ILNews

New survey outlines how corporate law departments are cutting costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Chief legal officers have turned to negotiating price reductions with outside counsel, doing more work in house, and greater use of technology in efforts to control costs, according to a survey released Wednesday by legal management consulting firm Altman Weil Inc.

More than three-fourths of chief legal officers have negotiated price reductions from outside counsel, with almost half receiving an average reduction of between 6 and 10 percent. Close to 20 percent negotiated discounts between 11 and 15 percent.

But CLOs don’t just want the most services possible for the least amount of money. The majority of respondents preferred transparent pricing or guaranteed pricing. Only about 10 percent said they wanted the lowest price available.

Many corporate law departments plan on adding more staff in the next year; 42 percent report they plan to add in-house lawyers. Nearly 30 percent also plan on decreasing their use of outside counsel.

But in-house attorneys aren’t immune to the negative effects of the cost-control measures. Respondents plan on shifting in-house work from lawyers to paraprofessionals, using contract lawyers and technology tools to increase efficiency, and outsourcing to non-law firm vendors.

The survey also shows that CLOs have little hope that law firms will change their services to better meet the needs and demands of corporate law departments. For the fifth straight year, the survey asked CLOs to rate how serious law firms are about changing their legal service delivery model to provide greater value – and for the fifth year, the median rating was “3” on a scale of 0 (not at all serious) to 10 (doing everything they can).

Another interesting result from the survey: Two-thirds of respondents think chief legal officers have more difficult jobs as compared to managing partners.

Of the 1,269 corporate law departments invited to participate, 207 responded to the 2013 survey.  Altman Weil has compiled this survey since 2000.

The complete survey is available on Altman Weil’s website.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT