2 October 2012Print This Post

Susskind: firms starting to embrace new ways of working as ‘legal factories’ loom

chea toms outlet
nike free 5.0

Susskind: clients focused on “outcomes and processes”

Pressure from in-house lawyers has encouraged some law firms to come out of denial and realise that they need to find new ways to handle and price work, legal IT guru Professor Richard Susskind has claimed.

However, the author of The End of Lawyers? said there was still considerable resistance among lawyers to alternative fee arrangements (AFAs), which generally end up being a variation of the hourly billing model.

In an exclusive interview with Legal Futures, Professor Susskind said recent invitations to tender coming out of major legal departments are expressly asking firms how they are going to source the work, leading law firms to ask how they go about changing the way they operate.

General counsel have been asking him to advise on such tenders, and are now far less interested in the traditional response of “capabilities and credentials”; instead they are focused on “outcomes and processes”. He explained: “The clients are now interested not just in how you work today but where you think you’ll be as a law firm in three years’ time. How will you be working differently and will you be the kind of firm they’ll want to work with in x years’ time?”

As a result, “law firms have got to the end of the denial period”, with his consulting work shifting from advising managing partners on helping their firms to understand the need to change to dealing with practice heads on devising an actual strategy to achieve it: “The question now is ‘How do we go about rethinking the way we deliver our services? How do we go about analysing what we do, how do we go about managing it a different way, how do we decide whether or not we should be doing this routine work internally or externally?’”

The academic has previously spoken of new roles developing, such as legal process analyst, legal project manager and legal knowledge engineer, and he said that while that’s not the language law firms use, these are the people they are actually seeking.

He explained: “Regularly major firms are saying to me, ‘Do you know anyone who can come in and have a look at our corporate practice or our litigation practice and do some analysis of it? Maybe some flow charts and think through some ways of achieving efficiencies and identify where we might be able to do that work differently but doing it in a more structured systematic way because we don’t have the internal experience?

“It’s a really common question. And that’s when I say, ‘Well, actually, I call that person a legal process analyst. The bad news is that there aren’t that many of them around'.”

He insisted that such people are a species of lawyer because while they need non-legal skills, they also require “quite a lot of legal insight to know what the nature of the problem is, how best to break it down, how best to resource it and so forth”.

It means the traditional law firm pyramid “has got to break up”; law firms essentially have two branches, Professor Susskind said: the specialist division and the process division. “I believe we will have legal factories, legal production centres where the routine work is done in different places.” These might be inshored or offshored, and may be shared with other law firms or clients. Even though the high-end work may stay in their current locations, firms will have to justify the cost of doing so, he added.

When it comes to AFAs, he said clients should ask law firms two questions: Will this make you less profitable? Are you going to be working differently to deliver this? “If the answer to both of these questions is no, and it usually is, then you see that it is just the old model.” Many lawyers “genuinely believe” that what they do is unique and that hourly billing is outdated for all areas of law except their own.

Professor Susskind said that many AFA proposals are actually quite hard to understand and in the end clients just ask for a discount in the hourly rates, leading the lawyers – wrongly – to think they didn’t really want an AFA. This leads to a 10% benefit to the client when actually they need substantially more.

At the same time, he said some firms are “slicing and pricing”, or task-based pricing that identifies the different tasks involved in a job and pricing them in different ways. He added: “I shouldn’t be too cynical with pricing because sometimes the big thing is not the overall cost but the certainty. So fixed costs, even though they would be the same as if on an hourly billing basis, can help, whether for accounting purposes, internal expectation management or for a message to the market purposes.”

Pundits often ask whether Professor Susskind’s predictions have come to pass. On this one, he said it is starting to: “It’s moving from pricing differently to working differently.”

text your ex back review

To be continued

 

zp8497586rq

By Legal Futures

Tags: , ,

Sign up to our free e-newsletter


No Responses to “Susskind: firms starting to embrace new ways of working as ‘legal factories’ loom”

  1. It’s true, there aren’t that many legal process analysts around with the combined skill sets and experience required, but we do exist!

  2. Martin Langan on October 2nd, 2012 at 2:18 pm
  3. Predictions? Really?

    The issue is not that law firms – and now GCs and teams of GCs – are having to do this without a ppol of talent to draw on, it is that law firms in particular are simply not that good at it.

    Why? Usually over-engineering. Why? It’s what they know best. The problem remains finding good people who will pin their careers on a whim of fickle and often commercially naive ‘pilot project leaders’ with a real job to do elsewhere… There is no shortage of process focused lawyers outside private practice – there at lest as many of them around now as there are certificated solicitors. Its just none of them would hang their mortgage on what private practitioners have to offer.

    The other real problem for law firms is sticking power. Some firms, DWF spring to mind, have blazed trails here in the past and done so well. But most law firms seem too happy to settle for a podium position in the regional finals rather than press on to Nationals, let alone Olympics. It is very hard to sustain superior performance in several areas, and when push comes to shove, the effort always goes to the core business.

    The assumption that the level of legal engineering is poor or in some sense behind the times among in-house teams, however, is simply wrong. It is exceptionally good – good enough to be showing up publishers, outsourcers, IT teams and others on a regular basis. But its low profile, very industry specific and typically low budget – and probably all the more effective for that.

  4. David R Johnston on October 3rd, 2012 at 9:09 am
  5. Legal factories will encourage more use of computer automation tools (eDisclosure, eBundling) and without a tight grip on process the use of these tools will cause accelerated problems that were never seen in manual processes. Pay attention to process and the automation tools become the cost-reducers they should be.

  6. Paul Sachs on October 4th, 2012 at 9:54 am
  7. Yesterday we organised a seminar for HR professionals of big(ger) law Firms on NWoW (New ways of working). It turned out that most firms were not discussing this theme and those who were, were highly divided, specially on issues as safety and confidentaility.
    Where have I heard this discussion before?? Starting with email traffic/ sending a doucment by email!?

  8. Christ'l Dullaert on October 5th, 2012 at 2:43 pm




Legal Futures Report

 

This first Legal Futures Special Report, in association with Thomson Reuters, examines the changing face of City law firms. It demonstrates how far City law firms have moved in a relatively short period of time, mainly (but not exclusively) in response to the recession and the demands of their clients.

Legal Futures Blog

It’s harder on the phone

Old fashioned phone

It’s been nearly two years since we launched our Excellence Mark programme of client service support for LawNet member firms. And during this time we’ve completed over 1,000 mystery shopping exercises which have revealed some interesting insights for our firms. One of the things that stands out is the discrepancy that still exists between the scores achieved for the walk-in mystery shopping enquiries and those made on the phone.

November 26th, 2014