Innovative Methods of Delivery

‘Competition’, ‘innovation’, ‘new business models’, ‘new entrants’, ‘creativity’; all words and phrases that are being bandied round the legal market with increasing frequency at the moment.  To what extent has the market responded?  Are those who provide legal services really as slow to react as many argue?  A quick canter through some of the developments just in terms of the delivery of personnel might stop some of those naysayers in their tracks.

Let’s take a look at Acculaw (now known as Accutrainee) first.  Deemed an “innovative approach to solving the challenges law firms face in recruiting appropriate numbers of trainees and managing their cost” by none other than Tony Angel (ex-Managing Partner of Linklaters), Accutrainee recruits trainees and seconds them to law firms and in house legal departments in accordance with their requirements.  Accutrainee employs trainee solicitors under a SRA approved training contract and is responsible for the trainees and for ensuring that all SRA requirements are met or exceeded.  The ‘sell’ is that Acculaw minimises the risk, uncertainty and headache of sourcing trainees.

What about qualified lawyers?  There have been many developments in this area, so I can only pick out a handful.  One innovative delivery business that is on a massive expansion drive is Obelisk Legal Support (OLS). Billed as a legal outsourcing business “with a heart”, OLS uses former City lawyers to provide law firms and in-house departments with temporary support.  The “with a heart” bit comes from the fact that the model helps highly skilled people to remain engaged with the workplace until they are ready to commit again to full time or part time employment.  OLS allocates and manages the work based on the principle of ‘pooled capacity’ – each lawyer gives the time they have available around their family, typically a few hours per day.  According to OLS’s Chief Executive, demand from mid-tier firms is growing fast as they seek alternative ways to manage the peaks and troughs in their work.

Another innovative model is Virtual Law, working in association with the Practical Law Company.  Virtual Law provides businesses with access to cost-effective legal services without compromising quality of service and advice.  The lack of partnership structure and high administrative costs and overheads helps to ensure an efficient service at very cost-effective prices. 

What about existing law firms? Are they being left behind? Well, a couple of examples show that this is clearly not the case.  What about BLP’s Lawyers on Demand (LOD) service? This is a legal resourcing solution for in-house counsel designed to deal with cost pressures, a mounting workload or other resourcing challenges. The LOD service comprises a team of more than 80 “high-quality, flexible lawyers who will provide your business with a premium legal resource at a low cost base. They work directly with clients on a contract basis, either at client offices or remotely”.  The idea is that by establishing a team of freelance lawyers all supported by BLP, LOD is able to provide a service which combines the commercial approach and flexibility of an in-house resource with the support and quality assurance of a major law firm.

BLP are by no means the only firm taking this approach.  Eversheds have a similar service, Eversheds Agile, launched as a pilot in September of last year, but converted into a permanent fixture only five months later.  Enabling clients to bolster their in-house legal teams with lawyers supervised and indemnified by Eversheds, Agile’s roster had now grown to almost 80 lawyers by March of this year, with around 20 of the firm’s clients having used the scheme to that date.

This is of course without even looking at the innovative models rising up around delivery of services themselves, from firms’ own paralegal centres (see Addleshaw Goddard in particular), to ‘behind the scenes’ innovations from companies such as Eqoq and their Direct Law model. 

Slow to respond.  Traditional.  Conservative.  Is it really fair that the legal market is pigeon-holed in this way?

A confusing world for aspiring lawyers?

Much is talked these days about the wonderful opportunities and new potential routes that are on offer for aspiring lawyers.  There is no doubt that the landscape looks so different now for someone with an intention to become legally qualified.  However, is all this choice a good thing?

A school leaver, with an inkling that they might want to be a ‘lawyer’ when they grow up, can now take so many different paths.  Of course there is the first decision, not a new one, which is whether or not to do a law degree (figures change slightly year on year but generally about half of those who qualify as solicitors are non-law graduates).  Even for those who choose to do a law degree, the path is not straightforward.  Do they stick to a ‘traditional’ three year law degree?  Do they go for a three year law degree ‘with a twist’, such as the excellent problem-based learning degree at York University (as previously, I must declare an interest here as I do some tutoring on this course)?  Do they go for the new two-year degree being offered by the College of Law? Or do they go for the five-year course at Northumbria, which combines the academic, vocational and training stages all in one?

Degree in the bag, what’s the next stage?  Focusing on those looking to become solicitors, the decision of where to do your LPC is no longer straightforward (assuming you are in a position to have a choice).  Options for LPC are now more varied than ever, albeit that some of these are tied to particular firms.   The most recent additions to the LPC stable are the MA (LPC with Business) being offered to Reed Smith prospective trainees, and the new internationally focused LPC being offered by the College of Law in association with CMS Cameron McKenna. 

