Howrey: The King is Dead, Long Live the King

The recent dissolution of the major US law firm Howrey has many law firm partners scratching their heads. What happened? Despite the warning signs, how could this unwind so quickly? And most importantly, how can we keep this from happening to [insert law firm name here]?

In an interview with a Wall Street Journal reporter, Howrey, (now former) CEO Robert Ruyak, provided limited insights into what eventually became the demise of the prestigious DC-based firm. He specifically outlined the firm’s challenge to generate consistent revenue due to its precarious reliance on litigation work – particularly litigious matters based on alternative billing and contingency fees.

The final, and most interesting remark made by Ruyak, involved the growing significance of third-party specialists.

“Another challenge was the rise of third-party document-discovery specialists that could provide litigation support services at substantially lower rates, he said. Howrey, a law firm with many offices in big cities, and thus, higher costs and couldn’t compete, he added.”

Without jumping to too many conclusions, domestic and international legal outsourcing (LPO) seems to fit comfortably into this bucket of ‘third-party document-discovery specialists.’ So, how does this impact other similar law firms and what are they doing in response to the growing third-party vendor adoption?

The typical law firm response usually falls into a blend of the following responses:

1) Ignoring and distancing themselves from the matters carried out by outside vendors.

2) Embracing LPO in varying degrees (despite the fact that we haven’t heard any major LPO pronouncements by any major US law firms.)

3) Establishing “value options” through captive delivery centers in low cost jurisdictions domestically.

While LPO vendors based internationally typically bear the brunt of similar frustration expressed by Ruyak, the growing number of domestically-based shops such as Axiom Law seem to be gaining adoption to unprecedented degree.

Often, many law firms attempt to position themselves out of the lower-level “commodity” work performed by third-party vendors. For example, a recent article in Bar & Bench featured comments from, Glenn Gerstel, Managing Partner of the Washington DC office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy.

In the very same city where Howrey failed less than week before in part due to growing pressure from “third-party document-discovery specialists,” Gerstel said,

“I think LPO is certainly very efficient for certain kinds of legal practices. For Milbank, we have not engaged in it mostly because the kind of work we do tends to be very customized and specific, which is highly negotiated projects or cross border litigations where there are relatively few opportunities to cut cost efficiencies associated with outsourcing. There are other practices where it makes sense but for Milbank we have not found the opportunity.”

Granted, for a very high-end law practice such as Milbanks, perhaps this is true. But, the end-all test is whether clients continue buy this line of thinking – and the fee structure behind it. Based on the comments made by Howrey CEO Robert Ruyak, apparently clients weren’t buying this for Howrey. It’s doubtful that we’ve seen the last of major law firms attributing (publically or privately) lost revenues to third-party vendors.

***Disclaimer: There are certainly ways around this dilemma of all or none. We at Fronterion don’t subscribe to the belief that the relationship between law firms and outside vendors as a zero-sum relationship. In fact, from our experiences working with similar firms we see quite the opposite is the case. Firms should not dismiss the impact of new players in the ‘legal supply chain’ to the significant detriment of their practice (as seen by Howrey).

For more information on the growing onshore movement, email forefront@fronterion.com for the most recent copy of our monthly newsletter covering issues related to domestic legal outsourcing trends. A number of these trends are also included in our annual legal outsourcing trending report available here.

The Future of the Legal Profession: Georgetown Ground Zero

This earlier this month I had the pleasure of attending Georgetown’s annual conference. This year’s event, Welcome to the Future: Trends in the Delivery of Corporate Legal Services, was held on March 9th.

In a welcome change of pace, I didn’t have any formal speaking obligations so I was free to take notes and enjoy the range of very impressive speakers from major US law firms, in-house legal teams and innovative legal support vendors.

The conference centered on the trends impacting the future of the legal profession and included lively discussions and debates on key issues such as the relationship between law firms and in-house legal departments, characterizing and defining value, the impact of legal brands and innovation in the legal services supply chain.

The conference’s self-described focus follows: “There is much talk in the air of a revolution in the delivery of corporate legal services – but what’s actually happening on the ground? This intensive one-day conference is designed to provide concrete insights into how corporate legal departments and outside service providers can collaborate to provide valuable and cost-effective legal services.’

