This just caught my eye.
The data – some $18 billion in legal invoices – suggests the largest law firms have modified staffing models and reassigned IP litigation work to more junior partners in an effort at cost control.
Are we to believe that more junior partners are better lawyers than more senior lawyers? This appears to be cost trumps outcome and experience.
The real question is why clients are willing to tolerate this deflection of work to less-experienced lawyers. Is this planned or an “after the fact” recognition of the increased role of more junior partners? Better options exist, and my bet is clients will not accept the Hobson’s choice presented to lower legal spend.
The other critical question is whether work done by those with lower hourly rates actually lowers the client’s total spend. Data historically shows this does not occur. Is same cost but work done by less experienced lawyers a good thing?