In-House Counsel

A dozen arguments in favor of convergence

By Rees Morrison

Compare these 12 points that favor reducing the number of law firms used by a law department to a dozen reasons that oppose convergence (See my post of Oct. 19, 2008: reasons against convergence.).

1. Better service delivery
2. Better billing rates and alternative arrangements
3. Better knowledge of the business because with fewer firms they do more work and get to know the company better
4. Better anticipation of needs because of greater familiarity
5. More continuing legal education and free seminars provided
6. Simplified administration because there are fewer firms
7. Reduced strain when it comes time to obtain audit letters
8. Easier to get help in a crisis
9. Fewer conflicts since firms throw in their lot with you
10. There can be shared knowledge and opportunities among firms like the DuPont network
11. Justifies the role of inside counsel because they narrowed the group of firms used
12. You lose weight and play less golf because marketing efforts dry up

Full post as published by Law Department Management on October 22, 2008 (boomark / email).