Some key takeaways for me included:

Six Sigma and Pixy Dust
Part of the long-standing debate is whether law firms will act more like LPOs or if LPOs will act more like law firms (also recently discussed on an ABA podcast here.

The conference featured a visible example of a law firm acting like LPO. On a very interesting panel, representatives from Seyfarth Shaw and Wolverine Worldwide outlined their approach to a more known productive relationship using enhanced productivity approaches. What is titled ‘Seyfarth Lean’ is the application of Six Sigma lean and Seyfarth “pixy dust.” While there are continuing challenges with adoption internally and issues with compensation systems, the application of Six Sigma is certainly a step toward ‘law firms acting like LPOs’

More details on this arrangement are available in a previous ACC post.

Legal Supply Chain
As firms continue to embrace multi-source, multi-shore legal outsourcing, the mocker “LPO” may take on a new form as the ‘legal supply chain.’ The legal supply chain concept embraces work that is delivered in the most cost effective manner from a variety of sources. (The overall ‘supply chain’ orchestrator is either the law firm or the in-house legal team.) In addition to traditional LPOs, the supply chain also incorporates the likes of Axiom whose founder Mark Harris also spoke on the ‘legal supply chain’ panel at the Georgetown event.

As the closing speaker for the ‘legal supply chain’ panel, Pangea3 Co-CEO David Perla spoke on various LPO topics including:
• The findings from a survey conducted by Thomson Reuters as they were exploring LPOs to acquire. The exercise surveyed why law firms and in-house legal departments worked with LPOs, (Hint: the primary reason was not cost.)
• The three components of quality (people, processes and technology) and how these specifically relate to LPO service delivery.
• How LPOs are not competitors with law firms because the overall pyramid of available legal work is always expanding due to the growing complexity of legal matters and an increasingly regulated business environment.

One of the interesting undertones of the Georgetown event was the dissolution of DC-based Howrey. Partners voted on dissolution Wednesday of Georgetown event. More details and implications on this shortly.

Australian: Different Flushes, Same Legal Pressures

While the debate over ethical issues arising from the use of domestic and international legal outsourcing continues to mature, recent statements by an Australian justice suggest that a growing number of jurisdictions are taking on LPO ethical issues as adoption increases.

Despite flip-flopped seasons and toilets flushing in opposite directions, it appears Australian legal professionals are subject to some of the same pressures as their US and UK counterparts.

Recently, Chief Justice of New South Wales Jim Spigelman issued some provocative comments. He said, “Those responsible for purchasing legal services in commercial corporations are subject to pressure to reduce costs, in the same way as those responsible for any other cost centre… Outsourcing through the use of Indian-based support services, such as digital dictation transcription and document management for discovery and due diligence, is an available way of containing such costs… However, overseas legal services are not limited to administrative matters of this kind."

The expansion of LPO adoption beyond US and UK clientele is something we projected in our annual trending report – Ten for 2011: Top Ten Trends for Legal Outsourcing.

#4 Expanding Client Geographic/Jurisdictional Reach
In 2011, LPO services will be increasingly adopted in expanded areas domestically within the US and UK, as well as international destinations… Buyers of LPO services are likely to expand into other geographic destinations around the world such as Australia, South Africa and major business hubs in the Asia-Pacific region.

More details on the free report here.

The Australian markets are a growing area of focus lately with lots of movement in the industry. Firms Down Under continue seeking to address the changing needs of their international clients. Major UK firms like Clifford Chance and Norton Rose jockeying for an Australian partner. Advent continues to take strides forward as a leading LPO-integrated law firm. And fallout from the Rio Tinto deal, which seems so long ago, continues. Add the mix the recent comments made by Chief Justice Spigleman, and it’s no surprise perspectives are changing in the world below.

For additional details on the continuing LPO ethics debate and regulatory updates, check out our online resource; www.LPOethics.com

A&O Transfers Support Roles to Belfast

Allen & Overy (A&O) ­announced last week that it is transferring 180 support roles to Belfast, Ireland. A&O will initially transfer 18 members of support staff to Belfast to deliver IT, HR, finance, business services and library functions from a single site, The Lawyer reports, and the legal services center will take on some routine legal work. As many as 250 support roles could be based in the city by 2014, with total headcount including fee-earners potentially reaching 300.

