Future practice
Law firms look set to face competition from unexpecteduarters for the lucrative Internet advice market
January 21, 1999 at 06:59 AM
5 minute read
If you thought accountants and rival law firms were your biggest threat in an increasingly cut-throat international legal market, it might be time to think again.
With the new age of virtual lawyering, heralded by Linklaters' Blue Flag and Clifford Chance's NextLaw, packaged legal information on the Internet will be a key commodity in the very near future.
And because of this, Future of Law author Richard Susskind says big legal publishers such as Sweet & Maxwell and Butterworths could be the next danger on the horizon for vulnerable law firms.
Susskind says law firms and legal publishers are destined to meet at the middle of what he calls "the legal information continuum" – that is, they will both eventually compete in the market for online legal advice.
"Legal publishers are moving up the continuum, while law firms are moving down it," he says.
"Publishers almost have an advantage because they are used to providing textbooks to help lawyers and they have more experience in packaging and selling legal knowledge."
Andrew Jones, vice chairman of tax and legal at Ernst & Young, agrees that all professional service firms need to be ready for the possibility of competition from unexpected quarters.
"There is no reason why a big technology company, for example, cannot hire lawyers and build up its online advice capacity.
The professional services market is very fluid and if firms want to succeed, they need to be able to adapt," he says.
But a firm needs money if it hopes to meet the challenges of an online future – and lots of it.
Clifford Chance lawyers estimate they have spent £1m on the NextLaw service to date, while Linklaters' Blue Flag has been described as a multi-million pound project.
Both Internet-based services took more than three years to develop.
Paul Nelson, the Linklaters partner in charge of Blue Flag, and Christopher Millard, the Clifford Chance partner responsible for NextLaw, say the start-up costs for online advice services will be prohibitive for all but the biggest firms.
"No one should underestimate just what a major undertaking this is," Millard says.
But despite such considerations, other firms are making plans to build up their own virtual law capabilities. Simon Slater, director of business development at Eversheds, says: "Most firms are examining their portfolios, looking at what they will offer online and discussing how they will pay for it."
Slater, however, says his firm will not be rushed into establishing an online advice system, and will carefully consider which niche areas might be profitable.
"The firms that score will be those that develop a distinctive niche," he says.
According to Nelson, Linklaters developed the Blue Flag system for its investment bank clients after meticulously forecasting whether or not it would be profitable.
"This is not a pilot project," he says. And the fact that Nelson claims the service is profitable "in Linklaters terms" – despite the multi-million pound outlay – seems to back his approach.
But where will the substantial sums of money needed for online investment come from for firms without the capital base of Linklaters or Clifford Chance?
Susskind says the need for significant capital investment to offer high-quality online advice could hand the advantage to the big accountancy firms which have more cash available than law firms.
"Medium-sized and smaller firms might find it difficult to find capital investment for change," he says. "Even Clifford Chance does not have endless resources.
At this juncture, these projects are being driven more by the energy of certain individuals, but there will be an obvious need for a substantial research and development capacity at law firms to develop and sustain legal information systems.
This will take money and is another reason why law firms might want to look at mergers."
Surprisingly, even the rich accountancy firms need financial help to fund the development and maintenance of expert information systems.
According to Susskind, one of the main reasons behind the attempted Ernst & Young and KPMG merger was the need for a stronger capital base to fund research and development for similar systems.
Most law firms agree that a substantial part of their business – mainly the repetitive transactional work – will be conducted via virtual lawyering systems in the near future.
What is equally likely is that law firms will face increased competition from rivals, accountants and newcomers, as everyone chases that lucrative Internet niche.
But if the comparatively rich "Big Five" accountancy firms are worried about finding the money to pay for developing their online businesses, it will be interesting to see how law firms rise to the challenge.
Tim Hyman, IT director at Olswang, says most firms are "sitting on the fence", waiting to see how the Blue Flag and NextLaw services get on.
If they sit on the fence too long though, they might just miss the bus.
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 AllLinklaters Sees Latest Partner Exit as UK Leveraged Finance Partner Walks To Simpson Thacher
2 minute readEx-Dewey & LeBoeuf Banking Lawyer on Trial in Germany’s Cum-Ex Tax Scandal
DLA Piper & Hogan Lovells Expand German Construction and Property Practices
2 minute readWhite & Case, Cleary Among Firms Gearing Up for Biggest London IPO Since 2022
3 minute readTrending Stories
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