CC makes savings by offshoring paralegals to India

  • Print
  • Comments (24)

Readers' comments (24)

  • Come on!

    Wake up: law firms are businesses.

    Like all businesses, they seek to make the most money possible for their stakeholders. And if farming out work to where it can be done more cheaply is possible, then any business would do that unless there is a good business reason not to.

    Likewise any other move that can cut costs, provided it's legal.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re : Come On

    "Stakeholders....." Swallowed that US management book you bought at the airport have you? Get out of my sight with the bingo nonsense.

    For years, firms like this have grown their talent in house.

    What's more, they've charged out trainees that they pay a pittance to at £100 per hour in some cases, so they GET PAID TO TRAIN THEIR STAFF sportsfans!

    This is short sighted greed which will ruin the lives of many, in order for a few wealthy equity partners to trouser another £5k each on top of their million plus.

    Where do the graduates go now? Where do the paralegals go now? Sorry, this is nonsense management.

    What do I, as a GC do? Do I go to a firm which uses on site UK employees who are supervised and nurtured, and who become my friends, and the Senior Associates of tomorrow, or do I use a faceless "sausage factory" where my work is nothing more than a means to extract money from my "stakeholders" [euch]?

    Exactly. CC have shot themselves in their handmade brogues here. Repulsive decision.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Astonishing arrogance

    City Partner speaks for his kind very well. As does Malcolm. The saddest thing of all is that people like you do not fully appreciate that the law is a PROFESSION. And a noble one at that.

    If it is to survive, it needs to put in place a sustainable business model and invest in the people who will be its future long after people like you have headed off into the sunset. Like your predecessors used to.

    The big city firms are sadly now utterly unable to see any other priority than maximising PEP. It is, frankly, pathetic.

    Who do you think, in the long term, will want to go into this profession? Why would anyone?

    Seriously, this is the kind of arrogant attitude that has killed off other businesses/industries before you. I'm just glad that I am now out of it and part of a proper business with proper business sense.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • City partner...

    you're not forced to eat at any particular restaurant, stay at any particular hotel, fly with any particular airline, etc, etc, so I'm guessing you've never complained in your life? I love your logic. I can see how you made it to the position you're in now...with all those lowly fee earners keeping you in the style to which you have become accustomed, and to which you obviously think you have a divine right.

    I can only encourage other GCs like me to vote with your feet, do your research and use firms you know do the right thing. Practising law is NOT manufacturing widgets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bad for Business

    Malcolm - there IS a good business reason not to do this - see various comments below.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Get real.

    Get real - I never really understood why certain mindless 'legal' work was being done by humans anyway, and legally qualified ones at that. Filing 395s, "cloning documents" and shell company conversion could surely be done by anyone with half a brain and a resistance to boredom.

    If I was a CC London trainee I'd be counting my lucky stars that I wouldn't have to do that kind of mindless stuff anymore and can instead get on to doing interesting work and learning about the law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vote wth your cheque books

    I share the view expressed very eloquently on here. Dreadful greed and short sightedness from CC. If I instruct a law firm, I expect to be able to (a) meet the people I use, so that I can make a judgement as to how happy I am with them and form a working relationship with them, and (b) I expect my work to be done to a high standard by someone who has an interest in doing it PROPERLY for their own future benefit as well as their firm's. Would I go to a third world hospital for surgery because it's cheap as chips? No. Would I go a third world partially qualified lawyer for legal advice on the business I spent a lifetime building? Not in a million years.

    Employing rows of poorly paid battery chickens to perform due diligence on behalf of my business is not something that I am prepared to countenance.

    For a start, my collegues in Compliance and Regulatory Risk will have something to say about our legal work being done by rows of said battery chickens earning a few rupees an hour.

    I want UK-based people, and I want to have RELATIONSHIPS with my lawyers (remember those, CC? Obviously not......)

    I hope CC are insured for this, and I wonder if they will be dropping their charge out rates following this reduction in their cost base? Is the Pope a Skih........?

    Shame on you CC, shame on you.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's still business

    Some of the concerns expressed about a potential drop in quality or succession issues are perfectly legitimate concerns, regardless of whether or not they are well founded.

    However the idea that there is some sort of moral dimension to them is wrong-headed. If there is a decline in quality or anything else, firms may find themselves losing business as a result. If there is not, they won't.

    This is still all just a case of market dynamics, and as a poster earlier recommends, clients can and will simply vote with their feet if they don't feel they are getting good value for money.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Still business?

    Indeed I will vote with my feet. I doubt very much whether my bills will get smaller, despite the cut in cost base for the CC equity! What a rip off!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm with you GC

    In most industries, if the cost base goes down, at least some of the savings are passed on to the customer. Let's see if CC's charge out rates go down...

    To "recently trained" below, maybe one day, when you have more experience and a more educated view, you will realise that there is value in learning a trade from the basics, even if some of it is "menial" or tedious.

    You will also come to see that once these types of things start to happen, they creep, and never stop. That's why, as I said below, the profession (or at least the big firms) will end up eating itself (themselves).

    There will ALWAYS be savings to be made by offshoring the least profitable work in order to keep expensive employees working on higher value work.

    Within a firm, there is ALWAYS something more valuable/profitable than something else. That's why private client departments disappear, for example. And it is why more and more work will be sent offshore.

    Just to complicate things, over time jurisdictions like India will actually become expensive compared to other jurisdictions, so work will be moved to a new cheap jurisdiction and this pattern will repeat itself over and over, ensuring no continuity.

    Fewer trainees will be needed and those that are accepted into the wonderful club will be expected to perform like associates from day one.

    Fewer equity partners will be made up, too. Ultimately, the model will break down entirely. And many would say that it won't be before time.

    I'm just so sad that so many people going into the law nowadays do so without any commitment to and understanding of the legal profession.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (24)