The PERSUIT Method vs. Traditional Method

If you’ve heard of us, you may know that we’ve spearheaded an innovative, new process for engaging outside legal counsel (if we do say so ourselves). But what is this new process? And what makes it different from the old process? (What is the old process? Don’t worry, it’s okay if you don’t know.)

Here’s a step-by-step explanation of both the PERSUIT process and the traditional process, with key takeaways and differences.

The Typical Process: 

• • Matter is created. 
  • Company legal department constructs a matter-specific RFP draft to send. Construction is typically manual and on a matter-by-matter basis. 
  • Legal department emails an RFP to a number of selected law firms. 
  • Each law firm responds to the company, with varying response formats. 
  • Individual law firms may respond with questions and clarifications, and the company’s legal department responds to those firms directly. 
  • Company legal department receives responses and manually compiles them into a spreadsheet for comparison purposes. 
  • The formats are compared to the best of the legal department’s ability, which aims for an apples-to-apples analysis. Prices and other parameters are compared.
  • Original data is saved in largely unchanged data repositories. Reports are often manually constructed from the non-uniform data. 
  • Selection is conducted according to the company’s standards, which independently attempt to account for all factors in a uniform manner, despite deviating RFP response formats. 
  • Negotiations on price and other parameters begin, which can take weeks to months. 
  • Based on reports and negotiations, final selection occurs. 

The PERSUIT Process: 

• • Matter is created.
  • Company legal department chooses one of PERSUIT’s pre-written, matter-specific templates to send to all selected law firms. 
  • Company’s software receives and compiles uniformed responses.
  • PERSUIT platform allows clients to post clarifications on RFPs, and clients will be notified of the update. 
  • Law firms are invited to participate in an automated Reverse Auction to revise pricing points. This reduces the price revision process time from weeks/months, to hours. 
  • Reverse auction data is saved and organized. Customized reports are quickly constructed using automated tools on uniform data. 
  • Built-in scorecards provide a comprehensive and unified selection process. Company chooses specific criteria and score weight to help inform decision-making (price is just one of the factors). 

Key Differences:

• • Normally varying RFP responses’ price formats are replaced with uniform responses in a preferred pricing structure, fee type and phase/activity level (plus the option to request a total fee). 
    • Proposals submitted by law firms can be controlled in terms of response length, questions answered, pricing assumptions and timelines. 
  • The automated Reverse Auction is now possible. Company legal departments can now see price-revisions that unlock true-market price in real time. 
  • The process time is greatly reduced, in one case from months to days, which totals to about 86%. 
  • Data is now quickly organized for reports that are customizable, seamless and scalable. Reports are faster and easier to construct, and can be easily understood by readers outside of the legal department. 
  • PERSUIT’s built-in scorecard helps organize each firm and assess a law firm’s alignment beyond a black-and-white price point . Unified format makes decision-making clear and efficient. 
  • Clients can now easily share/collaborate with colleagues on RFPs as they are written, distributed and analyzed on the PERSUIT platform.
  • Communication with law firms (e.g., clarifications, etc.), are seamless , organized and documented within the platform.

With PERSUIT’s functionalities, a company’s legal department can uncover true-market pricing and make selections based on weighted criteria, resulting in an objective and uniquely effective process. Let us know if you have any questions!