Lawyers on Demand Making Inroads as Legal Industry Disruptor
Companies are no longer faced with a choice between farming out legal work to expensive law firms or doing the work themselves, the ALSP co-founder, Ken Jagger, told Law.com International.
March 09, 2020 at 02:02 PM
5 minute read
Fast-growing Anglo-Australian alternative legal service provider Lawyers on Demand (LOD) has already met with success as a legal industry disruptor, but now it aims to become a "one-stop shop" for in-house legal teams by making its work product understandable and accessible to corporate executives who are not lawyers.
"Ten years ago, [in-house legal departments] only had the option of farming work out to law firms or doing it themselves, and now they've got lots of different options," LOD co-founder Ken Jagger said in an interview with Law.com International. "We're trying to play into that space."
The company, which falls into a category that is frequently referred to as "new law," came about through the 2016 merger of Lawyers on Demand in the U.K., founded by Simon Harper, and AdventBalance, founded by Perth-based Jagger, which provided a similar service in major Australian cities and in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Since that merger, LOD has rapidly expanded both geographically and in the services it provides. The company, which is owned by management and private equity firm Bowmark Capital, posted revenue of $65.3 million in the last financial year and Jagger said it continues to see revenue grow at more than 20% a year.
Jagger, who was previously a partner with the firm Freehills (now Herbert Smith Freehills), said this success stems from the fact that in-house teams continue to seek economical alternatives to traditional law firms.
Indeed, a report published last week by Acritas said more than one-third of corporations are now turning to alternative legal services providers for legal tasks. The report also said the ALSP market is growing by 12.9% a year, with larger ALSPs expecting growth to reach 24% a year, posing one of the main external challenges to existing law firms.
While Lawyers on Demand started as a secondment business of corporate legal departments and that remains the core of the business, the company has expanded into three new offerings as it tries to provide more services to current clients.
It has launched an innovation and design team, which provides legal operations and legal tech for corporate clients.
It also has created a managed services group that involves teams of lawyers undertaking projects and business-as-usual work using process and technology to deliver it more efficiently. Essentially, it undertakes complete pieces of work for corporate clients and completes them externally.
Finally, there is LOD Legal, which Jagger describes as an extension of the secondment business. Rather than sending lawyers out on secondment, lawyers from LOD Legal carry out the work externally using experienced in-house lawyers who understand what commercial clients want.
"With the LOD Legal product, we're really trying to be just a natural extension of the in-house team, which they can flex up or flex down as required," he said.
The LOD Legal service was launched in Australia in 2017 but expanded into the U.K. last month after the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) introduced its new standards and regulations that enable individual solicitors in England and Wales to deliver services more as freelancers, without being subject to full regulation that the SRA previously required.
Jagger said the company hires former in-house lawyers who know what it is to work in-house and so deliver a product that is digestible to nonlawyers within the business. Lawyers on Demand's "crucial difference" is that it delivers a product that doesn't have to be reinterpreted by the client's in-house team for a non-legal audience within their business.
"Law firms continue to provide long, written advice about the facts of the law 'could be this, could be that,' whereas if you worked in-house, that's just not what the in-house client needs," he said. "We're trying to create something that is a one-stop shop for these in-house teams."
With LOD Legal, Lawyers on Demand is aiming to provide in-house teams with external flexibility to go along with the internal flexibility the secondment business provides, Jagger said.
"We want to be able to solve all of our clients' problems, so we started with secondments," he continued. "But that's only solving one problem. That only solves the need for flexibility in their teams and workforce."
Even before launching the in-house service in the U.K., demand for the service provided by LOD Legal had been increasing, as midtier firms that used to undertake this sort of bread-and-butter work were hollowed out. It has been operating in Australia for three years and in New Zealand for one.
"We're really concentrating on that 80-90% of work that corporate in-house teams have, the business-as-usual, so they can concentrate on the higher value work within their own business," Jagger said.
Lawyers on Demand now has two offices each in New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates and Germany. The company opened its second German office—in Düsseldorf — in January.
Even law firms are now trying to tap into the demand for help from in-house teams and have started their own secondment-style businesses. Allen & Overy, for example, has set up Peerpoint; Linklaters launched Re:link last year; and Pinsent Masons has Vario.
While Lawyers on Demand continues to seek new clients and is open to moving into new locations, the short- and medium-term opportunity it is pursuing is to expand the services it provides to its current clients, Jagger said.
It currently employs about 850 attorneys—including its secondment lawyers. They are roughly split 40% in Australia, 40% in the U.K. and the remaining 20% in other jurisdictions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Rejects Morgan Stanley Reconsideration Bid in Deferred Compensation Litigation
Transgender Woman Awarded $150K Default Judgment Against Corrections Officer for Alleged Assault
Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
1 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250