Is your firm part of the current state of cost recovery? Discover the answer in the 2012 Matter & Associates Cost Recovery Survey.

Of all the areas that we consult in, the soft cost recovery area is the one undergoing the greatest amount of change both from an internal viewpoint and, most importantly, from an external one. Clients are on the offensive to reduce or eliminate soft costs, internal constituents are fighting them, and the whole support service workflow is going through dramatic changes as a result of decreases in copy and increases in scan, print and litigation support. 

Well, we are about to get the answers. It is time for the bi-annual Mattern & Associates Cost Recovery Survey. The comprehensive information collected in this survey lays the groundwork for many firms’ cost recovery strategies for the coming years.

This is what Nicholas J. Willmott, Chief Financial Officer of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, says of the value of participating in the Survey:

 “The Mattern & Associates Cost Recovery Survey is the most comprehensive snapshot of cost recovery trends and practices available in the legal field.  Kirkland participated in the Survey in 2008 and 2010 and will again in 2012.  It is well worth the time and effort, and benefits our firm.”

In 2010 we had responses from 81 Firms; this year, we expect to double that response. Everyone participating in the Survey receives a customized, web-based summary of the Survey results along with a non-obligatory debriefing from a Mattern & Associates consultant.

We hope to see your firm participating in the Survey—and becoming part of the answer.   

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.