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However, these concerns are becoming increasingly outdated.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 AllInside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
In-House Leaders Trying to Contain Political Divisiveness Face Maze of Challenges
5 minute readFTC Bans Exec From Chevron Board—Exercising Authority It Doesn't Have, GOP Dissenters Say
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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