Happy New Year!

I hope your 2011 ended well and your 2012 is off to a good start.

It seems like no matter how well-prepared you are from a business viewpoint, the preparation for the New Year is at times overwhelming. Between closing the books on the past year, the flurry of year-end festivities, well-earned time-off, family commitments and the holiday celebrations, there is very little time to focus on concrete strategies  your firm can implement to increase the profitability of your operation in the coming year.    

To assist you in this endeavor, we developed “Law Firm Resolutions for Good Financial Health in 2012” published in ALA Currents on December 22, 2011.  We hope you benefit from the specific methods we saw some of the most competitive firms utilize to achieve financial good health in 2011 for your firm in 2012.

 To read the full article, click here.

Do you fear your vendors?

Quite often when we meet with a potential new client, the discussion will come around to analyzing the performance and pricing of one of their vendors.  Surprisingly we will get the response from the potential client that goes along these lines – “Oh – I can’t do that, that may get XYZ vendor upset” or “Geez – that may upset Bobby (who works for the vendor)” 

Typically when I hear these comments, two thoughts come immediately to mind – 1) Who is working for who here and 2) what would the managing partner think if heard these comments? I am also thinking we have no chance here but that is secondary.      

Vendors sometimes get in position, and the firms let them, of running the show. I am all for partnerships but when you feel threatened by a vendor or held hostage, it is time to put them in their place. No vendor is irreplaceable. There have been many times that clients we have worked with have replaced supposedly “irreplaceable” vendors with new vendors who offered the promise of better performance, in addition to improved pricing and terms. No one or vendor is irreplaceable. Remember that the next time you feel trapped.

What is the oldest legal document?

Rob Mattern with The Code of Hammurabi in Louvre, Paris.

It is widely believed that the oldest legal document known to mankind is the Code of Ur-Nammu, created in 2050 BC by King Hammurabi. This is not entirely accurate. In truth, the oldest legal document known to mankind is the off-site records storage contract that was created in order to store the code off-site from King Hammurabi’s palace. Rumor has it the Sumerians are still negotiating reboxing fees.

For anyone who has ever dealt with off-site records and negotiated the contract for these services, you may recognize the truth in the hyperbolic jest. Off-site records storage is an industry based on antiquated policies and terms that may present issues resulting in, if not the world’s first epic poem, epic financial penalties and other costs if you are not careful.

Here are some negotiating strategies to help you be careful and achieve the contract that most benefits your firm.

To read the article click here.

I don’t know if E-Discovery killed Howrey but it didn’t help it!

In the July 2011 issue of Legal Technology News under Action Items there was a piece written by Monica Bay titled “Did E-Discovery Kill Howrey?” The gist of the piece was how Howrey created a wholly-owned subsidiary called Capital Litigation Support to provide litigation support services to the firm’s own clients. The problem was, as reported by a former employee named “Paul W” on the WSJ blog, was that this wholly owned subsidiary was significantly more expensive than many third party vendors providing the same service. He closed his blog with the comment “Corporations are demanding reasonable fees that are comparable with other firms in the practice type”.

Now I don’t know if E-Discovery killed Howrey or not, but I do know that unfair cost recovery practices do damage client relationships and leads to questions about fees, hours and a whole host of other areas. Firms that do charge non-competitive rates may think they are making out but in the long term there will be consequences. A fair, verifiable cost recovery strategy will not only lead to sustainable recoveries, but in the long term, prove to be much more client advantageous.       

The Impending Demise of Cost Recovery

By Rob Mattern

This article was first published in ILTA’s June 2011 issue of Peer
to Peer titled “Law2020TM: One Year In”

The recovery of costs associated with managing a legal matter is as old as the legal profession itself. However, as we sit here in 2011, changes to the traditional model are already taking place, and by the time 2020 arrives, law firms will have completely changed their approach to cost recovery.

My company has conducted the Mattern Cost Recovery Survey for the past six years, most recently in 2010. Shared here is information based on the results of that survey and on my daily interactions with law firms on an operational and strategic level.

Click here to read the full article.