Law Firm Access to ACC Value Index

The ACC Value Index (AVI) is a tool meant to inform in-house counsel decisions as part of a larger process of selecting and retaining a law firm. The AVI is a searchable database for in-house counsel to share subjective evaluations of the firms they engage.  It is key to note that this is a process that already takes place naturally among in-house counsel who often seek their colleagues opinions on firms that offer good value.  The Value Index builds upon this tradition by encouraging in-house counsel to contact or “ping” other evaluators to discuss the firm’s work in greater detail.

As we begin the process of rolling out law firm access to certain information in the Value Index this week, I want to take a moment to outline the who/what/when/where/how and why underlying this process.

Who – Access is being offered to law firms evaluated in the ACC Value Index since its October 2009 launch.

What – Each evaluated law firm will be able to access aggregated results pertaining to that firm.  This includes average scores for that firm by criterion, office location and matter type.  The firms will also receive overall Value Index averages for benchmarking purposes. Here’s an example of what a law firm would see:

When -- Starting today, February 3, 2010, through the foreseeable future.

WhereAccess to the information will be available to law firms through an online portal on ACC’s Web site using the protocols below. 

How – Here are the key steps for law firms to gain access to the AVI information:
1.    Firm management decides who in the firm will manage the AVI access to the firm’s results.
2.    The firm representative who will serve as the “administrator” on behalf of the firm goes to the AVI Law Firm Access Portal at: http://www.acc.com/valuechallenge/valueindex/lawfirms to obtain administrator access.
3.    The administrator can then view the firm’s AVI results anytime and share them within the firm.

Why – As I wrote on this blog last October during the ACC Value Index launch, coinciding with the overarching goal of the ACC Value Challenge – information gleaned from the AVI will help to foster a greater dialog between clients and their outside counsel.

The AVI is only one part of the ACC Value Challenge, which encompasses a larger effort to reconnect value to the cost of legal services.  Other aspects include a) “Meet. Talk. Act.” which encourages clients and law firms to engage in discussions about value and their relationship; b) a law firm economic model; and c) specific resources with examples of value practices and ideas on ‘how to’ implement practices focused on value.  Resources, success stories and updates are continually added to the ACC Value Challenge community pages and we encourage law firms to get involved and help to provide additional information/resources.
 

It is premature to cite "rankings" from the ACC Value Index

We are pleased with the interest in the ACC Value Index (AVI) since its release last month at the ACC Annual Meeting in Boston. The attention from the media and law firms at this early stage of development reflects the potential value of the AVI to our members. Recent Blog posts and articles, especially those that show “purported ACC law firm rankings,” require clarification:

  • The ACC Value Index is in the early data-gathering stage and it will take time to develop a robust database.
  •  It is premature and inappropriate at this time to cite "rankings" of law firms given the limited number of evaluations submitted thus far.
  • The AVI is a service for ACC members that will enable them to share information and communicate with each other about the selection and retention of law firms.
  • ACC will share with each law firm the evaluations it receives about that firm as soon as we finalize the appropriate formats and procedures.

We welcome the continued input, feedback and engagement of the legal community in the ACC Value Challenge.

ACC President Fred Krebs on the ACC Value Index

Friday, November 13, 2009

 

Sorry I Had Writer's Block

I have been a bit delinquent in my blogs because I had writer’s block, but not the ordinary kind. Mine had very distinct causes - the installation of a new HVAC system and re-decking and re-roofing my garage. I may be a lawyer, but I still have some useful skills.

As you know, I have been promoting the idea that the legal educational paradigm needs to be radically changed and there are some, such as David Van Zandt, the Dean of Northwestern Law School, who have been making real efforts at change.

This last week I attended a North Eastern Ohio Chapter ACCA Program and heard David Galbenski and his colleagues explain how Entrepreneurship is going to dramatically change the legal profession. David is the CEO of Lumen Legal and in addition to sharing ideas David gave me a copy of his book, UNBOUND, and asked for my comments. In the next few blogs I will share some of my reactions with you as well.

David discusses seven trends which he identifies as transformation factors for the legal services industry. Number one is the demise of the pivotal role of the billable hour. Although I agree that something transformational does appear to be changing the legal services industry, I do not think the billable hour has a pivotal role to play. As I suggested in my blogs on the billable hour and alternative billing, the billable hour is predicated on a basic need of the buyer of legal services. Change the need of the buyer of legal services and the billable need not diminish or disappear; it merely becomes irrelevant to determining fees.

As many of you know, my claim to fame during my active days of practice was doing the work myself, including arguing before the United States Supreme Court. I had little need for billing arrangements and retention letters. Lawyers who worked for me got specific assignments and the key to whether they got the assignment was whether they could do it faster and cheaper than I could. 

