4 key concerns of corporate legal process outsourcing and provider responses
When LPO first emerged more than a decade ago, LPO providers faced significant challenges in gaining marketplace acceptance.
November 29, 2011 at 04:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is the third in a four-part series. Read part one and part two. The fourth installment will discuss key considerations in evaluating LPO options.
When LPO first emerged more than a decade ago, LPO providers faced significant challenges in gaining marketplace acceptance.
Common concerns included:
- Security and confidentiality. Legal work is confidential by its very nature. Many general counsels worry about transferring data to outside parties, especially if the data is being sent across oceans.
- Quality. Corporate legal departments are accustomed to face-to-face interaction with the people performing legal tasks. Legal executives may fear that work performed remotely will not meet the department's quality standards. Additionally, legal executives may be unwilling to support the cost of deploying internal resources to provide quality control over LPO-provided services.
- Ethical implications. Risks related to the unauthorized practice of law made many general counsels uneasy about using LPO providers.
- Client and outside counsel relationship. Whether due to the perceived threat of an LPO provider's impact on the bottom line or a lack of trust in the quality of outsourced work, legal departments had a difficult time obtaining outside counsel's buy-in for the use of LPO.
However, these concerns are becoming increasingly outdated. Many LPO providers today have taken a number of steps to address the issues raised by the legal community.
In particular, some of the top players in the LPO space have made efforts to:
- Acquire certifications. In order to address security and confidentiality concerns, many LPO providers today have implemented globally recognized processes and certifications, such as Six Sigma, ISO 27001 and ISO 9001. Additionally, some LPO providers have taken a hands-on approach to training their staff on specific legal engagements, including involving corporate legal personnel to directly lead such learning initiatives.
- Build strong service-level agreements (SLAs). The practice of measuring a law department's performance is not common. However, LPO providers have been able to leverage the knowledge acquired in the business process and information technology outsourcing markets to create metrics that assess the quality of the work being provided. The increasing use of such performance metrics facilitates the development of SLAs that hold an LPO to a particular standard of quality. The use of metrics and SLAs can also facilitate a more formal governance relationship between an LPO and its client than may have existed in the past.
- Educate general counsels and the general public. Most LPO providers have collaborated with the American Bar Association (ABA) to clarify the role of LPO in legal work and to delineate an LPO provider's appropriate responsibilities. The ABA has also developed guidelines for engaging an LPO provider. In addition, some LPO providers have made efforts to educate the legal community on the ability of LPO providers to perform certain tasks more cost-effectively than outside counsel, and to serve as subject-matter specialists in non-core legal service areas. As a result, outside counsels are coming to recognize they still have an important role to play in providing oversight of the LPO provider and serving as the ultimate legal decision maker.
- Adopt a hybrid onshore/offshore model. Because many LPO providers have faced resistance to having legal work performed offshore, many are now offering combined onshore/offshore solutions to their clients. Some LPOs have expanded their operations in relatively low-wage “near-shore” locations so that work can be performed closer to a client's headquarters but still at a competitive price. With a hybrid approach, LPO providers increase their ability to provide seamless, around-the-clock service by coordinating their onshore and offshore resources' work schedules. They can also offer their clients adaptive pricing models for such resources to fit specific legal department needs.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
Trending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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