The implications of A&O’s onshoring initiative are still being sorted out, particularly in light of Herbert Smith’s announcement of a Belfast-based captive center last year. Due to the growing interest in onshore legal outsourcing, we are planning to feature this topic in our newsletter this month. Be sure to sign up for our newsletter by e-mailing forefront@fronterion.com.

Thomson Reuters-Pangea3 Deal Raises Competitive Pressure

There’s no doubt that legal process outsourcing is changing the delivery of legal services. Thomson Reuter’s acquisition of Pangea3 last November has further fueled the LPO discussion and sparked debate among industry experts about the ethical implications of Thomson delving into competition with its client base, especially since Pangea3 plans to open more offices in the U.S.

In a recent article in the ABA Journal, several industry commentators, including myself, point out that the Thompson-Pangea3 deal has raised the competitive pressure for law firms both large and small. Innovative law firms will adjust their market approach and leverage LPO as a cost-effective way to accomplish repetitive and process-based work.

The full ramifications of Thompson Reuters backing an LPO will become clearer throughout the year. However, as clients grow more reluctant to pay top fees for commoditized, repeatable work, law firms must evaluate whether forming LPO partnerships will help them deliver services more efficiently.

Radiant Law Illuminates the London Legal Scene

As a follow-up on my earlier post about new and innovative law firm models coming out of the UK, this past week I was able to catch up with Alex Hamilton, formerly of Latham & Watkins, now a founder and principal at Radiant.law.

Alex and a handful of colleagues from several leading law firms and in-house legal teams have banded together to launch a boutique called radiant.law that specialises in outsourcing, technology and commercial work.

The endeavor has created a reasonably large splash in the London legal scene due to the unique nature of the firm which is predicated on fixed pricing, senior-level staffing, and the expansive use of an offshore legal process outsourcing vendor to deliver much of the necessary legal support services.

Alex offered some behind-the-scenes insight into radiant.law as well as some interesting projections for the rapidly changing legal market in London. As far as Radiant’s view for its role in the market, Alex explained, “We’re not interested in changing the legal market, but believe the legal market will become more diverse. Clients simply need more choice for how they purchase their legal services. Throughout our work at our respective firms before coming to Radiant we always thought there had to be smarter ways of doing this."

At Fronterion, we’ve often speculated on whether law firms will end up acting more like LPOs or if LPOs will begin to embrace more law firm-like characteristics. In a strong shift towards the former, Alex outlined a number of strategies that Radiant picked up from their selected LPO provider, Pangea3. “For example, we’re adopting the Pangea3 approach of building playbooks for the more repeatable work. These play books outline the preferred and fall back positions on common issues that are used by Pangea3 staff. Using this more process-driven approach, alongside better checklists for all lawyers working on the matter, allow us to deliver a more consistent and better value product to clients,” Alex said.

On the decision to make LPO a prominent part of Radiant and the significance of LPOs’ unique approach to deliver high-quality work, Alex noted that, “What jumped out of me almost immediately when we started working with our LPO was the quality, structure and process, the entrepreneurial and innovative attitude and how they kept refining their processes.”

“At Radiant we’re all outsourcing lawyers so we know how the outsourcing market has evolved in other industry sectors. Essentially, firms who first went offshore for labor arbitrage are now going to India to get the expertise of process-driven service delivery. We’re really starting to see this in the legal process outsourcing sector. The rigor of the LPO’s approach is very important to delivering better quality products to clients.”

On the role that legal outsourcing will play in their day-to-day work at Radiant, Alex noted, “The primary role of the LPO for larger deals will be keeping all of the transactional documents in good shape – particularly overnight. This not only improves quality, but the deal velocity. We can also offer better value fixed price support for the smaller day-to-day contracts where we can use Pangea3 to do initial reviews and mark-ups under our supervision. Going forward, we’re going to keep looking for ways to increase how we work together with our legal outsourcing vendor.”

On client interfacing: “We take full responsibility for the work product at Radiant so we’re always checking everything. We are also the people who the client deals with and we will be in the negotiations.”