Random Observations & Indelible Memories

 Each year, as ACC’s Annual Meeting concludes, I’m always struck by the interesting and substantive new information I discover.  Inevitably, people say things - or I observe or participate in events - that leave me with much to think about.  This was my 18th annual meeting and it was no different. Throughout our time in Boston, I continually encountered such instances among our 2400+ attendees that, I believe, contributed to the success of this gathering of in-house counsel from around the world.  

Leadership, education, collaboration, support, relationships and value, all contributed to a successful conference, which I tried to capture in these Random Observations

 

·        As she shared her lifetime of studying and writing about great leaders, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Doris Kearns Goodwin, presented a captivating tale of personal observations and what we could learn from the great leaders she had studied. I, like everyone in the room, hung onto her every word and was drawn into her uncanny ability to “tell a story” and describe the research that went into her book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.  So much of what she discussed about the politicians and historical figures translated seamlessly to the legal community.

 

Lincoln’s success was the result of a character that had been forged by life experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals.”

 

“The best indicators of a good leader – being able to motivate during frustration.”

 

~ Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize Author

 ACC’s 2009 Annual Meeting Keynote Speaker

 

I say without hesitation—read this or any other book she has written!

 

·        Ivan Fong, former ACC Board Chair, who recently became General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, provided a captivating account of his transition to the public sector, with particular emphasis on the qualities of effective leadership.  His candor and honesty were both insightful, as well as refreshing to hear, in light of his high-profile role with the third largest government agency.

 

“The hallmarks of being a good lawyer – the foundations on which everything is based – are the quality of the legal analysis, responsiveness, sound judgment and the ability to be a trusted advisor, all of which translate well into the public sector.”

 

"You can tell the health of an organization by the quality of its arguments.”

 

~ Ivan Fong, General Counsel of U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Chair’s Choice: A View from the Frontlines

 

·        Earlier this year, we were saddened to learn of the passing of Robert Banks, Sr., an extraordinary in house counsel for Xerox and the leading founder of ACC. He gave us a great gift and he gave us all an organization that permits us to change and improve our profession and ourselves.  

 

“For his beliefs and advocacy, we all owe Bob an immense debt of gratitude.”

~ Carl D. Liggio

Founder and 1984 ACC Board Chair

 

Because of his unyielding support of ACC, it is only fitting that we honor Bob with the ACC Robert Banks Memorial Scholarship Fund, starting in 2010. This scholarship will help support those members who are in transition or need additional support to attend future Annual Meetings.

 

·       During an engaging discussion of CLOs, opinions were exchanged and suggestions were offered, and I was intrigued by the frankness and insight offered.  Much of the discussion related to the changes occurring among in-house counsel and their relationships with their outside lawyers and the billable hour.  Unlike similar discussions of the past, where everyone just cited problems, here, the CLOs offered tangible solutions and discussed what they have begun to implement to help affect change.

 

“Meet. Talk. Act. – from the ACC Value Challenge – gives us all a good framework to use … we need to get together with our outside counsel, open the dialog and start doing things.”

 

~ John Page, Vice President, GC & Corp. Secretary, Golden State Foods Corp.

Chief Legal Officer Roundtable Discussion

 

“What we’re learning is how to use alternative fee arrangements – when do they work and make sense? More and more there will be categories of matters where alternative and flat fee arrangements are more accepted – it’s the law of supply and demand – some are cyclical and some are secular.”

~ Marc Gary, General Counsel, Fidelity Investments

Chief Legal Officer Roundtable Discussion

 

·        As I made my way though the Exhibit Hall, and observed the interaction among the over 100 exhibitors and the attendees, I understood what many in-house counsel had told me, that they liked the positive, controlled environment.  Members feel this provides them with a “one-stop shop” to speak with legal industry providers and hear about the new resources and services available to them.  The exhibitors, too, were engaged and I was happy to hear a number of positive comments.

 

“We were very happy with the event. We met a lot of attendees and got to speak to them about their needs and how we can help.”

 

 ~ Ian Nelson, Vice President of Business Development & Marketing, PLC

ACC Alliance Partner/2009 Annual Meeting Exhibitor

 

“Everyone has been really engaged and interested …this has been really helpful for our attorneys, to see the number of in-house counsel in attendance and to interact with our clients that are here.”

 

~ Felice Wagner, Chief Client Service Officer, Sutherland

First Time 2009 Annual Meeting Exhibitor

 

·       Efficiency, value and cost containment were repeated throughout the conference, both in sessions and during one-on-one conversations, as everyone shared and gleaned insight on streamlining processes without cutting quality. During the session, “The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management,” law department leaders and law firm management discussed the ACC Value Challenge and how the initiative could help to support their efforts.

 

“Value Day - August 24 - the day the Wall Street Journal covered alternative billing on its front page."

