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
There are now alternatives to law firms and interesting variations on a law firm theme. The market is moving quickly, but is still shallow and largely untested
However one area is opening up more quickly than others. The world of the interim resource provider is developing fast and providing a fascinating glimpse of a world to come. Businesses such Axiom, Legal Edge, Halebury and Lawyers on Demand etc at one level offer an obvious solution – to plug a gap for long term sickness, maternity cover or the discreet but time-limited project. The potential is to do so much more.
Most in-house teams have work that fits a pattern:
The first two should be outsourced, but the law firm solution is clunky and expensive. Clearly an interim resource offers a different opportunity. Then consider as well if the interim resource was also able to look at others aspects of the in-house function from a trusted position of being an accepted part of the in-house resource. Consider if the interim resource could also:
The interim providers in fact have a unique opportunity to help redesign the landscape for legal services. In effect a hybrid resource, but also one much more closely aligned to the in-house client than any law firm can typically hope to achieve. As this model develops we foresee it fundamentally changing the resourcing debate.
Similarly there is a much broader and deeper role for publishers such as Lexis Nexis. Any organisation that has a view across the market should be of interest to any General Counsel. Any organisation that can determine infrastructure needs and match to market solutions that are practical and proportionate should be of considerable interest to any General Counsel.
However before I develop thoughts around what a new type of panel may look like, the question that is often and legitimately asked is “why, if there is all the talk of change, is change so slow?”
There are two aspects to this, first of all it is arguable that change has not been slow, just not evenly distributed (to borrow from William Gibson “The future is here, just not...”). For all the reasons mentioned above there has been a massive shift in the way the market is shaping. What has been slow is the take up of new propositions in volumes of market share to seriously threaten the law firm model. Instead frankly bloated profits have resulted in some strategic complacency and a desire to preserve profitability rather than to invest in change.
The second aspect of this however is that for many in-house teams it is just not feasible to make significant change quickly.
We often fall into the trap of discussing the “in-house sector” as if it were a single market buyer, a homogenous whole or some sort of legal collective. In fact the reality is of course a market of single entity buyers where for most the time they give t genuine relationship management is a tiny percentage of their working year.
Add into this construct the fact that law firms have zero incentive to change the market – indeed they are in reality incentivised to entrench inefficiency. I do not like to be controversial for its own sake, but to me there is an analogy with the way abusive relationships develop.
The in-house model is typically lacking significant infrastructure, typically under-resourced and typically lacking an ability to plan beyond a few weeks. At the same time law firms remain stubbornly able to charge for time, which simply means that they make more money on the back of the lack of their clients’ infrastructure etc. Knowing this is imbalanced, the good firms compensate by focusing on relationship building. It is as if the law firms can wrap key clients in a comfort blanket of relationship support – call me anytime, let’s be friends too, we can dig you out of any hole...
The result is that in-house teams know they have weaknesses, but with friends in law firms who will cover those weakness ...just at a price. The longer it continues, the more dependency is created and the less likely it will be to change.
All the talk of change in the market is therefore mostly just talk. Until the dependency is broken, until the power balance is shifted, change will be slower than seems should be the case.
As an aside it is in fact the great missed opportunity of the panel process “industry”. Although it seems General Counsel have more power as they wield the axe to drop firms from their panel, all that has really happened is that GC’s now are abused by fewer law firms. They have not addressed the context that would stop the abuse!
The energy that is needed therefore is to fundamentality shift the balance of power. My view is that this will happen more quickly when a new type of panel created. A panel that encompasses the wider support those in-house teams require and on terms that reduces the power of traditional law firms.
Instead of selecting a group of law firms with similar experience and expertise to simple fight over the amount of work they get, the ambition should be far more sophisticated and robust. Consider therefore a panel that was developed with the following elements:
Imagine therefore a panel that had these constituent parts and which was working with the in-house team to provide a genuinely rebalanced, planned and strategic resource. Then compare it to what we seem content to accept now as a traditional panel of similar law firms.
0330 161 1234