Legal watchdog set to scrutinise law firm outsourcing contracts
City law firms may have to renegotiate their outsourcing arrangements as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) moves to regulate outsourcing for the first time. The new Code of Conduct to be published next week (6 April) sees the SRA assert that it should be given access to law firms' outsourcing contracts and files, as well as potentially to outsourcers' premises for regulatory checks. This would affect all legal and business process outsourcing arrangements the SRA deems critical to the firms' activities.
March 30, 2011 at 07:57 PM
3 minute read
New Code of Conduct underlines SRA intent to review LPO deals
City law firms may have to renegotiate their outsourcing arrangements as the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) moves to regulate outsourcing for the first time.
The new Code of Conduct to be published next week (6 April) sees the SRA assert that it should be given access to law firms' outsourcing contracts and files, as well as potentially to outsourcers' premises for regulatory checks. This would affect all legal and business process outsourcing arrangements the SRA deems critical to the firms' activities.
The guidelines, coming into effect in October as part of the new Code of Conduct, state that the SRA expects firms to look at all existing outsourcing contracts. While it concedes it may not be possible to change them all before the terms end, the watchdog wants to see evidence that firms are reviewing contracts to ensure compliance.
The news comes as growing numbers of law firms are increasing their use of both legal and back-office outsourcing. It emerged this week that Allen & Overy is in the early stages of trialling outsourcing of some aspects of its corporate transactional work to Integreon, which it already uses for litigation support.
CMS Cameron McKenna is set to outsource the bulk of its back-office support function to Integreon next month.
SRA head of standards Richard Collins said: "Our primary aim is to ensure that outsourcing does not reduce our ability to thoroughly regulate what law firms do and that they can still prove that the work is up to our requirements."
The plans have come in for criticism from compliance officers at City law firms who argue that they are intrusive, unclear and in need of revision. The SRA maintains it will not be changing the guidelines.
Norton Rose head of compliance Jonathan Ody (pictured) said: "The SRA has every right to approve the terms of an outsourcing contract but I don't see how it can ask us to make sure it gains entry to the property of a third party, especially not if it is based in India, South Africa, or even Belfast. The SRA has no standing outside England and Wales."
CC executive partner and general counsel Chris Perrin added: "The new rules, as they stand, are not viable for a number of reasons and also lack clarity. The SRA needs to be clear about what outsourcing they mean to focus on and make sure their plans are practical."
Integreon president of global sales John Croft said: "If there are regulatory compliance reasons for us to open our doors then we would do that, but one would have to ask how practical it is for a London regulator to visit us in India."
Related event: Legal Week Future of Legal Services Forum
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
© 2025 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 AllMalaysia’s Shearn Delamore Set To Expand Local Footprint With New Office Launch
CMA Uses New Competition Powers to Investigate Google Over Search Advertising
‘A Slave Drivers' Contract’: Evri Legal Director Grilled by MPs
Trending Stories
- 1High Court Rejects 'Heightened' Standard for Employers Defending FLSA Cases
- 2Case With 'Serious Consequences for Corporate Law' Heads to Texas Supreme Court
- 3Oil Co. Alleges Plot to Drive Away Competition in NYC's Liquid Fuel Market
- 4Takeaways From Day One of Pam Bondi’s Confirmation Hearing
- 5Greenberg Traurig, Holland & Knight Leaders Expect AI Investments to Jump in 2025
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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