Martindale-Hubbell's survey showed that Polish in-house lawyers tend to prefer 'rate with cap' or 'fixed price' deals, when paying for external legal advice. However, no respondents indicated they preferred value-based billing. Why do you think that is?

I am not surprised by the lack of interest in value-based billing in Poland. One possible explanation is the lack of awareness of this option. The legal market has only really developed in Poland since 1989, and both internal and external lawyers are far more familiar with more mainstream billing practices.

The second reason why value-based has not become popular is probably specific to Poland - local bar rules prohibit billing arrangements that are mainly based on a success fee. Value-based billing is perceived to be a type of success fee, and is therefore not allowed in many situations.

I believe the best billing practice for most companies is to use a mixed solution – hourly rates or rates with caps for combined with a performance-based bonus for matters like certain litigations or transaction matters, if allowed.

Do you think the distinction between 'local' and 'foreign' firms still exists in Poland?

No, I don’t. I think the distinction is now mainly between regional or national firms, or those firms who offer a universal or specialist service. Wherever they are headquartered, most Polish law offices simply employ Polish lawyers, educated in Poland. Some lawyers might have foreign LLMs, but the levels of technical competence between all types of law firm are generally comparable.  Besides legal specialisms, some law offices now concentrate on either specific industries, specific areas of law, or offering advice for companies from specific countries. 

In addition to those factors you have already mentioned, what other considerations do you believe are most important when selecting or retaining external law firms?

The best law firms try to provide advice that is oriented to the clients’ business, and supports its goals. Their advice is also expressed in a clear and practical matter.
While this sounds like a simple requirement, it is often impossible for many lawyers to deliver.
Too many law firms still tend to provide a service that focuses on the “letter of the law”. It’s a more technical way of working. When providing legal advice to my company, I try to ensure the advice I give is always “crisp”. If I use external lawyers, I do not have time to translate their technical advice into something more practical.

Our survey found that Polish respondents cited 'lack of confidentiality' and 'Having to deal with junior lawyers' as two of the most important factors for removing external counsel. What is your response to these findings?

If an in-house lawyer does not trust their external law firm to keep their matters confidential, I do not believe the relationship between them can be saved. In most situations, both sides can talk a problem through, until the matter is resolved. But if you can’t trust your own lawyer, you cannot cooperate with them. 

I can understand why some corporate counsels do not like dealing with a law firm’s junior lawyers. Too often, a firm’s senior lawyers will only attend the first meeting with a new client. After that, they expect the firm’s junior lawyers to do most of the work. I believe this is a mistaken strategy – law firms need to show more respect to their clients. Just as large companies prefer to work with large law firms, so in-house legal directors prefer to work with law firm partners. Often, junior lawyers do not have enough experience to give useful advice to their clients. 

Another important consideration for removing external counsel is cost. In the current economic climate, many in-house lawyers are now tending to use “local” firms for routine or niche areas of law. Many of these firms can offer the same level of expertise as “international” law firms, but cost up to 50 per cent less.

Most in-house lawyers in Poland said they had not been asked to take part in a client satisfaction survey. Is that your experience?

Client satisfaction surveys are almost completely unheard of in Poland, even when using a local office of an international law firm. It’s very difficult to explain why this might be the case. I am absolutely in favour of such programmes: it represents proof of engagement and serious thinking by the law firm, and can only help improve the quality of service they provide.

I suspect that some private practice lawyers think that in-house legal departments are somehow separated from other parts of their business – which is not true. We work in a business environment where feedback culture exists, and appraisals are common place. In-house lawyers are used to having their performance measured, working towards annual goals, and taking part in one-on-one review sessions.