Riverview Law in the spotlight as market sizes up new fixed-fee legal venture
DLA Piper-backed venture Riverview Law is facing much market scrutiny as the new fixed-fee business goes live. Sofia Lind and Suzanna Ring report...
February 23, 2012 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
In a market becoming used to eye-catching ventures designed to utilise the Legal Services Act (LSA), this week saw the formal launch of arguably the most intriguing one yet – but also the hardest to assess: the DLA Piper-backed Riverview Law.
The self-styled 'market-disrupting service delivery model' targeted at small and medium-sized businesses will work through two arms, Riverview Solicitors and Riverview Chambers, owned by parent company LawVest. The key aim is to target small business clients through fixed fees (see below).
Unveiling the venture, LawVest chief executive Karl Chapman (pictured) said: "Riverview [is] applying common-sense business principles to a market protected from real competition for too long. Some law firms have said to us that it won't work because it's impossible to deliver comprehensive fixed pricing. Our response is simple: 'Maybe you can't deliver fixed pricing, but we can.'"
The venture looks set to pitch Riverview into the fiercely competitive market to provide low-cost legal and compliance advice to small businesses, pitting it against established non-solicitor players such as Croner and Citation.
But while the fixed-fee model and potential benefits of working alongside DLA Piper have been widely supported, reactions to the launch have been mixed in relation to how its chambers arm will function.
LawVest declined to elaborate on how the financial arrangements would work with the 43 external barristers, who remain self-employed, and members of their existing chambers. Chapman comments: "We will agree a fixed price for each piece of work.
"Effectively, we are offering three models, one of which is complex litigation – this will clearly be agreed on a case-by-case basis. Whether part of that fee is also fed back to the chambers is a matter between the barrister and the chambers."
Monckton Chambers head Paul Lasok QC says: "I would suspect that the venture would be attractive only to barristers who felt that they were not getting work – or enough work of the right sort – from their own chambers.
"In that respect, the venture seems worthwhile from a barrister's perspective as a way of reaching clients that your own set is not getting to."
Brick Court Chambers co-head Jonathan Hirst QC strikes a similar note: "The most successful QCs will be very cautious before going down this route, particularly because it is in association with other solicitors firms, and there is a danger that you would end up cutting yourself out from working for other firms that may feel they are giving work to a competitor. There will be some people dipping their toes in the water, but for those currently in big commercial sets, you will not see much take-up."
Commenting on his move to sign up to the venture, 5 Paper Buildings Jonathan Caplan QC says: "We have to embrace new ways of offering and delivering legal services which will be attractive to corporate and high net worth clients.
"What many of them want is quick and direct access to senior counsel, with the prospect of litigation support, at an attractive price. Riverview is backed by LawVest with a very attractive marketing budget and high level IT, which few, if any, sets of chambers could match."
Such doubts aside, with DLA backing the initiative, it remains one of the key LSA-related ventures to watch.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Riverview Law – the model
Riverview Law will operate through two primary arms, Riverview Solicitors and Riverview Chambers, respectively headed by senior partner Andrew Reeves and chief executive Chris Baylis, a barrister.
The company will offer fixed-price legal advice on a range of matters including contracts law, data protection, employment, finance, insurance, intellectual property, IT and real estate.
Fixed prices of £2,400 annually will be offered to companies with up to five employees; £3,960 for companies with between six and 24 staff; and £5,988 for firms with 25-50 employees. An analysis of the legal needs of large businesses covering up to 1,000 staff will be undertaken before setting a fixed price.
The annual fees will cover all work up to the point of litigation proceedings being issued, at which point a fixed-price assessment will be made. A substantial number of areas of commercial practice are outside the terms of the fixed-price deals.
Much of the advice will be provided online to help save costs, with Riverview expected to invest in marketing and sales staff to develop business. The company, which opened for business on 20 February, has hired a team of its own solicitors and barristers and is currently looking to fill a further 20 legal roles.
Riverview Law acts as the central portal of the business, directing clients to its solicitor or chambers arms, which will be respectively regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and the Bar Standards Board. Riverview Chambers will offer access to 43 external barristers, including 12 silks, drawn from sets including: Outer Temple; 5 Paper Buildings; Temple Garden; 39 Essex Street; 1 Hare Court; 3 Pump Court; and 11 South Square. All barristers will remain tenants at their existing sets, with the Riverview Chambers membership acting like a door tenancy. However, they have all agreed to take on work on a fixed-fee basis.
Though parent company LawVest has applied for an alternative business structure licence from the SRA to allow it to make non-legal acquisitions in future and to evolve its business, its current model allows it to function without using reforms ushered in through the Legal Services Act. DLA Piper, which owns a minority stake in LawVest, is expected to refer some of its smaller clients to Riverview Law, though there are no direct financial incentives built to support this beyond the share ownership.
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
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-87
- 2The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 3Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 4Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 5Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
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