The fallacy of in-house savings – are we at the peak of work going in-house?
In his latest blog for 3 Geeks and a Law Blog, Toby Brown makes some excellent points as to why the classic approach of comparing billing rates for law firm lawyers to hourly compensation rates of equivalent level in-house lawyers is a poor representation of the situation.
That equation leaves out benefits, basic overheads, CLE requirements and other costs. PLUS law firms provide library and research services, knowledge management, legal project management and eDiscovery support (we’ve left others out). AND it provides operational support that in-house teams don’t/can’t. “My prediction is that we are reaching the peak of the trend of client bringing work in-house,” he says.
His conclusion other than that? Clients who want to truly get more for their money, rather than focusing on the cost of input, ought to partner with law firms to deliver innovative solutions. We couldn’t agree more. Toby is chief practice management officer at Perkins Coie. You can read his 3 Geeks blog in full here:
I recently attended a conference that included both law firms and clients. One of the clients had a slide showing his company’s savings by bringing work in-house. It was the classic approach of comparing billing rates for law firm lawyers to hourly compensation rates of equivalent level in-house lawyers.
This article below references Perkins Coie’s partnership with Microsoft: