The innovation game – firms looking to corporate world for inspiration
For the second year running, the most hotly contested category in the British Legal Awards has been the Law Firm Innovation Award. There were dozens of submissions. When the judges meet to choose the winner, it is the role of the panel's chair, City of London Law Society chairman Alasdair Douglas, to ensure consensus. It isn't always easy. I remember two general counsel a few years ago debating how far an idea borrowed from another sector could be described as innovative. One GC felt that, because the innovation under discussion was standard practice in other parts of the business world, it should be discounted. The other strongly disagreed, contending that it should be judged in context. It is striking this year how many shortlisted entries go out of their way to explain how they have adapted principles and practices from other sectors to improve client service. Perhaps this reflects a growing acceptance among in-house lawyers that they have to be steeped in the culture of their own organisations. There was a time when some GCs railed against the techniques used by their company's procurement teams, arguing that the law was special. Those days are long gone.
October 24, 2013 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
For the second year running, the most hotly contested category in the British Legal Awards has been the Law Firm Innovation Award. There were dozens of submissions. When the judges meet to choose the winner, it is the role of the panel's chair, City of London Law Society chairman Alasdair Douglas, to ensure consensus. It isn't always easy.
I remember two general counsel a few years ago debating how far an idea borrowed from another sector could be described as innovative. One GC felt that, because the innovation under discussion was standard practice in other parts of the business world, it should be discounted. The other strongly disagreed, contending that it should be judged in context.
It is striking this year how many shortlisted entries go out of their way to explain how they have adapted principles and practices from other sectors to improve client service. Perhaps this reflects a growing acceptance among in-house lawyers that they have to be steeped in the culture of their own organisations. There was a time when some GCs railed against the techniques used by their company's procurement teams, arguing that the law was special. Those days are long gone.
So who are the contenders and what do their entries tell us about the direction law firms are heading? The initiatives fall broadly into two categories: finding ways to provide legal services more efficiently, and providing clients with an enhanced service by playing to the unique insight a firm can provide by virtue of its status as an independent, specialist adviser.
In the first category are: Addleshaw Goddard, which has used 'business process mapping' techniques to identify how to do legal work more efficiently; Axiom, which has hired a team of project managers to oversee complex legal work; and Lawyers on Demand, whose Lawyers on Call service provides teams to handle work on an ad-hoc basis.
In the second camp are: Clifford Chance, which used the principles of 'continuous improvement' to help UBS analyse the distressed debt trading process so that deals could be closed more quickly; and Dundas & Wilson, which has created an annual client relationship report that – among other things – sets out to provide insights into the client's activities gleaned from Dundas' work as its adviser.
And then there is DAC Beachcroft, which set up a team with law enforcement and regulatory experience to identify patterns of claimant fraud for insurers, and DLA Piper, which runs an extensive training and networking programme for clients and other in-house lawyers.
Whoever wins is certain to reflect the increasing openness of law firms to modern corporate realities. Let battle commence.
Click here for the full shortlist for the British Legal Awards. For event enquiries and table bookings, call Steve Hands on +44 (0)20 7004 7460 or email [email protected].
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 AllGCs Responsible for Gender Balanced Boardrooms Under New EU Rules
A Dark Future of Deepfakes and Disobedient AI: What GCs Foresee For 2050
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts Beginning to Set Standards for Evidence Relying upon Artificial Intelligence
- 2First-Degree Murder Charge May Not Fit Mangione Case
- 3Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
- 4SDNY US Attorney Damian Williams Lands at Paul Weiss
- 5Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
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