 

~ Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, GC & Secretary, FMC Technologies, Inc.

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

 

“Value means more than price for legal services – what more do we want from our relationships – CLE, top of mind advice, brainstorming….”

 

~ Bruce Goldberg, Managing Counsel, Allstate Insurance Company

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

 

“Profit is variable; what is valued is continuing relationships maintained through continuing relationship reviews.”

 

~ Stuart Pape, Managing Partner, Patton Boggs LLP

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

 

"Once you decide to go down this path, there's only one question you need to ask law firms, Will you do this? Yes or no. If they say no, they are free to work elsewhere. Draconian? Yes. Effective? Absolutely. But it does take some backbone."

 

~ Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, GC & Secretary, FMC Technologies, Inc.

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

 

 

ACC's 2009 Annual Meeting Exhibit Hall - Tchotchkes Overshadowed by Interest in Value & Efficiency

The second day of a two and a half day conference can sometimes wane in attendance and engagement, but Day 2 at ACC’s 2009 Annual Meeting in Boston didn’t show any sign of diminishing interest. Attendees dispersed throughout the exhibit hall for their morning coffee and croissants, while chatting with the 100+ exhibitors and sponsors on hand to offer insight about their services and in-house counsel offerings. The majority of this year’s sponsors were returning exhibitors, but there were a number of new organizations, as well. Washington, DC-based law firm, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, was one of the new firms exhibiting this year, and Felice Wagner, Chief Client Service Officer, said it was a great experience for the eight attorneys that joined her.

“It was illuminating for some of the attorneys to not only see the number of in-house counsel, but also, the number of Sutherland clients that were here. The high-level of the attendees, along with their genuine interest and engagement, has been great,” Wagner noted.

A long-time supporter of ACC, and recipient of the 2009 President’s Award, Ogilvy Renault, too, believed there was a higher level of engagement with those they spoke to. Senior Partner, Andrew Fleming, commented that this year attendees were not just looking for general information, but had specific questions. “We’ve spoken to attendees that had questions about a particular issue, or to others that weren’t happy with their current outside counsel and interested in learning more about Ogilvy.”

Lise Monette, Ogilvy’s Chief Marketing Officer, was happy with the added feature of being able to qualify leads on the lead tracking device, saying that it will be useful for when they get back to the office and coordinate follow up plans for those they spoke to at the conference.

For others, the Annual Meeting provided a platform for unveiling new products and/or services geared toward the in-house counsel market. Fios Inc., a provider of electronic discovery services, and Ajilon Legal, a worldwide expert in legal staffing and litigation management, unveiled a partnership to help corporations and law firms effectively inject cost control and predictability into the complex e-discovery process.

Brad Gragert, senior vice president of sales at Fios, noted that "By combining the core Fios and Ajilon competencies and expertise, legal teams now have a single resource for processing, review and production services. Additionally, our combined services will provide legal professionals with improved cost predictability and budget management for e-discovery projects."

The ACC/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey was released during the meeting, and the media and attendee interest kept Rob Thomas, Serengeti’s Vice President of Strategic Development, busy. For the first time in three years, the survey found that controlling spending on outside counsel returned as the top priority for in-house counsel, topping compliance concerns. The need to drive efficiency is leading to more value-based policies to reduce overall legal spend, and clients are looking to negotiate more flexible value-based fee and service models.

“In-house counsel want a single online system where they can manage all of their legal work directly with all of their outside counsel worldwide, not a maze of different law firm extranets or internal systems that don’t connect with outside counsel,” says Thomas, the author of the survey report.

Several of attendees that stopped by the Serengeti booth asked Thomas about the survey, wanting to know more about this year’s findings and interpretation of the data. Thomas, too, acknowledged that substantive inquiries dominated the questions he addressed with this year’s attendees.   

Practical Law Company, a leading provider of practical know-how for business lawyers and newest ACC Alliance partner, introduced its new “PLC Law Department” service, which will officially launch in 2010.  Designed to help in-house law departments maximize value, practice more efficiently and control legal spend, the new service has been catered specifically for legal departments to make sure they have the practical resources needed to get the job done.

“The interest in hearing about the new service has been terrific,” explained Ian Nelson, PLC’s Vice President of Business Development and Marketing. “We’ve had great interaction with everyone that has stopped by to learn more about the service and many have had questions about substantive issues and how to use practical resources to be more efficient.”

At a time when it is critical to be as efficient as possible and deliver even greater value to clients, it’s no surprise that attendees were interested in hearing more about ways to streamline internal processes. The topic was repeated many times throughout conference and during the session, “The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management,” law department leaders and law firm management discussed how the ACC Value Challenge can help to support this high priority goal of efficient, effective and professional practice.

