Elite Law Firms Are Quietly Outsourcing High-Value Functions. How Far Will They Go?
Outsourcing has led to a sea change at many law firms, and left its mark on the bottom line. Some firms are even planning a shared back-office center, the first of its kind in Big Law. The only question now is what work can't be re-evaluated.
January 06, 2020 at 05:30 AM
14 minute read
Sullivan & Cromwell spends millions of dollars on technology, ensuring its equipment is accessible to its lawyers around the globe and that its digital security can keep clients safe. Chairman Joe Shenker, citing bank surveys, says the Wall Street firm's tech costs per lawyer are higher than any of its peers.
Still, Sullivan & Cromwell has managed to improve its profit margin while maintaining high-quality telecommunications, computers and servers. That financial success isn't tied only to the firm's lawyers. It's partly a result of back-office decisions.
Starting in 2017, the firm began outsourcing some of its technology functions and infrastructure. The change required about 30 high-level staffers, including engineers, to leave the firm and become employees of another business, HBR Consulting's managed services division.
It was a sea change in Sullivan & Cromwell's evolution, Shenker says.
"You can't keep up doing state-of-the-art, best-of-the-best [in technology]—which is what we try to do—doing it yourself," Shenker says. Law firms just can't compete with big tech companies, he says. Instead, "Let's focus on what we're great at and let other people focus on what they're great at."
Sullivan & Cromwell isn't alone. Big Law is embracing outsourcing. Not only are more firms doing it, but the industry is outsourcing a growing number of high-value departments, often shedding administrative and operations employees in the process. The decisions carry some risk, but also big rewards.
The outsourcing trend goes beyond law firms opening so-called "captive" operation centers, in which they move some back-office jobs to lower-cost locations with firm employees. More and more firms are moving departments and jobs outside the firm entirely.
HBR's managed services division has been hired by 17 Am Law 50 firms, including Sullivan & Cromwell, and about 25% of the Am Law 100, according to Chris Petrini-Poli, the company's executive chairman. In 2019 alone, seven new law firms hired HBR to outsource various functions, he says.
Another outsourcing provider for law firms, Williams Lea, does business with 25% of the Am Law 200, plus many other firms, CEO Clare Hart says. "It's increasing across the spectrum," she notes.
Technology jobs like the ones outsourced by Sullivan & Cromwell are a big part of the movement. The International Legal Technology Association's 2019 technology survey reported that 39% of law firm respondents outsourced infrastructure support, up from 28% the year before. Security outsourcing grew to 32%, up from 22%.
And it doesn't stop there. A group of Am Law 100 firms are working to develop a first-of-its-kind, shared back-office center in a low-cost location in the United States to handle functions including accounting, payroll, IT and data security, research and human resources. It's a sign of just how much outsourcing has taken hold in the industry in a short time—and, perhaps, an indication of how much further it might go.
|Cutting Costs
Outsourcing can save law firms millions of dollars in the long run. They often spend between $15,000 and $25,000 per firm user on tech services, Petrini-Poli says. HBR can bring down costs by 20% to 30% for IT services, he says. An Am Law 100 firm could spend an average of $20 to $30 million a year on technology costs, meaning it could save about $4 to $6 million annually. Petrini-Poli wouldn't say how much HBR costs for firms, but its pricing is based on a flat cost per user each month.
HBR's managed services division now has more than 200 employees who oversee outsourcing of law firms' IT, procurement and research functions. Part of its pitch is that it seeks to provide firms with "the best in breed" in supplies and vendors, such as servers, telecommunications circuits, computers and data centers, Petrini-Poli says, adding that HBR can do so because it's buying products on a much larger scale than an individual firm. The company's message to firms is simple, he says: "Stop investing in the basics of IT; start investing in things that will shape your firms," including the technology that builds connections with clients.
When HBR hires staff from law firms, they often stay in their current cities, with more career and training opportunities, or take advantage of other opportunities, Petrini-Poli says. HBR's center in Dayton, Ohio, also offers IT, library research and procurement services to fill in any gaps that exist in a law firm's staff, he says.
Williams Lea, meanwhile, offers back-office support from low-cost centers in Wheeling, West Virginia; Normanton, England; and Columbus, Ohio. Beyond its traditional offerings of mail and copy centers, the company now provides law firm outsourcing for administrative, finance and accounting, human resources, facilities, marketing, document processing and records management, Hart says. Firms can see at least a 10% cost savings by utilizing the company's services, she says.
Hart cites a 2019 survey commissioned by Williams Lea to demonstrate the spread of law firm outsourcing. Seventy percent of law firm leaders reported outsourcing some or all of their back-office functions, up from 56% in 2018.
"I don't think there's a law firm that isn't thinking about outsourcing some of these services," Hart says. "The benefits are so real."
|Economies of Scale
The way Shenker sees it, outsourcing some of Sullivan & Cromwell's nonlegal functions allows the firm the benefit of having skilled talent oversee the work, as well as having enough scale to lower costs, much like large corporations do when they purchase products and services in bulk.
Firms are constantly buying the latest hardware, including servers and computers. But even the largest law firms are just medium-sized business consumers. They all bring in much less revenue than Fortune 500 companies and financial institutions that can easily drive down technology costs.
"Middle-market businesses are actually paying for the discounts that others are enjoying," Shenker says. "The middle-market consumer is really bearing the brunt of it."
Meanwhile, law firms are competing every year for the top technology and engineering talent and processes. "I'm not Google," Shenker says. "How do I keep up?"
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 AllDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
What Practices Are Driving Law Firms’ ‘Remarkable’ Performance in 2024?
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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