Alan Zimmet pens guest column for Law360.com on why a local government may choose to use a law firm for its general counsel function
Alan Zimmet wrote a guest column for Law360.com about why local governments often hire outside law firms for their day-to-day work. Zimmet believes that in many situations, outside law firms can be more cost effective, can offer a wider variety of expertise, and may have more experience than in-house counsel would provide.
Here is a transcript of the full guest column.
Five reasons why a local government may choose to use a law firm for its general counsel function.
By Alan Zimmet, Bryant Miller Olive, Tampa, FL
Local governments sometimes choose to outsource their general counsel function in lieu of hiring in-house legal staff. Many times, these are smaller cities or special governing districts that do not have the resources or workload to hire a full-time legal staff. However, even if they have sufficient workload to justify a full-time attorney, it may make more sense to use a law firm for general counsel needs.
With over 30 years experience in local and state government law, and as the current legal counsel for the Florida cities of Largo and Safety Harbor, I have seen how this approach can work well. With that in mind, here are five reasons why a local government may want to consider using a law firm to perform its general counsel function:
Reason #1: It often ends up being less expensive to use an outside law firm than to hire in-house staff.
Traditionally, the most expensive part of any business is its employees. Between salaries, benefits, payroll taxes, unemployment taxes and training, employee expenses easily surpass any other business expense. Local governments face this reality as well, which is why outsourcing the legal function could be more economical for many local governments.
Years ago, the City of Largo, Florida did a cost analysis study to determine whether it would be beneficial to hire in-house legal staff instead of continuing the relationship with its current firm. No matter how they looked at it, the city’s cost for legal services working with the law firm was at or below the average cost of legal services compared to other similarly sized cities. For this reason, the city decided to continue the relationship, and has done so for the past 16 years.
Reason #2: Using a law firm instead of in-house counsel gives local governments access to lawyers with a wide range of expertise, such as real estate law, labor law, and tax law.
The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), the transit provider for Pinellas County, Florida, uses an outside law firm to perform a portion of its legal function. Two years ago, a contractor performing work at one of PSTA’s facilities experienced a petroleum spill, which caused major environmental issues.
PSTA was able to quickly tap into the expertise of several specialty lawyers within the firm, including an environmental attorney, who had extensive experience with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Florida Department of Health, along with a board-certified real estate attorney, who helped prepare a restrictive covenant on the affected portion of the property. The environmental lawyer also assisted with the claims against the contractor.
Because of PSTA’s ongoing relationship with its firm, the organization was able to tackle the issues immediately and efficiently. If not for the firm’s capabilities, this issue might have been delayed for months while PSTA went through the lengthy process of trying to find proper representation.
PSTA would have then encountered even longer delays and expenses to bring new outside counsel up to speed on the issues at hand. By using an outside firm as its general counsel, PSTA already had experts available to handle these issues. As a bonus, these experts were made available to PSTA at discounted rates already established in its contract with the firm.
Reason #3: If a local government only has one attorney, there is no backup should that person become sick or take personal leave.
When using a law firm, a local government not only has the firm’s dedicated attorney to represent the client, but also has legal and administrative staff as backup on a daily basis. Also, in instances when one attorney is unable to attend to a specific issue or attend a meeting, there are backup attorneys that can effectively and efficiently serve the local government’s needs.
Reason #4: Longevity – Smaller local governments that choose to hire in-house legal counsel often find themselves facing high turnover.
By working with an outside law firm, local governments can choose to work with senior-level attorneys who are committed to working with the local government on a long-term basis. Cities working with law firms can get the benefit of institutional knowledge gained over many years of practice and expertise – knowledge that a less experienced lawyer would not have.
In most instances, smaller cities can only afford to hire in-house lawyers at a lower salary. So many lawyers willing to work for these rates either have relatively little experience, or are looking to move on to larger, more lucrative positions in a few short years. This cycle can be costly and unpredictable.
Reason #5: When working with an outside law firm, when an issue comes up, the likelihood is that someone at the firm has dealt with it before.
There are numerous law firms that cater their services to local governments, with lawyers working in a variety of different practice areas. It’s likely that no matter what issue the client is facing, someone at the firm has dealt with a similar situation before. Union issues? Seen those. Code violations? Check. Real estate litigation? Definitely.
When a local government chooses to outsource its legal work to a quality firm with municipal experience, it can feel confident that the firm usually will not have to learn issues from scratch. That is not always the case when working with a one-person, in-house staff.
