The resurgence of corporate legal process outsourcing
When examining whether legal process outsourcing (LPO)or a particular LPO providerfits a companys legal needs, leaders should consider three key areas
December 28, 2011 at 04:30 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This story is the fourth in a four-part series. Read parts one, two and three. It will discuss considerations in evaluating corporate legal process outsourcing (LPO) options
When examining whether legal process outsourcing (LPO)—or a particular LPO provider—fits a company's legal needs, leaders should consider three key areas:
1. Current legal needs. A company should evaluate its overall legal needs and its use of legal services to see which services, if any, are suitable for LPO. Factors to consider include the extent to which the services relate to core versus non-core business functions, the extent to which the services recur and the current internal and external spending for the services. Services that frequently recur (such as preparing patent applications) or that are high-volume (such as litigation document review) may be considered for outsourcing to a lower-cost LPO provider.
2. Inherent risks. Organizations need to consider confidentiality risks when sending legal work to an LPO provider, particularly an offshore provider. Companies should confirm that the LPO provider has the required security and risk management protocols in place, including the necessary training and screening of its personnel. Companies also need to be confident that the LPO provider is not administering services to other clients that may create a direct legal or other conflict of interest in the litigation at hand. Given the potential legal implications, an LPO provider should agree not to engage such clients in the future.
3. Cost, quality and capacity. In terms of cost, an LPO provider can offer companies individualized, flexible price arrangements tailored to the size and type of a specific legal engagement. Cost, however, should not be the sole criterion for selection; quality is just as important. An LPO provider should commit to providing a specific level of service based on concrete metrics for assessing the LPO's performance and the quality of the product. Finally, companies should look for an LPO that has the flexibility to build capacity at a moment's notice—an increasingly common need in the fluctuating environment of corporate litigation.
Questions to ask when considering corporate LPO include:
• Is my organization seeking to reduce internal and/or external legal spending?
• Does my organization have high-volume or regularly recurring legal work?
• Have potential LPO providers adequately addressed my security and risk concerns?
• Would my company benefit from scalable pricing arrangements for legal work?
• Would the potential for flexible staffing create new efficiencies in my legal group?
• Could measurable service levels help my organization to establish a higher standard of quality in our legal work?
• Does my approach to legal service delivery appropriately balance insourcing and outsourcing?
Across the globe, corporate legal departments are recognizing an immediate need to reassess their internal and external legal spending. Legal executives should carefully examine the LPO business model to determine whether they can capitalize on the potential cost savings and related benefits provided by the resurgent LPO industry. After all, the volume of corporate litigation may be growing, but that does not mean that your budget has to follow suit.
This story is the fourth in a four-part series. Read parts one, two and three. It will discuss considerations in evaluating corporate legal process outsourcing (LPO) options
When examining whether legal process outsourcing (LPO)—or a particular LPO provider—fits a company's legal needs, leaders should consider three key areas:
1. Current legal needs. A company should evaluate its overall legal needs and its use of legal services to see which services, if any, are suitable for LPO. Factors to consider include the extent to which the services relate to core versus non-core business functions, the extent to which the services recur and the current internal and external spending for the services. Services that frequently recur (such as preparing patent applications) or that are high-volume (such as litigation document review) may be considered for outsourcing to a lower-cost LPO provider.
2. Inherent risks. Organizations need to consider confidentiality risks when sending legal work to an LPO provider, particularly an offshore provider. Companies should confirm that the LPO provider has the required security and risk management protocols in place, including the necessary training and screening of its personnel. Companies also need to be confident that the LPO provider is not administering services to other clients that may create a direct legal or other conflict of interest in the litigation at hand. Given the potential legal implications, an LPO provider should agree not to engage such clients in the future.
3. Cost, quality and capacity. In terms of cost, an LPO provider can offer companies individualized, flexible price arrangements tailored to the size and type of a specific legal engagement. Cost, however, should not be the sole criterion for selection; quality is just as important. An LPO provider should commit to providing a specific level of service based on concrete metrics for assessing the LPO's performance and the quality of the product. Finally, companies should look for an LPO that has the flexibility to build capacity at a moment's notice—an increasingly common need in the fluctuating environment of corporate litigation.
Questions to ask when considering corporate LPO include:
• Is my organization seeking to reduce internal and/or external legal spending?
• Does my organization have high-volume or regularly recurring legal work?
• Have potential LPO providers adequately addressed my security and risk concerns?
• Would my company benefit from scalable pricing arrangements for legal work?
• Would the potential for flexible staffing create new efficiencies in my legal group?
• Could measurable service levels help my organization to establish a higher standard of quality in our legal work?
• Does my approach to legal service delivery appropriately balance insourcing and outsourcing?
Across the globe, corporate legal departments are recognizing an immediate need to reassess their internal and external legal spending. Legal executives should carefully examine the LPO business model to determine whether they can capitalize on the potential cost savings and related benefits provided by the resurgent LPO industry. After all, the volume of corporate litigation may be growing, but that does not mean that your budget has to follow suit.
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 2Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 3A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 4Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 55th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
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