BLP and Thames: something borrowed, something new
The news last week that Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) is to take on the bulk of Thames Water's in-house legal team caused a fair amount of attention across the City. Even for a firm like BLP, which has expanded aggressively in recent years, the creation of a managed legal service division to take over a client's in-house capabilities is a substantial bet on the way the market is moving, but one it has high hopes for. On first glance there is much to commend the arrangement. BLP picked an obvious candidate to road-test the venture, choosing a regulated utility, which will provide stable work levels and incomes, making the project easier to manage.
March 30, 2010 at 02:40 AM
3 minute read
BLP makes bold stab at innovating for the LPO age with its £5m Thames Water deal
The news last week that Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) is to take on the bulk of Thames Water's in-house legal team caused a fair amount of attention across the City. Even for a firm like BLP, which has expanded aggressively in recent years, the creation of a managed legal service division to take over a client's in-house capabilities is a substantial bet on the way the market is moving, but one it has high hopes for.
On first glance there is much to commend the arrangement. BLP picked an obvious candidate to road-test the venture, choosing a regulated utility, which will provide stable work levels and incomes, making the project easier to manage.
In a very competitive market, BLP will pick up the majority of the company's legal spend, at a stroke making Thames one of the firm's biggest clients – generating a handy £5m a year in steady cashflows. This is no mean feat, considering BLP previously picked up only 15% of Thames' legal spend.
The firm will now take charge of Thames' high-value work, 30% of which previously went to magic circle firms, including securitisation work formerly carried out by Linklaters worth approximately £1m a year. Meanwhile, volume work, worth some 20% of legal spend, will fall to regional firms Pannone and Ashfords. BLP's locum unit 'Lawyers on Demand' will pick up some of the work, as well.
Thames Water is thought to be reducing its total legal bill by around 20% while getting budget certainty and guaranteed performance standards. BLP is confident that there are good margins to be made if it can carry out the work efficiently. The hope must be that this can be the equivalent of Eversheds' partnering arrangement with Tyco – a symbolic project that positions the firm as committed to innovation and efficiency and demonstrates a model that can be used to attract other companies. BLP says it will soon roll the package to other clients, arguing that it has already attracted some positive feedback to the scheme.
Perhaps one tricky issue for BLP to manage will be the general reaction from the in-house legal community, which may feel unsettled by the idea that the board could outsource much of their department to an external provider. In the case of Thames Water, general counsel Joel Hanson, who remains in the company's employ, is freed up by the move to focus on being a strategic adviser to the board.
Convincing general counsel of that model will be very helpful in gaining early adherents, otherwise BLP is left with the tricky balance of appealing directly to finance directors without annoying the legal team.
And, as some have pointed out, to an extent BLP's move is a reinvention for the age of legal process outsourcing (LPO) of sporadic agreements over the last 20 years that have seen major clients transfer teams to advisers. The key difference is that BLP is aiming to turn this venture into a repeatable business model. As innovation goes, the move looks promising in the clever-but-not-too-clever camp. One to watch.
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
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
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