For Jeff Carr, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of FMC Technologies, Inc., value means “efficiency, effectiveness and customer satisfaction,” something to which he holds his outside firms accountable to. And, the move away from the billable hour (yes, fodder, for a future – more in-depth Blog post) is forcing law firms to sit up, listen and respond to the wave of change that is forcing alternatives to the traditional business model. While law firms grapple with the increased demands, in-house counsel, too, are wrestling with their own internal processes to ensure greater efficiency and value-based legal services.

The over 100 event sponsors and exhibitors that were on hand  - from international law firms, to top litigation support providers and to leaders in knowledge management – were all afforded with the unique opportunity for one-on-one interaction with in-house counsel to educate them about cost efficient solutions.  As ACC President Fred Krebs noted, “I often hear from in-house counsel that they welcome the opportunity to interact with Annual Meeting sponsors as it provides them with a one-stop way to engage with organizations and learn more about value-based solutions.”

As this year’s Annual Meeting approaches its final sessions, the information gleaned from the sessions, interaction with attendees and conversations with supporters will be taken back to legal departments for implementation. For some, it will provide them with a new way of thinking and acting, for others it will reconfirm processes already in place. And, while the tchotchkes and give-aways were fun and drew interest, it will be the tools, resources, educational information and newly formed relationships that will have long-term value.

Who Supports The Billable Hour?

I attended a NEO ACCA conference on alternatives to the billable hour a few days ago. In the next few blogs I will share some impressions, observations and thoughts.

First, let me make an observation: it was fortunate I went because I contributed to making the audience slightly larger than the presenters. You would have thought there would have been far more interest. There appeared to be a number of people who signed up for the program from the names at the welcome table, and the room was clearly prepared to accommodate many more participants, not mention the array of free food for breakfast.

I found the program quite interesting; and I tend to be skeptical of various schemes designed to reduce legal costs. So why was there no more interest? I have no idea, but I would like to hear from others who might have an explanation.

There was one explanation that arose from comments from the firm that was the focal point of the presentation--consumer resistance to change. The forum was not the typical situation where a series of in-house attorneys complained about the absence of alternative billing formats and representatives from firms resisted change or reluctantly expressed a willingness to consider alternatives after listing all the obstacles to change. It was a presentation where the law firm was actively promoting its willingness to participate in alternatives to the billable hour legal market. What they noted was the resistance of the market place to accept it. The lackluster attendance at the presentation certainly suggests market apathy.

So why was this law firm who is enthusiastically marketing alternatives to the billable hour struggling to sell the idea? Why aren’t clients lined up outside their door to take advantage of this new billing? Where were the participants in the NEO ACCA conference on the topic?

Of course, one might be able to offer explanations for each of these circumstances that do suggest that in-house counsel as a group favor alternatives to hourly rates. However, it just may be that notwithstanding all the protests by in-house counsel they really prefer hourly billing. It might be that protests against hourly rates are simply a disguise.

Robert Banks, the former General Counsel of Xerox and father of ACCA, spent an unsuccessful year with a law firm after he retired from Xerox attempting to sell services directed at helping in-house counsel control outside legal fees. After that year in which he was not particularly successful he shared his views that “in-house counsel did not want to manage outside counsel, they wanted to look like they were managing outside counsel.”

The hourly rate serves that objective in a couple of respects. First, the review of these fees creates the impression that the in-house counsel is intimately involved in the outside attorney’s detailed efforts. There is little doubt that in-house attorneys feel a need to be involved in the activities of the attorneys they hire as expressed in the description that they wanted outside counsel to work with them in a “partnership.” The debate between Steve Bokat and me in prior blogs explored that issue. Flat rate billing and contingent fees appear to diminish, at the very least, the apparent role of the in-house attorney in the daily decisions of the outside firm. Where the firm is providing both the time and fees associated with discovery, a major role for in-house counsel, controlling those expenses, would be largely eliminated.

A consequence of these billing practices may well result in less need for as much in-house staff. The firm at the NEO ACCA event noted that an advantage of the fixed fee arrangement was that it eliminated the need for paralegal staff to review the bill (or was paralegal a euphemism for lawyer).

Those of us who have been in-house know that there are huge pressures to grow the size of a law department. Both prestige and salary are associated with size of the department you manage; lawyers like to hire other lawyers if for no other reason than to demonstrate how much work they have. It is not unique to lawyers for sure. But the reality is that bigger is generally better for the employees, whether or not it may be good for the shareholder or owner.

If the in-house job description is to manage some aspect of the legal function, be it litigation or acquisitions, the lawyer might well be reluctant to forego the hourly rate, and the actual or apparent control that goes with long-term fixed-term agreement, where his real attention is only required once every couple of years.

Similar characteristics exist for contingency fees.

The effort to control costs using these techniques is not new. It remains to be seen whether the present effort has anymore staying power than prior attempts.