Cost effective, business savvy, proactive, able to manage expectations, and great communicators—that’s what in-house counsel expect from their external dispute resolution lawyers, according to new research.
However, the study by Grant Thornton’s Forensic and Investigation Services practice shows law firms aren’t as good as they think they are: in various performance criteria there is disparity between how in-house counsel rate their external lawyers and how lawyers rate themselves.
In-house counsel believe managing costs is the most important factor—apart from the result of a case—when assessing a law firm’s performance, the research shows. They gave law firms a score of 55% in this area, whereas lawyers rated themselves at 71%.
The second most important factor was law firms’ ability to show they understood the strategic objectives of the business and that they acted in a commercial manner. Here, in-house counsel gave law firms 79% and law firms thought they deserved 81%.
Grant Thornton partner, Toni Pincott, says: “It is essential law firms understand they are being judged on more than just the outcome of the cases they work on or the size of their bills. It is also imperative that law firms understand how they are performing in the eyes of their clients and that there is disparity between how they think they are performing and how well they are really doing.”
Law firms’ claims that they do all they can to avoid court clearly isn’t believed by their clients, who gave a score of 70% when it came to suggesting the use of alternative dispute resolution, while law firms thought they deserved 89%.
A similar pattern emerged regarding early resolution,
in-house counsel gave law firms 69% and law firms gave themselves 86%.
