Why don't more law firms have back-office support centres?
The financial benefits of back-office support centres are clear – so why is their use still limited?
November 08, 2016 at 07:17 PM
5 minute read
This February, Hogan Lovells opened a global business services centre in Louisville, Kentucky, one of the latest firms to move administrative jobs to lower cost cities.
The firm is paying roughly $20 (£16) a square foot for 31,000 square feet of space, less than a third of the rate for prime office space in New York and Washington DC, where the firm has its two biggest US offices. As of September, 50 people were working there; the firm aims to employ 250.
Mark Klender, a principal at Deloitte Consulting, who advised Hogan Lovells on this move, says that a firm can slash its real estate costs by more than half with a back-office or shared service centre, as they're also called, and that's not even the biggest efficiency. "There's bigger savings on the labour front," he says. "Ten percent of the savings come from real estate and 90% come from labour."
Hogan Lovells global chief operating and finance officer Scott Green confirms that labour costs motivated their decision. "We were really struggling to fill roles in DC and New York," he says. "We were competing against a lot of law firms who want the best and brightest. We did a nationwide search and found that Louisville has a highly educated workforce with labour costs that are below the national average."
UK firms are more aggressive about using Europe for back offices. Offshore to the US firms is too dramatic a change
When Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe kicked off the remote back-office movement in 2001 by moving jobs to Wheeling in West Virginia (pictured above), it was seen as a possible harbinger of the future. "I thought the early moves would open the floodgates but there has not been that huge a tide," says Klender, who also advised Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr on opening an office in Dayton in 2010, and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman on the creation of a back office in Nashville in 2011. "Even though the business case is typically overwhelmingly positive, change is very difficult for lawyers. It's viewed as distracting."
A report by ALM Legal Intelligence confirms little enthusiasm for shared service centres: It identified just 14 major US firms that had opened or planned to open a centre in the US or UK The report doesn't cover 'offshore' centres in foreign countries, but only a few US firms use those, including White & Case in Manila and Hogan Lovells in Johannesburg.
Klender says that not only can firms slash real estate costs, they can often cut space to 125 square feet or less per person in newer, efficient buildings. Labour costs can be cut by up to 30%, according to the ALM report. In all, the report states, savings can add up to $20m (£16m) annually, depending on a firm's size.
Orrick, for example, pays less than $10 (£8) a square foot for the 88,000 square feet it rents in Wheeling. The firm employs roughly 300 people there, including 30 career associates who do legal work but are not on the partnership track. Laura Saklad, the firm's chief administrative officer, says the office has evolved from housing administrative employees to more client-facing professionals, including the career associates and a predictive analytics team. "For us, the differentiator has been expanding beyond internal firm operations to deliver innovative services to the client," she says. Saklad estimates that the Wheeling operation is saving Orrick $13m (£10.5m) a year in labour, rent and other costs.
A few firms handle some legal work from these offices, including Fish & Richardson in Minneapolis, but they still use back offices primarily for administration. UK firms, in contrast, are more likely to locate legal work in their back offices, the survey found. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer uses a 25-employee office in Vancouver, Canada, exclusively for legal work, as well as its larger services centre in Manchester. Herbert Smith Freehills uses its 100-employee Belfast operation for legal work, as does Berwin Leighton Paisner in a Manchester office that employs 50.
In most, if not all, domestic US moves, firms are getting state or local tax incentives to create these offices. Hogan Lovells, for example, can qualify for $4m (£3.2m) in state tax breaks if its Louisville employees earn an average of $31 (£25) an hour. Kaye Scholer can qualify for $560,000 (£452,000) in Florida tax refunds spread over seven years if its centre employs 140 employees at an average annual wage of $53,585 (£43,000). Deloitte's Klender says tax incentives are helpful but are a secondary factor at best. "One does not do this for economic development incentives," he says. "They might influence the final decision [about which city to choose], but they're not so large to cause someone to do this in the first place."
Firms in the US have been reluctant to establish back offices overseas. "UK firms are more aggressive about that, using eastern and central Europe," Klender says. "Offshore to [the US firms] is too dramatic a change."
Timezone differences can be an issue, for one thing. Hogan Lovells' Green says one reason the firm opened the Louisville operation, even though it already had a Johannesburg back office, is that it wanted an operation in that timezone. Orrick's Saklad emphasises that operations in places like Wheeling are about more than saving money. The lower cost structure gives the firm the freedom to experiment. She says: "It's about having a location where you can continue to think about innovation."
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 AllTo Thrive in Central and Eastern Europe, Law Firms Need to 'Know the Rules of the Game'
7 minute readGOP's Washington Trifecta Could Put Litigation Finance Industry Under Pressure
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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