to waste the time of the GC. But it’s actually quite an important thing to do. People really appreciate when suppliers, particularly partners, as we describe ourselves, take time out to pick up the phone and just say, I know it’s tough for you right now. But we’re here to help.”

6. Get the best minds in the room

For the most part, teams are not refreshed on a regular basis. Many fine legal careers are built on personal relationships, but with a data-driven approach, you can build teams on the basis of the best skill-sets. Recognize that the modern business environment is fast-moving and, as needs on both sides change, different people will be appropriate for different types of work. With the right data, you can broaden your team options; safe in the knowledge that value is being preserved.

7. Use multiple channels

COVID-19 has seen a renewed focus on managing relationships from afar. Email, which allows lawyers to maintain a certain level of control over the dialogue but is not necessarily what’s best for the relationship, had become the default and somewhat “lazy” communication tool.

With inboxes overrun though, lawyers have been forced to adopt new technologies. For example, video conferencing tools have enabled lawyers to fully adapt and substitute non-personal email chains with face-to-face (albeit on a screen) interactions to re-dress and truly strengthen these relationships.

8. Beware of the robots

If you needed a final nudge towards collaboration, Futurist Andrew Grill says, “Any job that can be done by a robot, will be replaced by a robot. What you do must have that extra level of information that comes from intuition.” The transactional aspects of the legal profession will be progressively eaten up by machine learning.

The high-value work that humans can do will either be at the cutting edge of the law, or advisory: engaging professionally as subject matter experts, embedded in the offices, challenges and ambitions of their client businesses.

The future is collaborative, not just because it’s friendly, but because it’s more effective – and the legal sector’s livelihood will one day depend on it. COVID-19 has accelerated our technical skills and therefore our ability to connect on multiple platforms. It will suit both sides to continue to break down those barriers, so that legal professionals can fulfil the strategic advisory role where they are most valuable.

I recently had the privilege of moderating a panel with four legal operations superstars from leading organizations. On the panel were Mark Smolik (GC of DHL Americas), Preston McGowan (Chief Transformation Officer at Goldberg Segalla), Kevin Iredell (Chief Marketing Officer at Lowenstein Sandler) and Chris Ende (Chief Value Officer at Goulston and Storrs).

The central question examined by the panel was whether selection and management of outside counsel should be more relationship-based or more based on “hard” legal ops criteria where success is defined more by hitting objective performance metrics rather than the strength of personal relationships.

The panelists agreed that “pure” relationship-based management is no longer enough. Relationships will always have a place, but there are stakeholders in client organizations (think CFO’s) that are not party to those personal relationships. Those stakeholders want to see objective data that proves that what they are getting is not nepotism, but good quality at a good price. Law firms that think they can ignore the legal ops movement and get by on the strength of personal relationships will lose those relationships. By the same token, GC’s and other top corporate law department folks who do not want to undergo the temporary pain of fixing broken or nonexistent processes will be replaced by people who are on board with legal ops and open to change.

Analytics set firms apart

The above points were underscored by the example one of our panelists gave of an RFP for an important piece of litigation. The company’s tried and true law firms responded with more or less boilerplate responses about how experienced they were, their sterling reputations, etc. However, there was one firm that, rather than bragging about how awesome it was, proved it. Their RFP response was a detailed analysis of the present litigation together with a nationwide analysis of all similar litigation against the company, the judges and plaintiff’s attorneys involved, the status of those cases, and a recommendation of how to proceed with the present case based on that information. When the GC read the response, he instantly knew this was the firm he was going to use.

In the new legal ops-based world, that is the kind of demonstrated operational competence that is going to win work. The panelists, some of the most distinguished names in legal operations from both the law firm and corporate sides, underscored this idea repeatedly by making remarks like the following:

• I am going to hire you because you’ve proven to me using data that you are the best organization to solve my problem, not because you bought me Super Bowl tickets.
• Do not think you are going to get work from my organization because of your legal expertise. Legal expertise is table stakes. I want to hear about things like how you manage to budget, how you use technology, and how you realize diversity.
• Even though I value the personal relationship between us as inside and outside counsel, the reality of today’s marketplace is in five years I may be working somewhere else and so might you. So part of my job is to build a relationship between our two companies so they can continue benefitting each other without a hiccup if either or both of us move on.

Augmenting, not replacing, relationships

From the above, one might conclude, as some legal procurement professionals prematurely did a couple years ago, that “relationships are dead.” But our panelists made it clear that that way of thinking was dead on arrival. Trust matters, just like it always did. History matters. Liking another human being matters. Legal ops hasn’t changed any of that and isn’t really trying to.

In fact, our panelists described the concept of legal ops “vs.” relationship-based management as a false dichotomy. Legal ops discipline, rather than taking away from relationships, is transforming them by putting them into a structure where third parties can see that they are actual businesslike relationships and not just cronyism. Just as law firms who don’t get legal ops will lose client relationships, legal ops folks who take a hardcore “procurement”-type approach will lose law firm relationships when those law firms come to feel they are not being treated as trusted advisors but as commodities. They will take their talents elsewhere.

In conclusion, it’s not relationships VS. structure. It’s relationships AND structure. Human warmth AND process/technology. That is what modern law practice looks like.