Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Category: Billing / Fee Guidelines

IBM’s Watson Could Help Reduce Outside Counsel Spend

May 19, 2017

A recent the Corporate Counsel story by Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, “IBM Says New Watson Tool Could Dramatically Reduce Outside Counsel Spend,” reports that, a new tool using International Business Machines Corp.'s Watson, notorious for defeating its human competitors on "Jeopardy" in 2011, is hard at work for in-house legal departments with the goal of significantly reducing outside counsel spend.

So far, use of "Outside Counsel Insights," or OCI, has been limited to legal departments in the financial services industry, according to Brian Kuhn, co-founder and leader of IBM Watson Legal.  But with the potential to save as much as 30 percent on annual outside counsel spend, it's no surprise that the tool has piqued the interest of some of the largest companies in that field.

The service relies on cloud-based cognitive computing system Watson to reveal billing insights to in-house legal departments, Kuhn said.  The development of OCI, which became an official offering late last quarter, stemmed from the perceived desire of legal departments to get their arms around this line item on the budget, he added.

"Outside counsel spend is really a significant concern for corporate general counsel," Kuhn said, noting that "on average, corporate law departments spend one-third to 50 percent of their annual budget on outside counsel."

To cut down on these costs, OCI looks at the amount of time a lawyer spends on a task and at line item descriptions in a budget, for instance, and creates a nearly complete automation of the invoice review process, Kuhn said.  The tool also shows how outside counsel are working, he added, which "tells you not just what lawyers did, but in a very granular way, the order in which they did things."

Together, these two features will help facilitate fixed-fee pricing, according to Kuhn, because legal departments will have a very detailed understanding of the work being done by outside counsel and can then dictate price.  What's more, Kuhn said, a future capability of OCI is to extract insights, such as how a judge ruled on certain motions and how specific lawyers perform on cross-examination, in order to "enforce appropriate legal strategy based on the outside counsel who've worked for you."

"There are other tools out there on the marketplace that offer just a pure analytics approach and they can only parse structured data," Kuhn said, explaining what makes Outside Counsel Insights unique.  "What Watson's good at is actually reading like a person, reading language ... and the ability to take narrative descriptions of legal tasks and time entries and understand what a lawyer actually intends by that in the context of a company's billing guidelines, is really how we move the needle and how we use AI.”

While OCI is currently only used in legal departments in the financial services industry, the potential savings are far from insignificant, Kuhn said.  He pointed out that in just the one industry, IBM's analysis shows that the service can provide a 22 to 30 percent savings on annual outside counsel spend after two years.  In one company with over $1 billion on annual outside counsel spend, which IBM declined to identify as the financial services company does not give its name as a reference, Kuhn said the benefits case showed close to $400 million a year in savings after two years.

There are also plans to expand use of the tool in the future to other industries that rely heavily on outside counsel, according to Kuhn.  "This is definitely not a sexy use of Watson," he noted.  "It's about creating efficiency for the lawyers and it's about massively reducing outside counsel spend."

Paper: Restraining Lawyers: From ‘Cases’ to ‘Tasks’

February 3, 2017

A forthcoming Fordham Law Review article, “Restraining Lawyers: From ‘Cases’ to ‘Tasks (pdf),’” by Morris A. Ratner, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, argues that law practice is experiencing two parallel shifts: civil procedure amendments are focusing on cost and resource drain, and the private market is giving in-house departments more options to unbundle legal work for lower costs.  A draft version of this article was posted with permission.  The abstract reads:

Developments in the domains of procedure and private contract highlight a continuing shift in authority away from lawyers and towards courts and clients accomplished by a conceptual downshift from “cases” to “tasks.”  The 2015 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit attorney and party discretion by further empowering the trial court judge to dissect, assess the value of, and sequence case activity, including discovery.  At the same time, in the private sphere, sophisticated clients aided by advances in project and information management are controlling legal spend by unbundling cases into tasks.  From that position, they can source projects to low-cost providers.  Clients are also increasingly demanding litigation budgets and seeking value-based pricing, both of which work best if there is heightened communication between lawyer and client regarding the means to be pursued to achieve litigation aims.  These regulatory and market restraints on lawyers and lawyer-driven adversarialism, while pointing in a similar direction, differ fundamentally in terms of their reach, efficacy, and fairness.  Despite their differences, these developments in tandem have the potential to inspire the creation of new norms and duties calling on litigators to think more deeply and inclusively about the value of litigation tasks from the perspective of court and client.

