Eversheds has begun sending low-level legal work to its South African office as it plans to step up its involvement in the commoditised market.

Anthony Davies
The firm has sent lease renewal work previously carried out by its Cardiff office to Johannesburg and is currently training two South African lawyers in Wales. This is part of a pilot, which - if deemed successful - will see Eversheds launch a joint venture with its South African office carrying out legal process work previously done in the UK within six months.
Anthony Davies, a litigation partner in Eversheds’ commoditised arm the Legal Systems Group (LSG), said: “The transactions will be shared between the offices. Drafting will take place in Johannesburg and the client-facing aspect and negotiation in Cardiff. Everything would be checked in the UK by teams. Other areas that would be appropriate to send are contract review and due diligence - it depends on what we’re trying to secure. This is really about winning new work.”
Davies said that no decision has been taken yet on the branding of the joint venture, but as it might see Eversheds offering the service to other law firms it could operate under more than one brand.
Head of the LSG Graham Richardson will lead the initiative, with Davies managing litigation work and real estate partner Helen Thomas the lease renewal work.
Davies confirmed that the South African joint venture would not “have any impact on jobs in the UK”. He added: “LSG has been recruiting massively. We’re looking to take advantage of market conditions to win new work.”
But the reaction from the market was mixed. Quentin Poole, senior partner at Wragge & Co, which sources the majority of its work from London and the South East, but carries out the largest chunk in its cheaper Birmingham office, said: “I think it’s a very interesting move and clearly there’s a lot of talk in the market about doing commoditised work cost-effectively. But if you make a push into this area and build a reputation as a firm that’s famous for relatively low value commoditised work there’s a risk that this could shift your brand away from the quality end of your practice. So it’s a difficult tightrope to tread.”
But Nigel Kissack, dispute resolution head at Pinsent Masons, which became the first law firm to outsource legal work offshore through an agreement with Exigent in Cape Town said: “”We’re not like Eversheds in that we don’t have a commoditised or volume aspect to our business - and don’t intend on doing so - but I can see it makes sense to send that to South Africa. With good quality control they’ll make a better margin on it down there and clients should benefit.”
Davies argued that the drive into commoditised work would not undermine the firm’s brand. “Our experience to date is that they do complement each other. Clients are sophisticated enough to understand that Eversheds does both [strategic and commoditised work]. By doing work across the board we understand the business much better than a business that only does London work.”
Eversheds currently sends bulk repossession work on behalf of GE and volume conveyancing work for Aviva to business process outsourcing (BPO) company Williams Lea in India. Exigent carries out BPO document production work for Eversheds itself.
But Davies said that its own move into the LPO sector would not pose a threat to these entities. “South Africa is not about displacing the relationship with Indian LPOs we work with - there’s always a place for them,” he said. “I don’t think there are any plans to bring document process or BPO to the South African office.”
Readers' comments (5)
Anonymous | 14-Jan-2010 5:43 pm
This is a big mistake for Eversheds, it will massively damage its reputation in London where it is attempting to claw work from the best firms in the City. Where is the strategy in this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
PANKAJ PARNAMI | 15-Jan-2010 5:43 am
To my mind, its not a commoditized business all time. When a law firm looks for high end drafting work in service areas like IP, Contracts etc. they need to look for support of lawyers equally qualified and trained. They are in India, South Africa or London, is a different matter. altogether. Quality takes the prime position.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 15-Jan-2010 11:19 am
Other industries have felt the bite of outsourcing over the last 7 years. I was involved in one of the first IT outsourcing deals to India in my company. The legal profession could do to learn the lessons from IT and helpdesk outsourcing. The fact that companies now advertise "UK Helpdesks" as a product differentiator speaks volumes. Also, much of the "commoditised" work is now coming back onshore following many years and much expense trying to get the same quality output as we received in the UK. The legal profession could just skip out 7 years of pain and upheaval by keeping the work in the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18-Jan-2010 5:09 am
On paper, it would appear to make sense to do this. However, it will be interesting to see if they can make it work and are still doing it in 5 years time. Sadly, providing legal services (even volume based legal services) is a time consuming process. Things go wrong, and there is no substitute for the hard grind.
Overall, outsourcing like this will have a negative impact on the quality of legal services that are available to the business community. If all the volume based work and minor drafting is done somewhere else, then how are the trainee lawyers going to learn their stock and trade. I learnt by doing simple things first, then progressing up the ladder. How will junior lawyers make this progression in the future? Maybe everyone will have to do a stint in South Africa - learning how to draft.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30-Jan-2010 4:04 pm
The Exigent analogy is not a good one. Our firm tried their secretarial outsourcing service in South Africa and found it was inefficient, slow and of poor quality. When we found a UK based alternative everyone voted with their feet and categorically refused to use Exigent again.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment