Near-shoring: one in four GCs would question value of work from firms without low-cost option
More than a quarter of general counsel would be unlikely to appoint a law firm to a panel or for a major piece of work if it did not have a form of low-cost support centre.
October 01, 2014 at 05:10 AM
2 minute read
More than a quarter of general counsel would be unlikely to appoint a law firm to a panel or for a major piece of work if it did not have a form of low-cost support centre.
A survey of senior in-house lawyers carried out by Legal Week found that 23% would "probably not" pick a firm without a low-cost centre as they would "question the value I was receiving". A further 5% said they would never appoint such a firm.
The findings of the survey suggest that, while some buyers of legal services expect firms to offer alternative models, many others still question the quality offered by near-shoring or outsourcing.
While more and more clients want to know how firms are going to deliver their services, with 59% saying they ask firms to provide details of near-shoring operations either "almost always" or "more often than in the past", there are still concerns over the quality of work, according to those surveyed.
More than a quarter of GCs (26%) said they had questioned the quality of work provided by low-cost centres "to the point I've refused to use them" with a further 44% saying they have occasionally had doubts over the quality provided.
Meanwhile, 31% of respondents said that "it is absolutely vital to know how work will be delivered" with none saying that they looked at only at pricing when selecting firms to carry out work.
There was a more lukewarm response from in-housers asked whether they would consider setting up their own near-shoring centre, as Carillion did in 2012. More than a quarter (28%) said they would never consider the move, while only 8% said establishing a similar centre was something being actively investigated by their organisation.
This content has been archived.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 AllBroadcom Hires From Nuclear Giant to Appoint French Legal Head
GCs Say They are Getting 'Edged Out' of UK Boardrooms
'I Won’t Name the Firm, But...'—Barratt Redrow's Legal Head on External Counsel Red Flags
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