In this installment of The Law Firm Disrupted, we check in on the merger of Bryan Cave and Berwin Leighton Paisner. You can check in on me, Roy Strom, the author of this weekly briefing on the changing legal market, at [email protected].

As I have reported on the merger between Bryan Cave and Berwin Leighton Paisner earlier this year, I have kept a keen eye out for details about how the combined firm would carry on the legacies of innovation that both firms built.

The U.K.'s BLP had earned awards for its Lawyers on Demand staffing service, which had grown to a roster of 600 lawyers before being sold in May to a private equity firm. In 2014, BLP launched a project management focused consultancy service called Streamline.

Bryan Cave, meanwhile, had also earned awards and media recognition for developing teams of software engineers, pricing professionals, data analysts and more. The firm also sold those services to clients through a consulting business known as BCXponent.

This week, the combined firm announced the new structure of its innovation team and consulting services division. So I spoke with Kathryn DeBord, the firm's chief innovation officer, about what the groups have learned from each other and what they planned to do moving forward. She said the overarching goal of her team would be to change the way that BCLP delivers legal services.

“That is really where you're changing the business strategy,” DeBord said. “At a certain point, you don't call changing your business strategy innovation. You call it your business strategy.”

Well said! Below is a transcript of more of our conversation, which has been edited for clarity.

LFD: What have you learned through the process of integrating these teams?

DeBord: We have found that the two firms had slightly different areas of focus for innovation. We have people with similar and complimentary skill sets, but everyone within the two teams really serves a purpose. And that has been really great. There has also been a lot of what I would say is a communal understanding of where we should prioritize. People are really starting at the same place, which, within a merger between two large entities, could potentially be a huge challenge.

LFD: What is an example of how the combined firms are better together than apart?

DeBord: The legacy BLP side has a team called Streamline that is a team of process engineers. They work with our attorneys and outside counsel on rigorous process improvement solutions. So tying them together with the legacy Bryan Cave legal operations and technology teams is an example of where it fits really well.

LFD: I know about BCXponent, but I'm not as familiar with BLP's Streamline service. How were they alike and different?

DeBord: We implemented process improvement and had process improvement professionals within BCXponent. But Streamline brings a lot more depth to the offering because it is a team of people who are highly trained in process improvement and Six Sigma principles. And I'm working with them right now on how we can flow a certain kind of legal work differently using process, people and technology, so we maximize transparency, efficiency for the client and also start to collect more data for our lawyers. So that's an awesome resource addition.

LFD: The press release says you'll be “identifying new technology to help in-house teams proposer as they deliver services to clients.” What technologies or what products have you been impressed by lately?

DeBord: From the legal operations side, the contract management platform that we've built in-house [branded CrossLITE] is by far the most salient technology. It addresses a law department need that the market hasn't delivered as well. It's very easy; not too expensive; and it's a flexible platform that allows law departments to manage contracts, collect data, create reports and understand what's happening within the business. Every single client I sit down with says the same thing: “The contracts are out of control.” They don't have any analytics. They haven't created metrics to track transaction cycle time. They have no ability to tell the business whether the law department has facilitated or hindered contract execution.

LFD: Is that integrated with any other software to help analyze contracts?

DeBord: It's integrated with several e-billing systems. That was the first thing we did. We are evaluating integration with a number of technologies, none of which I want to publicly say. But a really big part of that is understanding what the clients' needs are. One individual who was part of BLP, Bruce Braude, he's in the consultancy group and he's talking to clients about what technology they're using; what they should be using; and how we can help them stitch together solutions. And those conversations are critical.

LFD: Did the sale of Lawyers on Demand do anything culturally to help lawyers at the firm believe in new business models?

DeBord: I was not part of that, and the sale occurred either before or right after the merger. But from my perspective, if anything it has given lawyers an example of successful innovation. I think everybody within both legacy firms views Lawyers on Demand as a success. It's a model for alternative service delivery, and I think if anything it makes people more open and flexible to the idea that there is no one way to deliver legal service.

LFD: Does it push back against people who might say that by offering a staffing service it will either dilute your brand or it will cannibalize work that lawyers at the firm may feel they would be doing?

DeBord: I think this firm recognizes that clients need end-to-end solutions. But clients need us to be flexible in terms of how we're approaching those solutions and for us to be a high-quality, high-value provider in all of those areas where clients need our help. And it does not dilute our brand, it strengthens our brand. I feel a lot of confidence that the firm really has that perspective.

Roy's Reading Corner

On Big Law Strategy: Michael Rynowecer of BTI Consulting Group writes about 10 “radical, crazy and off-the-wall moves” he expects law firms to make. He starts with an intriguing one: To stop charging for the work of first- and second-year associates. I'd really like it if Rynowecer is correct that firms are set to embark on some strategies that have yet to be tried, such as buying an accounting firm. Still, I'd have to see it to believe it.

Here's why Rynowecer thinks the dominoes will fall: “Law firms will become emboldened, impatient, highly strategic, and desperate as the more aggressive law firms make ever-bolder moves on the market. Stealing once untouchable laterals is commonplace. Grabbing practice groups is part of the new norm. Baker McKenzie openly states its goal of finding merger partners to build out the East and West Coasts. All this going is on while other law firms either believe bold moves are too risky or look to leapfrog everyone else.”

On Publicly Traded Law Firms: Gordon Dadds, a publicly traded law firm from the U.K., is pursuing a merger with fellow British firm Ince & Co, something that proves publicly traded law firms don't behave entirely differently than private ones in at least one respect: They both are willing to merge with ailing law firms.

From sibling publication Legal Week: “Ince, which is known to have been considering a merger in recent years, has gone through a period of upheaval, including a restructuring of its partnership and a review of its partner remuneration model, while earlier this year it made a number of redundancies, with 25 business services roles and seven fee-earners cut. The firm also asked half of its autumn intake of trainees to defer their start dates by a year, paying them £7,000 to do so.”

On the Big Four: There is plenty of reading to catch up on in light of PwC's alliance on immigration law with Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy. If you are of the mind that immigration law is of no concern to you, I would start with ALM Intelligence senior analyst Erin Hichman's examination of where the Big Four might logically be headed next on their push into legal services.

Hichman takes stock of the legal practices that the Big Four may be naturally inclined to edge in on, and concludes: “As the needs of the corporate legal department evolve into integrating more with business processes and strategy, the Big Four will be viewed more favorably for mid- and higher-value legal work since these organizations can provide sophisticated and completely integrated areas of expertise that go beyond a purely traditional legal perspective. If you're a law firm, stay tuned.”

That's it for this week! Thanks again for reading, and please feel free to reach out to me at [email protected]. Sign up here to receive The Law Firm Disrupted as a weekly email.