Archive for November, 2009

mini b.leaf from our embedded 2-L on how they (don’t) teach legal technology in law school

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

Got an interesting post from our former intern who is now deeply ensconced in her 2nd year.  Among her other thoughts, she reports that at law schools,”legal technology” basically means “Word and Westlaw” and nothing else. 

Take it away, embedded 2-L…

“The thing lawyers have in common with everyone else is the need to find balance. Balance between work and home, business and pleasure, etc. Then, there is also the balance between tradition and technology. This is particularly relevant to lawyers, especially given the world we live in. Lawyers are often trained to think in terms of tradition and precedent. And there are those, including myself, who believe in taking notes by hand. But, the practice of law is changing and that change is being felt everywhere.

This year, I am working in one of the Law Clinics here at Syracuse. When drafting documents, Word is the only software used and Westlaw is the extent of research technology.

But, legal search engines are not the extent of technology in actual legal practice. Both law students and lawyers need to be trained in more than Westlaw and LexisNexis. There is a lot of software out there designed to make work faster and more efficient. Given how quickly technology is becoming commonplace for clients and corporations, lawyers need to know it too.

That’s not to say that technology should replace all traditional legal practices. There is clear value in law as it is currently practiced. However, like all fields, it should be flexible enough to allow for growth and change. By allowing technology to handle certain tasks, lawyers have more time to practice law. Balancing between legal traditions and legal technology is possible in both law schools and law firms. Not only is balance possible, but it’s essential.”

b.leaf: NLJ reports “deepest cuts” they’ve ever tracked in BigLaw attorney population

Monday, November 9th, 2009

Today’s National Law Journal leads with a report of plunging “lawyer population” (their term, not mine) at the AmLaw 250.  The article lead is stark: “the United States’ largest law firms this year suffered the deepest cuts in their attorney numbers since The National Law Journal began tracking their census figures more than 30 years ago.”

All in all, the census tracks a loss of 5,529 lawyers in 2009 at these firms.  It also notes that 113 of these firms reported that they deferred a total of 2,784 associates

Interestingly, during the same time, the number of partners at these firms actually increased 0.9 percent, leading Altman Weil’s Ward Bower to conclude that the associate cuts “were made were done primarily to preserve workloads for partners.”

61% of legal departments seek alternate billing structures from the outside counsel they hire

Friday, November 6th, 2009

According to this week’s Corporate Counsel magazine, more and more legal departments are paying less and less to their outside counsel and they are adopting a variety of strategies to achieve that reduction in spending.  The list of these strategies vary from the traditional (keep more work in house) to the more novel (ban first-year or even second-year associates from working on their projects), but what is noteworthy about them is their increasing popularity.  61% is a lot.

At Brightleaf, we talk to a lot of in-house and outside counsel.  From the latter, we occasionally hear commentary–usually from very senior partners–that alternate billing is nothing new.  Their argument usually goes like this:  “Back in ’88 (…or ’01..or whenever), another bubble burst in the economy.  That bursting also caused clients to pull back on expenses just like this one has.  We survived that. Therefore, everything will be back to normal when the economy rebounds just a bit further.”

And, they’re at least partially right.  In tough economic times, clients will naturally spend fewer dollars and will naturally expect more for the dollars that they do spend.  But when law firms make this argument, I think  they ignore several trends that suggest that not all of the traditional legal billing toothpaste is going back into the client tube when the Dow hits 10,500.

Here are just a few of those trends:

  • Increasing realization by client that they don’t pay for anything else the way they traditionally have paid for outside counsel.
  • Emergence of technologies (like e-billing and matter management systems) that have made legal cost structures more transparent to clients
  • Increasing client dissatisfaction with the effects that the so-called “Cravath model” of associate recruitment and compensation have had on billings
  • The still-rare, but increasingly popular practice where large, influential clients ban 1st and 2nd year associates fromworking on their matters.
  • Continuing disaggregation, where partners pinch off from large firms to form tech-savvy high-end boutiques that scale far better today than they would have ten or twenty years ago.
  • The growing influence of Purchasing or Finance departments on selection of outside counsel, and the resulting focus on cost structures.
  • The growing glut of associates and the effect it will have on the ability to charge to dollar for their services.
  • The influence of high-profile corporate counsel — Mark Chandler, Mike Dillon, Amy Schulman, Jeffrey Carr, Rich Baer – who speak and write and blog about their efforts to ref0rm client-firm economics.
  • Competition from firms that do offer alternate billing models.

I guess that only time will tell.  It will be interesting to see where that 61% number is next year.  From what we hear, it’s not likely to go down.

 small-tripage

friend of b.leaf in the news

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

Just read this week’s Corporate Counsel magazine and was very pleased to find a nice article about Brightleaf’s former outside counsel, Sarah Reed, and her move back in-house at Charles River Ventures.  We knew we were going to like Sarah when she apologized for being five minutes late to our first meeting at her Lowenstein Sandler offices because she had run thirteen miles to get there as part of her training for an upcoming marathon.  We knew we were really going to like her when she proceeded to sit down after that run and give us about twenty hours worth of product and legal advice over the next 45 minutes.  Overall, Sarah did a superb job for Brightleaf and we were sorry to see her move on.  But, it sounds like from this piece like she’s really happy at CRV.  So we’re happy too…even if her move left us alone and without local representation in this cruel, cold world.

 

small-tripage