§;General – We believe that all fee structures we use, whether fixed fee, pure billable hour, or some other alternative,
are “value-based” fee structures. We make determinations as to which fee structure will provide the best value to
the company given the specific case or type of case involved and our current litigation management structure and
§;Fixed fee arrangements for groups of cases by type – e.g., small consumer or employment claims
§;Fixed fee in individualized cases – including patent infringement, trade secret and commercial cases
§;Fixed fee with a success bonus in individualized cases – such as affirmative recovery matters
§;Flat rate for ediscovery work
OTHER VALUE PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT
§;RFP process – for outside counsel and for discovery vendors that is intended to drive value for HP in litigation
§;“Intense litigation management” process – intended to drive value in our outside counsel spend by allowing the
litigation management team to allocate spend by risk (based upon an understanding of individual case risk as it fits
within the entire body of litigation risk), to control tasks performed, and to manage the level of resource dedicated to
§;Rigorous financial and substantive case reporting process – guides the various fee structure and litigation
management efforts; the process includes budget forecasts, interim estimates of spend and reconciliations of
§;Metrics – intended to measure and compare the true value in the outside counsel spend rather than relying upon
assumptions made about a specific type of fee arrangement
§;In-sourced some types of litigation and have standardized our budget process – with outside counsel as a means of
extracting value and ensuring alignment of expectations regarding spend on a particular litigation matter
§;In-sourced some employment claims work
§;Centralized ediscovery – the in-house ediscovery team establishes ediscovery guidelines to be used by vendors
and outside counsel. The ediscovery team also runs HP’s RFP for both ediscovery vendors and contract document
§;Use of contract personnel to conduct document review – several years ago, we moved to a model that required all
firms to use contract document reviewers. That work was primarily on-shore but today, we have the ability to send
that work on-shore or off-shore given our vendor relationships
§;Secondments – used most typically to cover for attorneys out on extended leave
§;Legal process outsourcing (LPO) – HP legal has aggressively pursued LPO as a key priority for the last two years.
The department’s focus on LPO supports its overall goal to provide the best legal support to its clients. By leveraging
LPO resources, opportunities are created for HP attorneys, contract managers and contract negotiators to focus their
advice on more strategic or complex matters that add more value to our businesses. Outsourced work includes:
higher volume, lower risk, and repeatable work in the areas of litigation, IP and contract and procurement support.
The services are carried out by a combination of on-shore and off-shore providers in English language. HP is currently
expanding support to non-English language services.
ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS
Estimated cost savings are 10 percent.
MOST VALUABLE PRACTICES; PROVIDED GREATEST RESULTS
§;Centralizing discovery processes and vendors – This resulted in the most immediate impact; helped ensure that we no
longer paid hundreds of dollars an hour for first level document review. HP did this years ago, and at the time, it was
revolutionary and there was real pushback from both our in-house attorneys and our outside counsel.
§;Contract work outsourced to LPO providers – We have found significant value add in the following areas:
responding to customers’ requests for tenders or proposals; contract analysis; confidentiality agreements; contractual
amendments, addendums, change orders, renewals, extensions, terminations; contract and template comparisons, etc.