In-house lawyers: we don't necessarily want to see you, but alternative fees would be nice

The Am Law Daily chuckled a little bit when we read the section of the Association of Corporate Counsel's annual survey of chief legal officers (CLOs) in which they were asked to identify any number of ways outside counsel could improve their relationship with in-house lawyers. Only 7% of respondents wanted more on-site visits from their law firm, but 60% said they would prefer firms to use alternative fee arrangements more often.

So: face-to-face contact ranks far below the almighty buck, though, in fairness, 49% of respondents did say they would like more frequent communication with firm lawyers.

The survey also shows that while alternative fee arrangements may be the next Big Thing, their time is slow in coming. Seventy-eight percent of respondents say that 0%-10% of their annual spend goes toward alternative fee arrangements. The second-biggest chunk of respondents - about 14% - say they spend 11%-25% percent of their department's budget on such arrangements.

One thing they can all agree on: the billable hour is problematic. More than 90% of the CLOs feel a major "disconnect" between the billable hour system and the fee-based structure they would prefer.

Other interesting nuggets from the survey:

• More in-house departments are cutting paralegals and staff, but those that are keeping their paralegals and support staff are working them harder. About 68% of respondents said their staff included paralegals and legal assistants, a 7% drop from the 2008 survey numbers. But about half of the respondents said one of the main ways they are saving money is by giving more work to paralegals and support staff.
• Hiring is down, which is no surprise. Less than one-quarter of respondents said they are planning to hire lawyers or staff this year, down from 32% in the 2008 survey.
• In-house lawyers are stressed out about increasing government regulation. Nearly half of respondents - 48% - ranked increased government scrutiny as a factor ranging from "little importance" (which actually ranks eighth out of 10 on an escalating scale of importance) to "highly important" (the maximum '10' on the scale). Only 20% of respondents put government oversight in that range in the prior survey.

More than one-third of respondents said the heavy scrutiny could impact their decision to retire or look for another job.

This article first appeared in the Am Law Daily, Legal Week's US sister title.