Critics are skeptical about the ability of the Radiant’s exclusively senior-level team to scale up their time to make the practice viable, particularly without the help of junior-level assistants. Certainly much of Radiant’s success is predicated on its ability to leverage lower-level tasks with their LPO provider. Alex noted, “We hope to remain nimble and very open to adjusting our model to what works, but for the time being, I really think that we’re on to something.”

One small step for a boutique technology firm, one giant step for what law firms may look like in the future.

Trending Report Follow-up

As the LPO industry continues to mature and evolve, we will continue to keep you updated on trends and developments on legal process outsourcing. In case you missed it, last month we released our annual trending report on the top 10 LPO trends for the coming year. This report was featured in the ABA Journal as well as Legal Futures, Integreon’s blog and New Legal Review.

In our December newsletter we examined our LPO trend forecast from last year and, scoring each trend on a scale from one to five, reflected honestly on the accuracy of our predictions. Most of our predictions were on the mark and it will be interesting to see if our forecast for the year ahead will hold true. To subscribe to our newsletter or to review December’s edition, e-mail us at: Forefront@fronterion.com

Now that 2010 is officially in the books, we’re looking forward to keeping you apprised of all of the changes in the LPO industry in the coming year.

Stay tuned.

LPO Gains Momentum

Happy New Year! 2010 brought many changes to the LPO industry including new deals, new markets and onshore expansion. Undoubtedly, 2011 will bring more changes as LPO continues to gain momentum across the globe. In fact, the growth of LPO has garnered much attention in the media lately.

A recent article in the Chicago Tribune analyzes how the recession has spurred the growth of legal process outsourcing and alternatives to traditional legal services. Thomson Reuters’ acquisition of LPO giant Pangea3 and Axiom Global’s purchase of LawyerLink are recent testaments to “how alternatives to the traditional law firm are becoming increasingly attractive to buyers of sophisticated legal services in the post-financial-meltdown era.”

While alternatives to law firms are nothing new, business models that embrace legal process outsourcing have gained momentum in the wake of the recession by introducing innovative ways to reduce the costs of many legal tasks.

A story in The Economist also acknowledges the growth of legal outsourcing, noting that LPO is expanding at perhaps 20-30% a year, “for the simple reason that legal costs are out of control.” Given that large law firms’ hourly rates rose more than 65% between 1998 and 2009, it’s no wonder that firms are embracing outsourcing as a means to lower costs and increase efficiency.

Outsourcing will affect American legal firms the most, because U.S. law firms cost the most, according to The Economist, and the time-intensive process of discovery further drives up legal fees.

What do the lawyers think of the growth of LPO? “Some lawyers think outsourcing will be a blessing, taking away the drudgery and leaving them free to hone their higher skills,” the article reports. “Others are nervous. Machines will never replace the brightest American legal minds, but there is no reason why Indians cannot do some of their work. The sharpest firms will survive. So will mass-market law firms, which will make use of outsourcing. But the profession as a whole could be in for a squeeze.”

Only time will tell if legal process outsourcing will be a blessing or a challenge for U.S. lawyers. But, regardless of the lawyers’ plight, in 2011 we will continue to see unprecedented growth in the industry.

Global LPO Conference II

Day Two: Sunday November 14, 2010
Day two of the Global LPO Conference kicked off with a much anticipated panel featuring Lalit Bhasin and Mark Ross of Integreon (the only LPO named in the Writ Petition).

Bhasin started his address by acknowledging that the liberalization of the Indian legal profession was, “critical and controversial.” The primary thrust of his address was that domestic Indian law firms need to be offered a “level playing field” by liberalizing the legal profession (such as lifting restrictions on law firm adverting) in order to effectively compete with large, sophisticated international clients. Until these restrictions are lifted, foreign lawyers have no right to practice,“from the soil of this country.” International law firms need to ensure they are, “staying on the right side of the law.”

As optimistic as one may be about the resolution of the Writ, one should keep in mind that a similar case filed in Mumbai in 1997 was not effectively resolved until 2009.

