In-house counsel slam firm performance in panel reviews as 'complacent and lazy'

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Readers' comments (14)

  • Big 'strategic' panel procurements often produce bad results. Better for GCs to negotiate arrangements directly using personal contacts. For a good ideal of advisory support, it's actually much cheaper to go straight to barristers, especially if you've been able to negotiate some heavily preferential rates with some friendly senior clerks at relevant barristers' chambers. Also, high quality specialists at medium sized firms provide much better value than the big 6 - but you have to search out the right people - and that needs an experienced and canny GC.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "The chat is better than the legal work"

    So true! I can think of one or two firms who have talked their way onto lots of panels in the last 18 months whose swagger is far greater than their expertise! It'll be interesting to see whether their ejection from future panels garners as much publicity as their admission.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • “law firms that don’t read our questions properly or insist on answering the questions they would rather you had asked”.

    Delicious irony.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Law firms shouldn’t simply rely on their supposed reputations and their positions in the directories.”

    Two problems: large firms may have a good reputtation overall all, but lawyers vary in quality from department to department. Anyone who replies on law directories is misguided, in my experience they are not great indicator of quality; more a good indicator of past quality or how good the BD team is.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Big law Firms reward salesmen, not lawyers. They are run by puffmeisters for puffmeisters, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Style over substance is an inevitable consequence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Couldn't agree more with the sentiment for a badly-run process with poorly thought-through evaluation criteria but a bit of discipline and forethought from GCs in terms of what they are looking for (i.e. not just another few quid off the rate card) and a bit of sensible differentiation in understanding who you're engaging for what can pay dividends. And as another article is pointing out, there's a whole other dimension needed to actualy manage the panel once in place...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is Mitch Kowalski's book in living form!

    I take the point made that GCs need to articulate what they need. Is it not also the case that lawyers need to know how the rhetoric of business development is implemented day-to-day, so that they can deliver the service they promise?

    Its not enough to employ business-minded people to provide great sales material. Individual lawyers have to (a) want to provide excellent service and (b) know how to.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The league tables in legal directories no longer have much credibility, especially out in the regions.

    The only way they could start to restore credibility is if they ignored the standings from previous years and made their assessments from scratch.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So "a leading City figure" thinks procurement specialists don't have the brains to think beyond basic generic supplies such as stationery - and therein proves the arrogance of the headline. Many lawyers should stop thinking that every other job is done by thickies. Most of their clients are very good at what they do - but not at dealing with legal matters, hence instructing external counsel. Makes sense if you stop and think about it. However, many lawyers (and this includes partners who I've worked for at a Magic Circle firm) prefer to treat their clients as being lucky they've instructed such wonderfully intelligent people to help them out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • From experience, panel reviews run by in-house lawyers are far better than panel reviews run by procurement people. Buying pencils is not the same but, unfortunately, the processes are exactly the same and so are the questions. As a result, all you get is a price debate in the latter, which is ludicrous.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (14)