Published on:

Evaluating recent posts on evaluations of law firms

Long, long ago I zeroed in on law firm assessments (See my post of Nov. 16, 2005: evaluations of law firms with 9 references.). Since way back in ’05, this blog has accumulated many more posts on the topic. Examples of specific law departments and their evaluation process or forms number seven posts (See my post of March 10, 2006: NCR and its evaluations of firms; May 19, 2006: BP’s 30-factor evaluation form; Feb. 25, 2007: Caterpillar’s evaluation process; May 17, 2006: Exelon’s three-survey process; Nov. 20, 2006: law-firm evaluations at FMC and inducements to inside lawyers; July 2, 2007: six attributes to evaluate; and April 15, 2009: FMC’s six-factor form.). A couple of elements to be evaluated include budgeting and diversity (See my post of Dec. 19, 2006: predictive accuracy of outside counsel on budgets; and Dec. 5, 2008: diversity performance.).

Other posts of recent vintage tackle uses of law firm evaluations and challenges to them (See my post of May 14, 2006: evaluations of law firms; Aug. 20, 2006: evaluations as part of an index of performance; Nov. 20, 2006: at FMC, lawyers can’t close a matter without an evaluation; May 18, 2007: relationship manager best positioned to do evaluations; May 24, 2006: 20% of large law departments do not evaluate firms; Oct. 22, 2006: law departments poorly analyze firm performance; May 23, 2008: client satisfaction surveys only obliquely judge outside counsel; and April 16, 2009: abandon formal evaluations.).

Finally, this would not be a metapost without some stragglers (See my post of April 25, 2009: an asymmetric commitment under ACC Value Challenge; May 16, 2009: prediction market as to highest evaluation of law firms; and Oct. 22, 2008: published law firm ratings with 11 references.).