Ross provided a presentation on the ethics of legal outsourcing. Mark Wyatt, founder of The Lawyer, LegalWeek and the European Lawyer provided an entertaining perspective on the importance of media plays in the creation of transparency in the legal profession.

The most interesting part of the panel session was the question and answer session which followed. Bhasin defended his views on the closed state of the Indian legal profession. Further discussion ensued. One standout comment was made by Ganesh Natarajan, industry veteran CEO of Mindcrest, He said, we [LPO industry] are like “Moses parting the Red Sea” meaning that everyone in the industry is pulling in the same direction, but it takes time to accomplish the goals.

A number of additional speakers addressed a many different issues concerning the LPO industry, more than I possibly have room for, at this point.

More details in the upcoming November issue of our Fronterion Forefront newsletter. To sign-up for the newsletter, email forefront@fronterion.com

Global LPO Conference

This weekend I had the pleasure of attending and speaking at the second Global LPO Conference in Delhi, India. The conference was a unique experience with a diverse collection of LPO industry participants and speakers.

Day One: Saturday November 13, 2010
The conference kicked off with a panel of LPO executives from Pangea3, Bhodi Global, Mindcrest and Integreon. Highlights included Mark Ross, representing Integreon,stating that the conversation with law firms has changed from “why LPO to how.” Sanjay Kamlani, representing Pangea3, noted that since clients have now seen LPO work and have proven it’s an effective concept, new adaptors are more likely to start working with LPOs in a much bigger way. Kamlani went on to state that he was “seeing growth that is different than in the past years.”

Another panel featured Abhi Shah of Clutch, and Nigel Kissack of Pinsent Masons. Abhi extolled the need for LPO vendors with global reach to use a global delivery platform. Kissack shared his experiences establishing a captive document review service in South Africa. Kissack jokingly acknowledged that he, “invented the LPO, but had no idea that the industry had already existed.”

Following lunch, the highlight of the entire two-day event was a panel discussion featuring Alison Hook of the Law Society, Sakth Venkataraman of Cobra and me.

Hook started off by providing an update on the professional bodies who are shaping the ethical and regulatory guidelines regarding LPO. Hook urged delegates to engage with governments and bar counsels about LPO to create better understanding of the LPO industry by those who are regulating the legal profession.

I followed with a session discussion of how selling LPO services to law firms is, “one of the most unique things you have even done.”

The day concluded with a final session lead by Richard Reade of ISS and Antony Alex of Pangea3. Reade provided insightful and entertaining commentary about his work with an Indian-based LPO provider. Reade concluded by urging LPOs to deliver on quality and deadlines so he would not be “spanked” by the members of his board.

Such ended the first day of the conference which was followed by a gala dinner for delegates. More details on day two of the conference to follow…

Work It Out: Tri-party Line

Conversations between general counsel and their law firm counsel regarding LPO are increasingly important. These discussions should include when and if to utilize an outside LPO vendor. That topic is the central theme of my recent article in Berwin Leighton Paisner’s “Work It Out” journal.

The article is entitled, Tri-party Line: The integration of outside vendors into the delivery of legal and support services is one of the most significant developments affecting the legal profession...

The piece highlights issues that in-house legal teams should address and pitfalls to avoid when working within the tri-party relationship. As noted in the article, “The two primary challenges are managing the tri-party relationship – between in- house team, the law firm and the legal outsourcing vendor – and ensuring ethical compliance and adherence to professional standards by all parties.”

Attorneys in law firms and in-house counsels need to anticipate and prepare for these types of relationships which will be increasing in number in the future at LPO becomes a more common practice.

Ante Up: Law firms and the “Fortunate Few”

One of the concerns of law firms that we see at Fronterion involving the integration of legal process outsourcing vendors into their practice is the real or perceived disruption of partner-track associates. The work which first and second year law firm associates previously “cut their teeth on” (read document review) is slowly diminishing with the increased use of outside legal vendors based domestically in the US and UK, as well as abroad.

The comments in several recent publications highlight the growing focus, and also acceptance, of the changing nature of the legal profession with the use of outside legal vendors to perform “routine, repetitious work.”

William Michael Treanor, newly appointed dean of the Georgetown University Law Center, made several interesting comments on the topic of recent law graduate career opportunities in the Washington Post’s Capital Business.

