ACC Value Challenge Resource Library - GC Value Insights 2012

General Savings

Millions of dollars Several Millions of dollars

30% over historical costs About 15%

Savings from Value-Based Fee Structures About 10-15%

30-40% by bundling and
concentrating work
10%
Fixed fee patent application work
has decreased costs by 40% over
the past seven years
Cut outside counsel costs
by almost 60% over past
four years [note: 66% of
arrangements use value-based
fee structures]
Reduced outside counsel spend
as a function of revenue by
25% over past 10+ years

37% savings in global trademark portfolio fees over four years

10-20%

Savings from Other Value Practices

About 25%

About 80-90% on some matters due to
ediscovery practices
Bidding patent work saved 20%
Secondment arrangements yield 20-50%
savings
Bidding fixed fee in immigration/
outsourcing, saved more than 20%

Document review practices using staffing agencies instead of outside counsel, and litigation support practices, resulted in more than 50% savings during the first six months

TYPES OFVALUE-BASED FEE STRUCTURES

Responses received from the 17 law departments indicate that a broad range of value-based fee structures is being implemented. While one GC noted that the law department believes that all fee structures the department uses are value-based (including those based on the billable hour), most law departments described using multiple types of value-based fee structures.

§;Types of Matters – Value-based fee structures are being used to handle a wide variety of work, including: transactional, litigation, environmental litigation, mergers and acquisitions, labor, employment, patent litigation, patent preparation and prosecution, immigration, corporate and securities, trademark, HIPAA and privacy, consumer class actions, real estate, environmental, plaintiff litigation, recoveries, ERISA benefits, research and development, compliance counseling, “trusted advisor” counseling and more.