From Lawyer to Leader: Choosing Alternative Solutions to Help Handle the Workload of Today's Law Department
Legal departments are increasingly turning to alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) or consultants who offer options for cost savings and improved efficiencies. Here are some steps to help you get on board with this trend.
July 08, 2019 at 04:26 PM
7 minute read
Imagine one of your lawyers is drafting a non-disclosure agreement. The agreement is standard, will likely have little negotiation involved, and is something they do frequently—and yet, this simple document is taking time that could be better spent on more complex and profitable matters. Alternatively, imagine you have an automated solution that allows the sales team to access a web portal while they're in a customer's office. After they answer a series of questions, a non-disclosure agreement is auto-generated within minutes and can be emailed to the client for digital signature directly from the field. It all sounds great, but getting to that stage can be a complex process that requires a tailored solution and outside assistance.
In today's competitive market, legal departments are increasingly turning to alternative legal service providers (ALSPs), or consultants who offer options for cost savings and improved efficiencies that are people-based, technology-based or a combination of the two. The example above is just one instance of how ALSPs can positively impact your standard routine. But the myriad options available can be confusing, and making the wrong choice can be costly in terms of money, time and credibility. Here are steps to take to make the right decisions.
|Determine Your Initial Scope and Likely Future Areas of Need
According to a 2019 survey conducted by the Georgetown Law Institute and Thompson Reuters, the top five areas addressed by ALSP engagements are:
- Litigation and investigation support, including e-discovery;
- Legal research;
- Document review;
- Contract management;
- Regulatory risk and compliance.
For many companies, the most pressing need is for contract collection, review and ongoing management. From a pure manpower standpoint, companies also need a reliable source of highly competent lawyers who can step in on a cost-effective project/contract basis to fill in for a parental or medical leave and/or supplement the legal department during a significant transaction or “spike” in work.
Whatever the reason, your first step is to determine the area where you want to start. Your priorities will vary depending on the maturity of the legal function, nature of the business, and the risk profile. That said, you also need to consider areas of future need so that the solution you select today is flexible enough to account for changes as your company grows or faces new legal and regulatory issues.
|Understand Your Options
The market for ALSPs is over $10 billion per year and growing rapidly. ALSPs come in a wide range of sizes and business models. The Big Four accounting firms offer legal support services that compete directly with large law firms. Large ALSPs can provide enterprise-wide solutions that include consulting, technology and contract lawyers. Many large law firms are also in the ALSP business as they use technology to create value and reduce costs for their clients. You may want to ask your outside counsel what solutions they can provide to meet your defined needs. For smaller legal departments or those wanting to stage their involvement with an ALSP, specialized consultants can serve as objective brokers and experts to guide you through the process of bringing in an ALSP.
Given the range of options and the velocity with which the landscape is changing, selecting and overseeing an ALSP is a big job. Law departments with a director of operations with project management experience may be able to handle the process internally. For other law departments, it makes sense to engage an independent consultant who is not tied to any particular product or solution.
|Seek a Partner
The next step is to select a provider. Begin by creating a clear and complete list of desired outcomes. Whoever is leading the process (whether internal or external) can provide guidance on realistic outcomes and use the list as a basis for assessing the suitability of various solutions. Some companies run a formal RFP process; others may simply create a checklist of requirements to use as a scorecard for comparing software and service providers.
|Design a Solution
After selecting a provider, the hard work of project design, implementation and ongoing management begins. Depending on the nature of the solution and the size of the enterprise, it could take weeks or months to customize the solution. To ensure that the solution truly meets the needs of the team and to enhance the likelihood of successful adoption, create a small group of lawyers to be part of the design and testing process. They will provide the ALSP with invaluable feedback on what is and is not useful and practical about proposed solutions.
|Communicate
When ALSP/technology based solutions fail, it's generally because the legal team finds reasons to avoid adoption. This behavior can range from demonstrating an unwillingness to learn to actively undermining development and implementation of the solution. Bringing in an ALSP can feel threatening to lawyers who fear that the work they do and the relationships they have could be replaced. Therefore, a strong, honest and clear communication plan is essential to gaining buy-in from the team.
Clearly and realistically explain the process and the work that will need to be done to design and implement the solution, as well as the benefits to the company, the team and individual lawyers. For individual lawyers, it is often the case that the work of ALSPs replaces low complexity, low value-add work and allows them to take on more interesting and higher-level work.
|Train. Implement. Measure. Incentivize. Repeat.
The rollout of a new solution takes careful planning. If the team does not have a good first experience with your selected solution, it will be difficult to overcome their negative impression and both your bottom line and credibility may suffer.
The design team should implement training that meets the needs of everyone affected by the change. Be sure to schedule online training at times convenient for various time zones. Include an option for recorded online training and written materials for non-native English speakers or people who have different learning styles. Measure the results after implementation and share those results with the team on a regular basis for the first year. Incentivize people to support the change through the performance review process or one-off awards. The cycle of train, measure and incentivize should be repeated until the technology or ALSP solution becomes fully integrated into the way the legal team works.
Although implementing a technology or ALSP solution can be challenging, it's fast becoming an expectation of any leader of a corporate law department. Demands for law department efficiency and effectiveness are not going away, and the sooner you begin to put solutions in place, the easier you will find it to navigate the future along with your team.
Miriam Frank is partner, vice president and leader of Major, Lindsey & Africa's talent management consulting team, an offering of MLA Transform Advisory Services. She assists corporate law departments and law firms as they seek to meet the needs—now and in the future—of complex and growing businesses.
Barrett Avigdor is managing director for Latin America in the firm's in-house practice group as well as a member of the talent management consulting team. She works with corporate law departments and law firms around the world to help them meet the needs of their businesses and clients and to attract and retain top talent.
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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