The online brief
During the past 12 months there have been numerous articles in the legal press concerning the growing discontent over the levels of private practice lawyers' fees. However, driven by the greed that has gripped the City over the last 10 years, the majority of City law firms have failed to take any notice. While most in-house lawyers would agree that high quality specialist legal advice doesn't come cheap, many City law firms are charging clients top whack rates (of anything between £275 to £550) for general commercial or transactional overflow work.
October 22, 2008 at 08:43 PM
5 minute read
In an era of belt-tightening, online legal services providers offer a cheaper alternative to conventional law firms, writes Oliver Brice
During the past 12 months there have been numerous articles in the legal press concerning the growing discontent over the levels of private practice lawyers' fees. However, driven by the greed that has gripped the City over the last 10 years, the majority of City law firms have failed to take any notice.
While most in-house lawyers would agree that high quality specialist legal advice doesn't come cheap, many City law firms are charging clients top whack rates (of anything between £275 to £550) for general commercial or transactional overflow work.
You never get sacked for instructing a 'magic circle' firm
Sophisticated buyers of legal services, such as in-house lawyers, are able to look beyond the brand image when instructing a firm. But those who are less knowledgeable in this area – finance directors, for instance – commonly are not. The perception of risk in seeking or instructing an alternative provider, and lack of knowledge and awareness of the legal market, means unsophisticated buyers tend to pay far more than is strictly required for legal services. If companies are willing to pay these rates, then why should law firms reduce them or revise their billing methods?
Before the age of the internet, companies had little choice but to take what was on offer. Comparing costs and value was much more difficult. But the ease with which services and information can now be accessed and exchanged has brought a much-needed transparency to the issue of legal fees, laying bare the reality of where the money is really going.
My company, Virtual Law, is one of several businesses that provide clients with an outsourced legal service, allowing them to benefit from the value-added services provided by in-house lawyers, without incurring the overheads.
The company acts for large multinational organisations which have their own in-house teams, but do not wish to pay City rates for general commercial overflow work. It also assists small and medium-sized companies that cannot afford or justify the overhead of employing a full-time in-house lawyer.
Like private practice law firms, online legal services providers are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. However, that is where the similarities end. There are no expensive City offices (a large overhead that is ultimately paid for by clients themselves). Meetings take place at clients' offices, saving the client valuable management time which could be better used running their own business.
Virtual Law has a relatively small in-house team, therefore, it commonly sub-contracts work to its own network of consultants, or 'Virtual Lawyers'. These include practising barristers, ex-partners of City firms, former in-house lawyers and Indian legal process outsourcing clerks. Legal secretarial and IT department expenses are unnecessary, again allowing the resultant cost savings to be passed on to clients.
But cost isn't the only benefit to clients of this technological advance. A more fundamental upside is that since the majority of the lawyers we use have business experience in the real world (ie outside private practice firms), they are usually more commercially aware and astute than their private practice counterparts and have a better understanding of non-legal pressures that may be exerted in a given situation.
Transaction management
Cost saving is what underpins the raison d'etre of a virtual service. For large transactions or disputes, these can be substantial. The transaction management facilities of online legal services providers assist clients in reviewing and assessing the legal market. One of the main problems of the UK legal sector is that it
is almost too competitive, with more than 200 firms practising in London alone and well over a thousand nationally. The result is that clients are unable to quickly and easily assess their options to determine which firm best suits their needs.
Via my company's transaction management service, clients' management teams are able to review the legal market and ensure that the selected firm has the necessary experience, expertise and, importantly, the right fee rates and structure. In layman's terms, we act as a broker for the client. Once the right firm or lawyer has been selected, the online provider will then manage and oversee the particular transaction to the extent agreed with its client. Importantly, clients are not charged for this service, rather it is financed by a transparent referral fee (agreed with the client at the outset), which is paid to us by the selected law firm.
There is a quiet revolution in the legal world which will meet with resistance from certain quarters, but the benefits to clients of this alternative service are enough to drive this technological advance forwards.
Oliver Brice is the founder of Virtual Law.
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 All'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute read'Never Been More Dynamic': US Law Firm Leaders Reflect on 2024 and Expectations Next Year
7 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