In-house lawyers yet to see value of low-cost legal centres
A surge of interest among law firms in low-cost legal centres has yet to be mirrored by the in-house community, with many general counsel still to be convinced of the benefits of legal process outsourcing (LPO). The availability of LPO – including outsourcing to external providers and the use of own service centres – was deemed to be the least important factor when selecting a law firm, according to Legal Week Intelligence's annual Client Satisfaction Report, which polled more than 1,400 in-house lawyers. GCs gave an average rating of just 4.4 out of 10 when asked to grade the importance of low-cost centres. However, despite this apparent apathy, satisfaction levels with LPO centres scored an average of 5.7 out of 10 – one of only a few areas in the report where contentment with service levels outstripped the relative importance they were given.
November 21, 2013 at 07:03 PM
5 minute read
GCs don't prioritise LPO when choosing a law firm, survey reveals
A surge of interest among law firms in low-cost legal centres has yet to be mirrored by the in-house community, with many general counsel still to be convinced of the benefits of legal process outsourcing (LPO).
The availability of LPO – including outsourcing to external providers and the use of own service centres – was deemed to be the least important factor when selecting a law firm, according to Legal Week Intelligence's annual Client Satisfaction Report, which polled more than 1,400 in-house lawyers.
GCs gave an average rating of just 4.4 out of 10 when asked to grade the importance of low-cost centres. However, despite this apparent apathy, satisfaction levels with LPO centres scored an average of 5.7 out of 10 – one of only a few areas in the report where contentment with service levels outstripped the relative importance they were given.
Baker & McKenzie's own low-cost centre in the Philippines was the most highly rated of the services on offer, scoring 6.6 out of 10. Bakers' Manila centre offers clients support with intellectual property (IP), employment, competition and compliance projects, along with several other services.
Bakers TMT partner Steve Holmes, who works closely with the firm's Manila base, commented: "It's almost rare to get a request for a proposal where there isn't a question on offshore or outsourcing capabilities. It is a major factor for clients to know you are running your firm efficiently, and that any work that can be done at the same quality in a cheaper jurisdiction is done there. The external LPO providers aren't necessarily cheaper on this.
"There are two groups of clients that are best placed to move into LPO work. There are the big IT suppliers with significant outsourcing in their own businesses and who come to us looking for it, and then there are the smaller corporates looking to grow internationally, who look for their volume legal services to be handled from one point, rather than employing lawyers in all of the new jurisdictions."
Commenting on the reasons why clients may be reticent to use LPO services, Libby Jackson, director of Herbert Smith Freehill's low-cost Belfast base, said: "There is concern about communication and a fear that costs will be hidden, and possible project management issues arise. That's why our integrated offering at HSF Belfast, offering value for money for document review and transactional legal services, while taking responsibility for the whole process, which is led by a partner in London or internationally, has been such a success. In-house lawyers also have concerns about security of data, which may be highly sensitive, being reviewed out of the jurisdiction."
Wim Dejonghe, senior partner at Allen & Overy (A&O), added: "Generally, more are realising that the cheaper someone goes, the more they lose out on quality. While LPO offerings are definitely useful in certain circumstances, I don't think they will kill the model of classical firms."
A&O has a low-cost base in Belfast, which opened in 2011.
However, BT Global Services GC David Eveleigh (pictured) believes clients' attitudes with regards to LPO will change: "There aren't many areas the LPO model is not capable of supporting. Every legal task can be broken down into smaller components; over the course of a year, a big firm might do 1,000 corporate deals, consistently starting from scratch. I estimate at least 700 of them will have elements that can be directly replicated."
Eveleigh added that certain areas of work, such as competition, "can involve a huge amount of data review, which can in many cases be done more efficiently and for less cost" through an LPO model.
The report also looks at law firms' performance across several other areas including cost and quality of service. Clients rated RPC as the best firm overall, with an average satisfaction rating of 8.1. The best performing international firm was Taylor Wessing (7.7), while Shoosmiths topped the national rankings with a score of 8.0.
RPC managing partner Jonathan Watmough said: "Many law firms talk a lot of rubbish; what it comes down to is investing in the right people and giving them the best possible opportunities to serve clients as best they can. It's not based around a particular IT system, or presenting people with new thinking about how the world works. We just get very close to our clients and find out exactly what they want."
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 AllSetting Standards: Vanguard Australia's Sean Hughes on Moving From Government Regulator to Corporate General Counsel
6 minute readNetflix Offices Raided by Authorities in Paris and Amsterdam
Trending 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