Of course all of this must be examined in the context of the ongoing Legal Education and Training Review (LETR).  As has been widely publicised, more common training of would-be lawyers, abolishing the concept of a qualifying law degree, sector-wide CPD, and scrapping the training contract and pupillage are among the more radical options being considered by the LETR.  With a core mission being to simplify routes in and around the profession, ensuring a “structure that increases choice over the processes of qualification, whilst delivering greater certainty to the professions and to consumers as to the quality of outcomes achieved”, it will be fascinating to see where the LETR will end up in terms of recommendations. 

Then you have the ‘Mayson’ approach. Professor Stephen Mayson has argued, in a recent paper authored with John Randall and published in February of this year, that an (improved) LPC should be the gateway to qualification as a solicitor but that there should be post qualification requirements for those practising in reserved areas.  Of course this approach does raise the question (neatly asked by Professor Richard Moorhead in his Lawyer Watch blog) of what exactly is the point of a title that doesn’t entitle you to do anything.

Even limiting the discussion to the system as is, aspiring lawyers have a much wider choice now in terms of what type of organisation to work for once the academic and vocational stages have been completed.  For barristers, there is now so much more on offer than just a traditional chambers. The same goes for solicitors – do you join a traditional partnership, do you join a firm that has a corporate structure (according to a recent blog by Viv Williams, CEO of Legal Futures Associate 360 Legal Group, 25% of the legal profession now trades as limited companies), do you join a firm that is non-lawyer owned and if so, does the identity of such owner inform your decision?

Choice can be a wonderful thing, but I do hope that today’s aspiring lawyers do not find themselves too overwhelmed. 

Nothing out of the ordinary then.......

So, now that ‘D-Day’ has come and gone (both the false one and the real one) what has actually happened?

Irwin Mitchell has grabbed the very recent headlines by appointing Glyn Barker, former vice-chairman and managing partner of PwC, with all the connections and knowhow he brings, as its new Chairman-elect.  Having declared its intention some time previously to take advantage of the new ownership and investment laws for law firms, this is a positive but sensible and expected step to take in terms of Irwin Mitchell’s long-term plans.

Along with Irwin Mitchell, around 55 other applications have been made to the SRA to form alternative business structures (ABSs).  The Co-op, included in this number, have started on an ambitious expansion programme, with family law being a particular focus for growth following its high profile hires at the end of last year.  Premier Property Lawyers, one of the largest conveyancing businesses in the country, became the first ever ABS back in October, gaining its licence of course from the Council for Licenced Conveyancers rather than the SRA. 

Meanwhile, DLA Piper has become a minority stakeholder in LawVest, a holding company that aims to launch an ABS aimed at small to medium sized entities this year.  The company is developing a ‘market-disrupting brand, pricing and service delivery model’ for business clients.  Regional accountancy firm Spofforths has stated that it plans to become an ABS and offer clients the full range of private client legal services.  ‘Virtual’ law firm Everyman legal has made public its intention to seek admission onto Sharemark – the stock market for small companies – in the last quarter of 2012 so as to fund growth and attract more solicitors to the business.  Legal expenses insurer DAS has acquired online legal services company Everything Legal as it prepares for ABS conversion. 

In other developments, Quality Solicitors (QS) still attracts the headlines.  With the cash injection from private equity house Palamon Capital Partners that it received towards the end of last year, the plan is to have over 1000 branches by the end of this year.  Legal Access Points are coming through into WHSmiths stores now, and Craig Holt has also confirmed that QS will introduce online legal services.  Talking of online, In-Deed, the AIM listed company that is looking to become an ABS and  invest into law firms, has found the going harder than expected in terms of converting online quotes into actual work, so has had to resort to using real people to contact potential clients.  QS aren’t the only ones looking at innovative delivery of legal services – the first video-conferencing kiosk to give instant access to a solicitors was launched in the Queensgate Shopping Centre in Peterbrough at the end of last year, the precursor to a network of 120 kiosks in shopping centres around the country by the end of 2012.  The service is also available to home users via a Skype-type system that Instant Law have developed. 

Oh, and a survey has been released showing that law firms and other legal providers that offer consumers fixed fees “are more likely to have a clear competitive advantage” over those that bill by the hour.

Is anything in this canter through of recent developments a surprise?  The short answer is no.  For the most part it seems that those in the news are those who had already widely trailed their intentions.  The thinking is that many of the 55 (as I write) applicants are perhaps just on a fishing expedition, keen to see what the full-form application will entail.  Other developments such as those made by Instant Law (and the yet more franchising brands being set up) are following a pre-existing pattern, following on from continuing and well-known market pressures. So where is the Big Bang, where are the shocks to the system?  Does that list of 55 contain any game-changing names or entities?  I do hope so…..