A&O signs outsourcing deal with LPO provider Integreon

Readers' comments (17)

• Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 5:24 pm

  Outsourcing makes sense. For clients, they get a reduced bill; for competent lawyers who aren't insecure about the value they believe they add, it lets them focus on the more complex aspects of work. Most of the aforegoing comments seem to come from lawyers in law firms. If, for just a moment, some law firm associates stepped outside of their (arrogant) world, they just might realise outsourcing makes commercial sense - and clients rightly expect law firms to achieve their objectives via the lowest possible cost. As regards training, most of the time inhousers have to educate expensive law firm associates anyway, so I doubt much would be lost there.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 8:02 pm

  No one would argue that clients should always receive value for money from their legal advisers. Solicitors are supposed to act in their clients' best interests (there's a professional practice code that dictates this). But have partners in these firm's really exhausted every avenue possible to deliver client service using GB plc talent within clients' budget expectations? Why are a significant proportion of clients/in house counsel fixated on instructing a coterie of firms to provide their legal services? Isn't that a recipe for large legal bills? Why are a similar proportion of client's still enslaved by the external law firms' "chargeable hour"? Are clients really comfortable knowing that the next generation of senior UK lawyers/partners have not had practical experience of so called "less complex" tasks (e.g. document review is being outsourced - if this relates to litigation, that process is called "discovery" and is a critical part of the litigation process) graduating to more complex aspects? Don't the partners in law firm's set the hourly rates of their associates? All external lawyers (young and old) usually have a learning curve when advising a new client/industry sector. Are clients really content that young UK lawyers starting out should not receive training, safe in the knowledge that if these people do not understand the clients' business, there is someone overseas who does? Isn't it right that home grown talent should be nurtured?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 20-Nov-2009 7:02 pm

  In respect to the outsourcing of discovery document review , lpo's have been marketing directly to GC's with great success here in the US. Touting significantly less hourly rates for 1st pass review than big law can afford for the filtering out of non relevant documents which can be hundreds of thousands in the digital era of Litigation. It should be noted that further cost saving efficiencies can be provided with technology such as pattern matching and auto coding for relevancy and the human element is reduced further from reviewing the irrelevant set allowing big law to focus on the relevant issues and documents to the litigation thereby removing the lpo need all together.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Bubba Gump | 22-Nov-2009 3:47 pm

  Lower operating costs = higher profit. Let's hope that there is no compromise in quality.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 25-Nov-2009 5:10 pm

  Probably makes the most sense for the absolute top tier practices - the focus for the likes of A&O is really on the high end quality work that requires more innovative and clever legal thinking. That inevitably brings in a certain volume of lower end work that can be commoditised and outsourced/offshored. Done properly, that doesn't need the same quality of lawyer and means those firms can run on a much leaner basis in expensive locations like London whilst focussing on fewer clients and higher value work.
  
  I suspect it's more of a threat to associates at the likes of DLA who tackle exactly that tier and type of work.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 25-Nov-2009 5:15 pm

  Those who think that this is an ominous development for law graduates may not have actually conducted a 400,000 document review. The retention rate of lawyers actually increased in a certain firm's New York office when outsourcing was introduced on that side of the pond, since the lawyers were actually able to do what they are good at, lawyering, rather than reviewing traders' e-mails for relevance.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Madan | 1-Nov-2012 11:20 am

  Thanks to Luke for articulating the enormous growth of LPO industry. Most of the US law firms have started outsourcing their legal work. Sourcing work to low cost centers helps the firms achieve cost savings, quicker turnaround time and higher quality services. India is one such region for providing quality graded, cost conscious services. TaurusQuest also provides high quality legal services at lower cost.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment