Counsel Collaborative Discusses Controlling Litigation Costs
Mar 18, 2008
At the March 18 meeting we organized our discussion by first focusing on "small cases", which are typically brought by customers or clients.
A "customer satisfaction model" focused toward early resolution is the preferred technique for controlling costs in this category of cases. Some legal departments with a high volume of small cases have inhouse attorneys focusing solely on their prompt resolution, with the goal of eliminating the need for outside counsel to file an appearance or answer. In some venues, inhouse counsel may file a general denial answer or request an extension of time to answer, thereby eliminating outside counsel fees while a small case is being resolved.
Some cases are filed in "small claims courts" where pro se appearances are not only permissible but sometimes preferable. In some companies business people, rather than lawyers, appear on the company's behalf. There can be several benefits from this approach. First, outside counsel fees are avoided and over-stretched inhouse counsel resources are spared. Second, a business person is sometimes better equipped to explain the circumstances that gave rise to the customer's problem. Finally, the business person gets first-hand feedback from the customer and perhaps the court, which may stimulate new business processes and procedures to avoid similar claims in the future.
When our discussion turned to large cases, predictably, discovery costs were at the forefront of concern. In light of Qualcomm v. Broadcom, electronic document indexing systems were discussed, but attendees still prefer reliance on network custodians. To reduce document review expense, contract attorneys are quite favored, and some members are giving consideration to overseas outsourcing of document review.
Mention was made of outsourcing legal research, but none of the attendees have personal experience to evaluate the cost-effectiveness or quality of outsourced product.
Law firm staffing of cases was another area considered. By reaching a consensus with outside counsel on a case staffing plan, costly staffing inefficiencies and expenses can be saved.
Electronic billing is another tool under consideration and/or use in some law departments. E-billing can generate useful information that can be used to control costs or to assist in budgeting and forecasting. However, if e-bills merely convert law firm paper bills into electronic format, their value-added is minimal because the volume of time entries makes meaningful review difficult. E-billing systems should be carefully designed so that they generate information in a format that is useful to inhouse counsel in managing costs and budgeting for future litigation.
Related Links