Page 175 - 2019 - Leaders in Legal Business (n)
P. 175
As a result, some in-house legal teams are now bigger than traditional law firms and run as
a business unit themselves. The operating model of each in-house team is as varied as the
businesses they serve, as most tailor their operating structure to align with their corporate entity
and its business goals. This makes a diverse customer base to support from a legal resourcing
perspective, each with its own requirements, opportunities, and challenges around recruitment and
retention.
Outsourcing
An alternative or addition to the in-source model is to outsource legal services provisions.
In its purest form, this is the original model: to instruct an external law firm how to manage legal
matters. The last 30 years or so, however, have provided a variety of outsource options where the
legal work is unbundled and separated out into its constituent parts. The main areas of growth have
been to:
1. Off-shore, on-shore, or near-shore low-value, low-risk, repetitive work to paralegals or
lower-cost legal providers in a systemized process-heavy environment.
2. Bring in secondees to cover team absences, growth, or gaps, or bring in temporary
resources to work with the in-house team.
3. Move work to a technology solution – for example, contract management and e-signature
tools, document creation and automation tools, eDiscovery for document review, and more.
Flexible Legal Resourcing fits all of these categories. As an alternative to a traditional law
firm, the ALSP model broadly provides contract lawyers who are able to work on temporary
assignments or projects. Often they will also have in-house experience so they are more readily
available to hit the ground running when joining a team and understand the commercial aspects of
the legal advice to be provided. Costs are usually fixed on a day rate or fixed fee, providing price
certainty for buyers. The lawyers will work either on- or off-site and as and when needed, so for
short projects or part-time assignments. The overall relationship is managed by the ALSP, so the
payment and business management of the flex lawyer is undertaken by the ALSP, reducing the
burden on the customer and freeing the lawyer to focus on legal advice rather than admin.
Managing the cost of resourcing – is in-sourcing the answer?
Cost pressures remain a driving force for the continued growth of the in-house legal team,
but budgets for legal spend are still being reduced. However, many GCs have started to realise that
in-sourcing is not the long-term solution. GCs looking at innovative ways to manage their
resourcing gaps, especially at the mid- to senior-end of the market, have started to lock in deals
with ALSPs to resource and manage a pool of senior talent to support their legal and commercial
teams on an ad hoc basis. This model provides ongoing flexibility and bespoke outsourcing, which
can be aligned with business goals.
No two in-house teams have the same operating model, so each one will generally require
a bespoke solution. Here are a few examples of how it works for clients with different
requirements.
160
a business unit themselves. The operating model of each in-house team is as varied as the
businesses they serve, as most tailor their operating structure to align with their corporate entity
and its business goals. This makes a diverse customer base to support from a legal resourcing
perspective, each with its own requirements, opportunities, and challenges around recruitment and
retention.
Outsourcing
An alternative or addition to the in-source model is to outsource legal services provisions.
In its purest form, this is the original model: to instruct an external law firm how to manage legal
matters. The last 30 years or so, however, have provided a variety of outsource options where the
legal work is unbundled and separated out into its constituent parts. The main areas of growth have
been to:
1. Off-shore, on-shore, or near-shore low-value, low-risk, repetitive work to paralegals or
lower-cost legal providers in a systemized process-heavy environment.
2. Bring in secondees to cover team absences, growth, or gaps, or bring in temporary
resources to work with the in-house team.
3. Move work to a technology solution – for example, contract management and e-signature
tools, document creation and automation tools, eDiscovery for document review, and more.
Flexible Legal Resourcing fits all of these categories. As an alternative to a traditional law
firm, the ALSP model broadly provides contract lawyers who are able to work on temporary
assignments or projects. Often they will also have in-house experience so they are more readily
available to hit the ground running when joining a team and understand the commercial aspects of
the legal advice to be provided. Costs are usually fixed on a day rate or fixed fee, providing price
certainty for buyers. The lawyers will work either on- or off-site and as and when needed, so for
short projects or part-time assignments. The overall relationship is managed by the ALSP, so the
payment and business management of the flex lawyer is undertaken by the ALSP, reducing the
burden on the customer and freeing the lawyer to focus on legal advice rather than admin.
Managing the cost of resourcing – is in-sourcing the answer?
Cost pressures remain a driving force for the continued growth of the in-house legal team,
but budgets for legal spend are still being reduced. However, many GCs have started to realise that
in-sourcing is not the long-term solution. GCs looking at innovative ways to manage their
resourcing gaps, especially at the mid- to senior-end of the market, have started to lock in deals
with ALSPs to resource and manage a pool of senior talent to support their legal and commercial
teams on an ad hoc basis. This model provides ongoing flexibility and bespoke outsourcing, which
can be aligned with business goals.
No two in-house teams have the same operating model, so each one will generally require
a bespoke solution. Here are a few examples of how it works for clients with different
requirements.
160