As reported by the ABA Journal, Treanor said, “Grads who opt for law firm jobs are likely to see the nature of their work change as clients refuse to pay associates for routine, repetitious work... As a result, ‘we'll see more outsourcing and contract employment. So associates will be doing more work that is truly lawyerly work.’”

We’ve seen Georgetown take some very positive, pro-active stances as the legal profession changes, for which we applaud them.

In a related article featured in AM Law Daily, Steven Harper echoes Treanor’s remarks regarding the advancement of the “fortunate few”, those law firm associates who will work on more substantive legal matters as a result of legal outsourcing.

“Instead of the mind-numbing tasks that are the bane of so many young lawyers' lives, associates will find themselves doing work that more closely resembles what they thought being a lawyer meant when they first decided to attend law school.”

More succinctly stated in my book, a senior litigation partner at a large UK-based law firm said this about routine tasks increasingly delegated to outside legal vendors, “Our attorneys didn’t go to law school for that.”

The caveat for this potential advancement for associates to perform more interesting and engaging projects is that law firms may require fewer associates to work through their large, document-heavy matters. Reading between the lines, it looks like law students, with the help of law schools, will have to be more entrepreneurial and seek to develop niche skill sets to make themselves more valuable in the changing legal profession.

Great Expectations: Follow the money

Where private equity funding is going is a good indicator of where change is happening. The Law Society Gazette and The Lawyer report that private equity firms are increasingly interested in investing in the LPO industry.

Despite the great expectations for the industry, profitability is may be a quest for a number of LPOs and some financial models are currently under scrutiny. Withstanding these challenges legal outsourcing is here to stay. These growth dynamics represent a broader industry change of the integration of outside vendors into the practice of law.

Fronterion “Wall of Silence” Survey Round-up

Our survey findings released this past week have captured the attention of a number of online publications and blogs. The survey results seem to have number of people hypothesizing why US firms are so hesitant to acknowledge or deny their use of LPO vendors, even on a confidential basis. Based on our experiences, we would purport that uncertainty with ethical guidelines is one of the key drivers to this silence. Worries of negative press may be another.

Below is a short news round-up.

ABA Journal

Above the Law

About.com

India Writ Petition: Update

As earlier reported on the blog, a petition was filed in the Madras High Court by the Association of Indian Lawyers against an array of international law firms and one LPO vendor, Integreon. The bases for the petition being that the named firms were practicing law in Indian jurisdictions.

Because of what many consider a notoriously slow legal system, is comes with little surprise that the next hearing on the issue has been pushed back to August 4th, as reported by Bloomberg.

The wider implication for the LPO market is yet to be seen. Many industry participants don’t feel that the position taken by the Association of Indian Lawyers is merited nor will influence the use LPOs, but it may raise more concerns for potential clients.

As aptly stated by a partner at the US-based Fulbright & Jaworski, “That’s not what a globalizing country and corporate sector needs.”

Additional commentary was also released by Legally India.

SRA Public Announcement

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has released their first public statement on the application of outsourced legal services for solicitors practicing in England and Wales.

As originally reported by our LPO Ethics Resource Center (www.LPOethics.com), the SRA release states, “Where law firms are outsourcing some of their legal or administrative work to other law firms or non law firms, the SRA's guidance is that this is allowed on the basis that all relevant rules are complied with (Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007) and that the arrangement is made transparent and is agreed with the client.”

The statement continues with the SRA citing existing ethical guidelines deeming them applicable to outsourced legal services.

In conclusion, the SRA notes, “In accepting work from a client, the firm must always consider whether the work should be outsourced at all as they should have the necessary resources and competency to undertake the task. In summary a firm must act in the best interests of their client and comply with their core duties.”

It’s been reported the Law Society is currently exploring these issues, but has yet to formally comment on the topic of LPO.

The recent announcement to UK solicitors by the SRA stands in contrast to lawyers in US jurisdictions who have been able to rely on ethical guidance provided as early as 2006 in some jurisdictions. The most notable guidance in the United States is Opinion 08-451 issued by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility in 2008.

