Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
By Laura Vosper
I’ve recently returned from working in our LexisNexis Paris office, researching the challenges French lawyers face in a global operating environment. Like their British counterparts, I found time and cost pressures are driving in-house teams to demand a better multinational service. Networks and mergers are one way firms are answering this need, but all agreed more could be done to deliver optimal multinational service. So what gaps did I notice? And what could law firms do better?
Gap #1: Lawyers work and train in jurisdictions, business is done without borders
In a world where a French company buys from a Chinese supplier through an Australian middle-man on a contract in US law, today’s in-house counsel not only need knowledge of laws and regulations overseas (challenging for those operating in common law but trained in civil law) but also have to deal with language, cultural and political barriers to getting business done. Most of the multinational corporate teams I met are building this know-how through secondments and overseas exchanges. With restrictions on where lawyers in firms can practise, can firms create more new, non-Legal, account manager roles that “own the customer” and make buying services across multiple jurisdictions easier? This would mean that in-house clients get consistent service and don’t have to source and brief new counsel repeatedly.
Gap #2: Lawyers in firms aren’t telling in-house counsel what they need to know
Almost every in-house counsel I met complained about the volume of generic legal and regulatory updates from lawyers. “Reading everything I receive would be a full-time job in itself”, one told me. Yet they also told me there is a paucity of advice tailored to their specific business needs and territories. Poorly-targeted business development and “value-add” communications switch clients off and mean firms are not perceived as offering a joined-up multinational service. Worse, they are wasting clients’ precious time. Large firms invest in CRM technology, but too often lawyers seem focused only on their own individual hourly-billing targets and don’t collaborate to provide in-house teams with information they can apply directly to their business. Why don’t more firms incentivise their lawyers to share intelligence across borders to create genuine added-value insight for their clients?
Gap #3: Lawyers in-house need to anticipate risks, not just react
Twitter storms. Natural disasters. Changes to customs regulation whilst a delivery is in transit. An overseas supplier going bankrupt. Operating internationally increases complexity and risk. Too often, both in-house and external lawyers are engaged only after something has gone wrong. In-house lawyers know they can’t keep fighting fires forever and are increasingly getting out into their business so they can pre-empt issues. Isn’t there an opportunity here for firms to use CRM and information technologies to monitor their clients’ business interests at home and abroad so they can come to the in-house lawyer with intelligence and solutions that prevent, rather than manage, crises? What’s stopping firms being more proactive?
From what I saw in France, increasingly multinational in-house teams see the best way to support their company is to do more of the work themselves. Law firms have to innovate in this space or risk their market shrinking yet further.
0330 161 1234