Lawyers Try 'Workaound' to Get Paid for Defending Fees

February 9, 2016

A recent Bloomberg BNA story, “Lawyers Can’t Use ‘Workaround’ to Get Paid for Defending Fees” reports that lawyers can't include fee defense provisions in their retention applications as a way to circumvent a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held Jan. 29.

The Supreme Court held 6–3 in Baker Botts LLP v. ASARCO LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2158 (2015) , that bankruptcy attorneys can't be awarded attorneys' fees for their work in defending their own fee applications.  The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas, said that Bankruptcy Code Section 330(a)(1) doesn't permit bankruptcy courts to award fees to attorneys and professionals who work on behalf of an estate for defending fee applications.

“Almost as soon as the ink was dry on the ASARCO decision, bankruptcy professionals began to seek ways to escape the draconian impact of that holding,” Prof. Charles J. Tabb, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, University of Illinois, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 4.  “The primary effort to do so has focused on attempting to incorporate an indemnification provision for fee-defense fees in the contract retaining a bankruptcy professional pursuant to § 328,” he said.  This case has been a “closely-watched case by bankruptcy professionals across the country,” according to Tabb.

The opinion by Judge Mary F. Walrath concluded that the Supreme Court's ruling in ASARCO, “prevents the Court from concluding that section 328 permits defense fees even if they were routinely allowed by the market in bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy contexts prior to that ruling.”

While Walrath's decision may not bind other Delaware judges, they might follow the path that she has created if they have other cases pending with similar issues.  Attorneys need to know if this “workaround” method for getting their fee defenses paid will be accepted by the courts.

“[C]ontractual workarounds of ASARCO are unlikely to work,” Tabb said.  “Since Walrath did not universally reject the very concept of a possible contract exception to the American Rule, one can expect bankruptcy professionals to try to devise other forms of contracts to effect enforceable indemnification agreements,” he said.

“At the very least, it would seem, that the representative of the bankruptcy estate (either the DIP [debtor in possession] or trustee) would have to join such an agreement as a party, and indeed notice and the opportunity to object should be given to all parties in interest,” Tabb said.

“In short, it would seem that something akin to the procedure for approving critical vendor orders or other extraordinary entitlements would be required.  But even with that, it is hard to be sanguine about the prospects for success if other courts agree with Judge Walrath,” he said.

Brown Rudnick LLP and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel LLP, Committee counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors for debtor Boomerang Tube, LLC included a provision indemnifying them for expenses incurred in any successful defense of their fees.

Boomerang Tube, a maker of products used by drillers in the exploration and production of petroleum and natural gas, filed for bankruptcy June 9, 2015.

The U.S. Trustee objected to the applications, saying that it was precluded by ASARCO.  The UST also argued that the fee defense provisions shouldn't be approved because they are outside the scope of employment and aren't reasonable.

The Creditor's Committee contended that the court had the authority under Section 328 to approve the fee defense provisions.  Section 328 provides that with court approval, a professional may be employed “on any reasonable terms and conditions of employment, including on a retainer, or on an hourly fee basis.”  Section 330(a)(1)(A), which was the provision at issue in ASARCO, provides that bankruptcy judges may award “reasonable compensation” to attorneys and other professionals who work on behalf of an estate.

In ASARCO, the Supreme Court held that any statutory departures from the American Rule must be “specific and explicit” and must “authorize the award of ‘a reasonable attorney's fee,' ‘fees,' or ‘litigation costs,' and usually refer to a ‘prevailing party' in the context of an ‘adversarial action.'”  Under the American Rule, each litigant pays his own attorney's fees, win or lose, unless a statute or contract provides otherwise.

Walrath found that Section 328 doesn't provide a statutory exception to the American Rule and can't provide authority for approval of the fee defense provisions.  She agreed with the Creditor's Committee that ASARCO did acknowledge a contractual exception to the American Rule, but concluded that any such contract has to be consistent with other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  Walrath asked the parties to provide evidence that similar indemnification provisions are normally provided to counsel in non-bankruptcy contexts.

The Creditor's Committee cited to numerous bankruptcy cases in which indemnification provisions and fees for defending fees have been approved, and noted that the UST guidelines permit award of such fees “if it is judicially allowed in the district.”  In support of their market argument, they also cited to decisions in 11 states, including Delaware, where courts or state bar disciplinary authorities have held that similar indemnification provisions are permissible and don't “run afoul of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.”

