Alternative Fee Program Data Shows As Program Matures, Clients Realize Savings On Outside Legal Expense

efficiency

Here is an actual set of alternative fee numbers I’ve just happily provided to update one of the insurance clients I represent, demonstrating that an alternative fee program is saving them money on outside legal expense.  Real money.

Listed below are data for seven insurance related  cases I am handling under a monthly flat fee program (with a cap on the number of months the flat fee can be charged, so as to encourage efficiency).  First a look at the numbers, and then a few quick observations.   Only the case names below are changed to protect identities.  The numbers are 100% actual  and show actual flat fees paid by the client versus what they would have paid under an hourly rate agreement.  Green numbers in the Net Diff. column represent savings to the client.

Case            Hourly Fees      Flat Fees       Net Diff.

Smith        $17,218.50       $25,350.00       $8,131.50

Jones         $30,433.00        $13,650.00     -$16,783.00

Ajax           $2,212.50         $2,775.00         $562.50

King          $4,781.00          $1,950.00       -$2,831.00

Queen       $2,157.50         $895.00            -$1,262.50

Western   $4,074.50         $2,925.00         -$1,149.50

Atlantic   $351.00            $2,775.00        $2,424.00

Total         $61,228.00     $50,320.00     -$10,908.00

Client Savings:            -17.8%

Before the observations, a caveat:  This data, at any given time, is a snapshot in the life of an assignment, and/or group of assignments.  The data changes, but as the assignments mature in terms of their life cycle, a clear picture emerges:

  • Overall the client savings in this alternative fee program approaches 20%.  As the data set increases, the savings  ratio will stay relatively stable, but the real dollars saved in outside legal expense will grow, and grow, and grow.  A company with a million dollars a year  in outside legal expense based on hourly engagements would spend only $821,846.21, a savings of nearly $200,000.00.
  • The insurance clients are “winning” more fee agreements than they are not “winning.”  This is a sign that the alternative fee program is rightly priced so that it is both 1.) an real financial benefit for the client, and 2.) not a financial hardship for the outside law firm.
  • The program retains extreme flexibility, as each assignment is quoted independently (although the quotes generally do cluster closely for similar type cases) and either side retains the right to seek adjustment as the matter proceeds.  Clients also reserve the right to request the traditional billable hour arrangement for any case which they feel does not suit the alternative fee program.
  • There are and there will be outliers in any alternative fee program.  But as you can see from the data, the outliers are rare — in the two cases with  more than a $5,000.00 difference between what the client paid and what the client would have paid, one benefitted the client, and one benefitted the law firm, but the client benefitted twice as much as the law firm when the two outliers are aggregated.  Win-win-win.
  • The program provides simultaneous double benefit to the participating client:  1.) the client gets the benefit of outside counsel with local knowledge and expertise;  and 2.) the client secures this quality at less than hourly rate pricing.

I cannot think of any CEO’s, CFO’s or any other XXO’s who would not like their General Counsel to approach them with an immediate simple way to give their outside legal expense a 20% haircut, while at the same time retaining the right to assign any matter under a flat fee or traditional billable hour arrangement.

I also cannot think of a General Counsel for whom I have ever worked who would not want to take the alternative fee arrangement mechanism I’ve  outlined above for a spin, if it meant retaining the desired law firm at reduced cost.  There is literally nothing to lose except 20% off your outside legal expense budget.

CJH

 

Advertisements

Dollarizing Your Value to Legal Departments: Return on Investment

In an earlier post, I commented on some metrics used by insurance and other in house legal departments used to measure the value of outside law firms engaged to represent them in litigated matters, e.g., insurance coverage or bad faith litigation, the latter of which has at risk real corporate dollars.

I’ve received a thoughtful question or two from lawyers who were interested in how I went about demonstrating to my clients (and prospective clients) what kind of return they could expect in exchange for every dollar of legal fees  they invested in our firm to defending them.  I’ve referred to this metric as Return on Investment (ROI).

It’s somewhat of a subjective exercise up front, which involves making an educated estimate of the insurer’s reasonable exposure at the  start of the case.  You don’t need to actually DO the estimation at the start of the case, because the ROI calculation cannot be done and fed back to the client until the case has ended,  and both the final case outcome and total legal fees are known.  The initial exposure assessment is the only subjectivity in the process; all the rest of the numbers are hard data.

So, here’s a quick and dirty ROI calculation, which can be used for a single case, or aggregated to account for a number of completed cases.

For any case, let

a=the initial, reasonable worst case exposure for client at case outset

b=the final payout, if any; and

c= the amount of legal fees incurred to arrive at the final result

 The ROI calculation is simply:

(a-b)/c.

What Do The Numbers Tell Your Clients About Value?

This calculation is a ratio, which expresses the relationship between the company’s investment in legal fees and the reduction or elimination in the contingent corporate exposure which the fees produced.   In terms of quality or value, a reasonable initial target might be a 3:1 to 4:1 ratio.  5:1 and above are good benchmarks, as a general proposition.  But there is a caveat:  a 5:1 ratio is not satisfactory if your clients average ROI from outside firms is, for example 8:1.

And you may never  get data about your competitors.  The solution?  Shoot for as high a ratio as possible, and work to keep it high.  You will know how well you are doing by the number of repeat engagements you are given.

Originally, I simply used the plaintiff’s initial settlement demand as reasonable worst case exposure, but was quickly educated by clients, and by experience, that a plaintiff’s opening number cannot always, or even usually, be considered reasonable.  I also quicly learned that using such unreasonably high demands to plug into the equation led to ratios which were unreliably flattering, and as a result, not useful to discerning clients.

Return on investment (ROI) can only be used as marketing feedback if the numbers are reasonably reliable, and viewed as such by your clients.

DMC Lawyers Obtain Summary Judgment For Harleysville In Bad Faith Suit

Reading, Pa., Jan. 19Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote attorneys C.J. Haddick and Christine Line have won a dismissal in a bad faith case in favor of client Harleysville Insurance Companies.  The Berks County, Pa.  Court of Common Pleas on January 19 granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Haddick and Line in a bad faith suit arising out of a commercial property coverage dispute over an alleged van theft and fire involving business personal property.  Haddick and Line are members of the firm’s Insurance Law and Litigation Group.

Harleysville did not dispute it owed coverage for the value of the van, substitute van rental expense, and for the value of certain business personal property under an inland marine policy.  It did contest, however, the Plaintiff’s claimed entitlement to a variety of other sums for towing, vehicle storage, loss of business income, and claims for tool losses in excess of the policy limit.  The Court agreed that the additional claims were unsupported by the policy language.

The Court also agreed with Harleysville’s position that regardless of the outcome of the several coverage claims, the claims decisions made were made with reasonable legal and factual bases.  As a result, the Plaintiff’s bad faith claims were dismissed as well.

For additional details on  the ruling, or suggestions  how to have your coverage and bad faith claims decided faster and more favorably with greater cost control, contact us at chaddick@dmclaw.com or 717-731-4800

Rogers Flooring Co. v. Harleysville Ins. Co., Berks County No. 14-674 (Sprecher, J.)