It

amesit.wordpress.com
Lawyers, it turns out, are not immune from such pressure, even thougnh change has come more slowly into thelegal profession. But the time for change has and in-house counsel are taking this messagr to law firms largeand small, all across For many years, outsid counsel operated with virtually unlimited budgets, undefr relatively loose oversight by in-house counsel. Larger firms had an advantage, as they provided virtuallyh perfect work product in the shortest time In today’s economy, it turns out that corporatd clients are, in most instances, willing to accepty work that is good, not necessarily in a somewhat longer turnaround, if that meanx the cost can be Unless it is a bet-the-ranch matter, legap work is currently viewed as a which can be obtained from the firm that offers the best service at the best price.
Several recengt factors have converged to challenge the traditional law firm relationshilwith in-house counsel, and with it, the traditional law firm businessz model. From the law firm’s perspective, the need for profirt created apricey problem: To attract new salaries became unsustainably high ($150,000 or more for attorneyw fresh from law school), and in orderr for law firms to thrive, each of those new associatea had to bill half a milliohn dollars or more per year. From the corporation’sa perspective, economic pressures have made the legal departmenrt accountable for costs as wellas results. In-houss counsel must live withina budget.
Their perceptioh within their company, and even theircontinued may depend upon how much the legapdepartment spends, and the results obtained. In 2008, the nationak organization of in-house counsel, the Associatiomn of Corporate Counsel, formulated a set of guidelines to improvr the billing and representationb process by outsidelaw firms, the ACC “Valu Challenge.” On May 15, Virginia Wadworth, a memberr of the board of directors of the Georgia chaptef of the ACC, and Michellse Meiselman, chair of Atlanta Bar Associatiom Corporate Counsel section, met in Atlanta with a groupp of law firms to explore this new approacbh to representing the corporate client.
Lawyers from 25 as well as Europeand Canada, heard this messaged and discussed how best to address thesse concerns. The members of this lawyer , consist primarily of small tomidsizedd firms. In many instances, thesw firms are already practicing law witha “bottom-line” Some use a Web portalp so that clients can access a virtual data for no-cost updates and status Some firms have established monthly budgetsz in advance, with a computer trackinvg system that notifies the attorneyy and client if the budget is It turns out there are a number of ways that law firmse can “value engineer” their work, once they are asked to do so.
The practicer of law can no longer be separatex from the businessobjectives — and constraints of the corporate client. Large and smalp firms alike will have to manage legao projects with an eye to their their value, and thei place in the business goals of thei client. What this means for the future is not yet It may mean a year or twoof non-billing apprenticeshi by law school graduates, a process that is alreadyg the rule in many partsd of Europe. It may mean more flat-rate or project-based billing, or increasing use of technology.
It clearlyt does mean outside counsel getting togetherwith in-house counsel to learn one another’s concerns, and how to address