The UST argued that the Supreme Court's ruling in ASARCO precludes the court's consideration of the market in determining the reasonableness of the indemnification agreements.  The court didn't find the Creditor's Committee evidence to be compelling.  According to the court, the UST guidelines generally state that the UST will object to requests for fees defending fee applications.

Ultimately, Walrath agreed with the UST, and said that the cases considering market factors all pre-dated ASARCO.  Therefore, ASARCO prevents the court from “concluding that Section 328 permits defense fees even if they were routinely allowed by the market in bankruptcy or non-bankruptcy contexts prior to that ruling,” the court said.  The court also found that the fee defense provision isn't a “reasonable term of employment for serving as Committee Counsel.”

GAO Report: Stakeholders Have Mixed Views on Fee Guidelines in Large Chapter 11 Cases

September 23, 2015

A recent GAO Report, “Corporate Bankruptcy: Stakeholders Have Mixed Views on Attorneys’ Fee Guidelines and Venue Selection for Large Chapter 11 Cases (pdf),” finds that bankruptcy professionals have “mixed perspective” on the value of attorneys’ fee guidelines for large (assets and liabilities over $50 million) Chapter 11 cases.

The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP), which created the fee guidelines in 2013 to address concerns of excessively high attorneys’ fees in big cases, issued a response to the report in which it addressed some criticisms of the billing guidelines.

Director of the USTO Clifford J. White said in his September 3 statement (pdf) that some bankruptcy professionals “continue to misunderstand certain aspects of the [guidelines]” and that some of the criticisms “go beyond the purpose of the [g]uidelines and reflect general frustrations about the nature of the bankruptcy process and the high cost of [C]hapter 11 case administration.”

The GAO report said there were generally few problems complying with the fee guidelines in the 94 large cases filed since the guidelines went into effect.  But the GAO found that “[b]ankruptcy stakeholders had mixed perspectives of the overall value of the guidelines and of their potential effect on the efficiency and transparency of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, or the fees awarded.”

“For example,” the GAO said, “stakeholders with a positive view said the budgeting provision encourages early communication in a case, while those with a negative view said that the unpredictability of bankruptcy cases limit the value of a budget.”

White noted in his statement that the “GAO also correctly acknowledge[d] that the recency of the promulgation of the [guidelines] and their application to fewer than 100 cases reviewed in the report makes definitive conclusions both difficult and premature.

White also made three general observations about the report: 1) “[i]nitial opposition to the guidelines by bankruptcy attorneys appears to be yielding to compliance and improved billing practices[;]” 2) “[t]he USTP should continue its outreach to explain the guidelines to the bankruptcy community[;]” and 3) “[t]he guidelines address matters relating to professionals compensation and cannot be expanded to address other legitimate concerns parties may have with the [C]hapter 11 process.”

Lexis Nexis Publishes NALFA’s Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis

September 9, 2015

Lexis Nexis, a corporation providing computer assisted legal research as well as business research and risk management services, has published NALFA’s Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.  The news story, "Legal Bill Audits: How to Deal With Them”, by Lexis Nexis Firm Manager, re-published all 10 of NALFA’s Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.

“Part of our mission at NALFA is to promulgate Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis.  We are pleased that Nexis Lexis, a top legal research firm, has recognized the Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis”, said Terry Jesse, Executive Director of NALFA.

For more on NALFA's Best Practices in Legal Fee Analysis, visit http://www.thenalfa.org/Best-Practices/

Great Reviews for NALFA Webinars

June 3, 2015

NALFA is hosting a series of webinars on attorney fee and legal billing issues throughout 2015.  All our webinars are free for NALFA members and NALFA clients.  So far this year, NALFA has...

Read Full Post

NALFA Launches Resource Center

January 29, 2015

NALFA has launched a resource center for our members.  This resource center will be the largest collection of attorney fee related material in the world.  NALFA is building this resource...

Read Full Post

NALFA Welcomes DGT Costs Lawyers

November 18, 2014

NALFA would like to welcome DGT Costs Lawyers to our membership.  DGT Costs Lawyers is Australia’s premium legal cost management firm.  DGT Costs Lawyers is the first international...

Read Full Post

NALFA Goes International

November 14, 2014

NALFA is now welcoming international members.  Legal fee analysis is an international practice with professionals throughout the world including the UK, Australia, and Canada. While legal billing...

Read Full Post