Libbers: I truly apologize for the delay in summarizing the responses to my query.
First, a special thanks to all who responded and particularly to those who responded in detail. I received a total of 7 responses - 3 asked for a summary but did not comment. The 4 who responded with comments asked to remain anonymous. Their redacted comments follow:
RESPONSE #1: [We have] inhouse contract specialists who are supposed to negotiate all our contracts. I do not use them but negotiate the contracts myself. Keeps a good relationship with my vendor/publisher rep and saves me work. Explanation below.
I tried to work with the contract specialists for several years but I had to educate them as research resource contracts are not within their normal experience, and with my experience I have better knowledge and suggestions for negotiating best terms. The contract specialists provided no special knowledge of [the Firm's] practices, policies and procedures.
In particular, the time and work required to explain to the contract specialist about what we were doing and what we wanted was labor-intensive and I found it annoying. [Also] the vendor/publisher rep tried to accommodate the contract specialist but preferred to deal directly with me.
[A partner] has to sign the contract, so, after explaining all to the specialist and working with the vendor/publisher, I still had to explain my deal to [the partner] who signs the contract. I'd rather just work directly with my vendor/publisher rep to maintain our good relationship, and my [partner is one of the most senior lawyers.] The vendor/publisher also needs to know you are negotiating in good faith and that s/he is working with someone who can finalize the deal.
RESPONSE #2: Yes, we did and I don't think the firm benefited. For example, her suggestion for cutting one of our flat rate contracts, after studying an extensive spreadsheet, was to recommend taking only a "slice" of the databases according to what we use the most. local materials mainly.
it makes the bottom-line looks good.
RESPONSE #3: We have used [specific name omitted by me] with good success.
RESPONSE #4a and #4b - This librarian phrased her request for a summary in the following interesting way, so I asked for more detail. First her request for summary (4a) and then her detailed response (4b))
RESPONSE 4a: I would be most interested in your results. The Wexis contract
negotiations get increasingly Byzantine each year, in addition to which
my firm's needs change, and not necessarily in the directions that the
vendors see fit to point us in. Please include me in any dissemination
of you summary.
RESPONSE 4b: To answer your questions, not necessarily in the order you asked them,
I've always negotiated the flat fee contracts on my own, though I prefer
having someone else sign off on them with me so that I'm not sticking my
neck out too far. The other parties tend to be either the Financial
Controller or the Office Administrator. But they pretty much do as I
suggest. What I find the most difficult (apart from the mind-boggling
avarice of the Wexis vendors) is trying to decide what will be best for
my law firm. The amount of business done by our various practice areas
has changed dramatically over the past couple of years. For ages we
were primarily a corporate firm but between the recession(s), 9/11 and
the war in Iraq, basically business in that area sucks. If it weren't
for our I/P and Litigation business, we'd be sunk. Well, I/P and Real
Estate tend not to use online legal research at all--they're so
transactional that they just don't need it and neither Lexis nor Westlaw
can hold a candle to Saegis for patent and trademark searching. So it's
hard to know what to do. First of all, the vendors, after gradual
increases in pricing over the years, would rather die than reduce our
monthly commitment (although I have insisted, much to their
displeasure). And then they keep offering us "packages" meant to
stimulate use so that they don't have to reduce the monthly commitment
(e-libraries, monthly credits in databases we never use, that sort of
thing). While I'm all in favor of making the systems easier and cheaper
to navigate, a lot of what is offered isn't what we want or need. It's
all smoke and mirrors. Plus, it changes every year and it's hard to
remember. I can hardly remember it myself and the attorneys are
hopeless at it. What I'd really like is to sit down with a rep and say,
OK, we want unlimited access to our top twenty databases for an amount
of money that is equivalent to 2/3 of our last year's use. 33% wiggle
room should be standard and acceptable for administrative, pro bono and
client development factors to say nothing of the wild card of summer
associates. So far, I haven't been successful in either simplifying the
contract or reducing the cost to extent that I would wish to. It's
depressing. I'm all ears if you come across any helpful suggestions!
Thanks again to those to responded - I hope this summary will prove helpful.
Elaine Dockens.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elaine B. Dockens
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 4:56 PM
To: Law-Lib (E-mail)
Subject: ?Consultant for Wexis contracts?
Law-Libbers-
I would be interested in knowing how many legal entities employing attorneys, i.e., law firms, government agencies, etc., have hired outside consultants (1) to review present Wexis bills and make recommendations, (2) to suggest specific or alternative contract terms, or (3) to actually participate in the strategic thinking or negotiation process with Wexis. If an outside consultant is handling these functions for you or your employer or if the consultant is performing any other service in this regard, please e-mail me off list.
All responses will be kept confidential. I will summarize for the list if there is any interest, but all names and identifying information will be removed from the responses. Thanks in advance.
Elaine B. Dockens
Director of Library Services
Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess
233 S. Wacker Dr., Sears Tower 22nd Flr
Chicago, IL 60606
312-627-4189 [Fax:312-627-1717]
edockens@mail.tsmp.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:44:42 PST