Additional details on the complete SRA legal outsourcing statement are available on our recently launched LPO Ethics Resource Center (www.LPOethics.com).

The LPO Ethics Resource Center is a free resource that allows legal professionals to keep abreast on up-to-date information on the ethical policies and opinions relevant to outsourced legal services. This site compiles all of the latest information and breaking news regarding legal process outsourcing into one convenient resource.

Fronterion Announcements: Study findings and LPOethics.com launch

We are proud to announce two very exciting developments at Fronterion this week.

The first is the 2010 Global Sourcing Study: AM Law 50, which polled 30 of the top 50 US law firms concerning their positions on legal outsourcing. The findings were reported on in today's ABA Journal, Are Top US Law Firms Outsourcing Some Legal Work? 83% Won’t Say.

Complete findings and analyses are available in the 2010 Global Sourcing Study: AM Law 50 report. Contact GlobalSourcing@fronterion.com for additional details. The press release - WALL OF SILENCE SURROUNDS NASCENT LEGAL OUTSOURCING INDUSTRY – highlights the findings from the study. As reported in the press release, “while many US law firms are using outsourcing providers for the first time, few are willing to admit it in public, leading to a culture of secrecy around an increasingly important development within the legal services industry.”

Our second announcement is the launch of the LPO Ethics Resource Center at www.LPOethics.com. As reported on the website, “The LPO Ethics Resource Center is a free resource that allows legal professionals to keep abreast with up-to-date information on the ethical policies and opinions relevant to outsourced legal services. This site compiles all of the latest information and breaking news regarding legal process outsourcing into one convenient resource.”

The resource is targeted for legal professionals in both the US and the UK.

We are very excited about making Resource Center available due to the expected number of developments in legal outsourcing ethics in the forthcoming 12 months.

More details on both announcements will be provided later this week.

C5 Conference Wrap-up

While a bit thinly attended in comparison to previous events in London, the C5 Legal Process Outsourcing conference was certainly a success in terms of discussion and speaker caliber.

One high point was the discussion on captive delivery centers led by three very knowledgeable men who are involved in the field of outsourcing. These included Evangelos Apostolou (BT Vice President and Chief Counsel APAC who established and managed the BT legal outsourcing captive in Delhi – including the recent transfer to UnitedLex), Mark Ford (director of the Clifford Chance Knowledge Centre), and Paul Rawlinson (Global Chair of Baker & McKenzie’s IP Practice who oversees Baker & McKenzie’s global delivery of IP services).

A key theme arising from the discussions was the perspective that LPO is one of a suite of cost saving measures available to general counsel. Of the conferences that I have attended, the C5 conference provided the most insight into the in-house legal teams’ outsourcing perspective (both to LPO’s and their outside counsel). Prominent general counsel speaking at the event included Richard Reade of ISS, Richard Tapp of Carillion, David Symonds of Tyco, Stephan Regius of Borealis AG, Pavel Klimov of Unisys, and previously mentioned Apostolou of BT.

The smaller event size allowed for some highly interactive and insightful discussions on issues ranging from pricing, oversight responsibilities, day-to-day challenges of managing global service delivery and ethical issues surrounding outsourced legal services.

My thanks go out to all of the speakers at the event for sharing their insights, to C5 for the privilege of chairing the conference proceedings, and to all participated who made the event a fruitful one.

LPO Encore

Law 21 author Jordan Furlong outlined some good thoughts on the legal outsourcing industry in his recent post, The Evolution of Outsourcing. In particular, I appreciated his points about what he described as the LPO “encore” – innovation. More details are available on Law 21.

The post was met with the predictable Above the Law blog snub – complete with apocalyptic tidal wave picture in the event the ominous commentary was not entirely clear. For a more complete perspective on the Furlong piece, the Above the Law commentary is an interesting read.

Help Wanted

Another sign of expanding career opportunities for legal professions is exemplified by Pinsent Masons’ decision to create a new enterprise outsourcing role as they expand their outsourcing presence.

As noted in the 2010 Global Sourcing Study and the Fronterion 2010 trending report, the roles of legal professionals and opportunities are expanding considerably as a result of increased integration of outside vendors, both domestically and abroad.

More on the article is available through The Lawyer.