Defense Digest

Notes From The Executive Committee

As Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin has grown in size and geographic reach over the last fifteen years, one of our primary concerns has been our desire to maintain the same level of lawyering and service as we hire young lawyers, attract lateral hires, and open new offices in a business in which expectations and technology change almost on a yearly basis. I recently attended the Annual Meeting of the Defense Research Institute in Chicago. While there, Marshall Dennehey was honored by one of our clients, a very large insurance carrier, who identified Marshall, Dennehey as one of ten law firms out of 2,000 law firms used by that insurance carrier nationally. The ranking reflected the firms which had performed most successfully in the carrier's annual audit of law firms by its litigation management team. Marshall, Dennehey was the largest law firm to receive this honor. Eight of the ten law firms who were so honored had less than 50 lawyers.

Singling out Marshall, Dennehey in this manner prompted me to consider some of the quality control measures we have enacted that contributed to this result. While many of our clients may be familiar with some of the quality control measures that we have implemented, we continually look for ways to upgrade these measures in order to make certain that the quality of the lawyering and service that we provide to our clients is superior and remains superior.

First, we maintain an internal audit team. Presently there are three former insurance company claim executives and two retired shareholders who audit the work of lawyers at this firm. Every lawyer who works on client matters is audited at least once every eighteen months and most are audited on an annual basis. The only reason that some lawyers are not audited more frequently is because the quality of their work as been so consistently superior that management has concluded that it is not necessary to audit those particular lawyers every twelve months. Our auditors are trained to look at the degree to which a client's mandated case handling requirements are being followed, that court ordered deadlines are being adhered to, that cases are appropriately staffed, that the shareholder responsible for the case is exercising adequate control over its direction, that appropriate approvals are being obtained from the client, and that the billing for the case is appropriate.

Second, we maintain a series of internal diaries that are designed to identify situations that may be problematic or could become problematic if not addressed. Every file that has not been attended to in the preceding 100 days is identified, and the attorney responsible is queried as to why that case has not been recently worked on. Most often there are legitimate reasons why that file has not been worked on in the preceding 100 days. For example, a party may be in bankruptcy, resulting in the litigation being stayed; there may be a stay order issued by the court for some reason other than bankruptcy; the case may have been tried and is on appeal and a decision on the appeal is awaited. However, this diary system is designed to make certain that the file has not fallen off diary and that there is a legitimate legal reason why the case is not being moved forward at that time more aggressively.

A second diary is maintained that identifies any case that is over five years old. By and large, the vast majority of our cases close within two and a half years. Occasionally, there may be a case that drags along, again for very legitimate reasons such as a client bankruptcy, a dismissal that has been appealed, or a trial verdict that has been reversed on appeal and is now awaiting a new trial. The lawyer is asked to explain why the case has not been brought to conclusion. Again, the purpose of this diary is to confirm that there is a legitimate reason why that case is still open five years after it was first assigned to Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.

A third diary is designed to identify any case in which the fees incurred by a client exceed a certain threshold. Different thresholds have been established for each practice group. For example, the threshold for a workers' compensation matter differs from the threshold for a healthcare liability matter. Again, the purpose of the threshold is to make certain that as those thresholds are reached, the case is reevaluated to be certain that the client and attorney continue to agree on the strategy that is guiding the case, that the client is aware of the increasing legal fees involved in the defense of the case, and that the case is being worked on as efficiently as possible.

Third, we have created centralized diary systems for the firm's largest clients. Each of those clients has time-sensitive reporting guidelines, including mandated report formats. Diary keepers for those clients follow up with lawyers at Marshall, Dennehey responsible for that client's matters to make certain that agreed-to-litigation plans have been prepared, that appropriate budgets have been prepared and updated, that, if necessary, resolution plans have been completed, and that pretrial reports have been sent to the client. In fact, these centralized diary systems have been specifically singled out for praise by those clients who have audited files at Marshall, Dennehey. These diaries are probably the systems that are most responsible for ensuring the consistency of service that we insist upon from office to office.

Fourth, we have implemented a system which notifies attorneys when 75% of a case's budget has been exceeded. The purpose of the notification is not to question the need for the legal expenses that are being generated but to prompt another look at the file and a conversation with the client to ensure that the end strategy remains the same and, if necessary, to make certain that the budget is adjusted.

As Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin has grown, our goal has been to provide our clients with consistent, high-quality and cost-efficient defense representation in the defense of civil litigation matters in five states. We want to provide a level of service that is superior to that of our competitors and that is consistent from office to office. Presently we have 375 lawyers spread throughout the firm's seventeen offices. Over the last five years, we have continued to grow and prosper at a time of great challenge and even difficulty for many civil litigation firms. We want to continue to provide our clients with consistent, high-quality defense representation and service in every office, and we have implemented these measures to make that happen.

I would be happy to discuss any of these measures with you and would welcome any suggestions that you, our clients, have on how we might further improve the quality of service that we render to you. We are very proud of what we have accomplished to date, but we want to continue to raise the bar by which we measure the quality of our work as we go forward. I can be reached at 215-575-2748.