London Boroughs Legal Alliance grows from cuts
Local authorities’ legal teams band together for safety as public sector cutbacks start to bite
Hugh Peart
The London Boroughs Legal Alliance (LBLA) is gearing up for rapid expansion as local authorities look to slash their legal spends in response to the biggest public sector cuts in a generation.
The LBLA has already doubled its membership to 10 since it was established last year. Current member authorities include Camden, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington and Kensington & Chelsea.
Further expansion is now certain as more authorities seek to secure membership of the alliance, which has an annual legal spend of around £3.5m.
The LBLA’s formal shared panel of 16 law firms, which includes Dickinson Dees, Eversheds, Kennedys and Pinsent Masons, saves members close to £2m a year.
As well as weighing up plans to expand its membership, the organisation is considering plans to merge with other legal alliances, including the consortium of 14 boroughs in outer London and Kent.
Leo Fattorini of legal consultants Kennedy Cater Legal is a key adviser to the LBLA. He said that, although the London alliance has expanded quickly since it was set up last March, its size still pales in comparison with other alliances in the UK, including the 25-member North West Legal Consortium.
“It’s still relatively early days, but a lot of other councils have shown an interest,” said Fattorini. “There’s obviously a strong business case for authorities to share legal costs at the moment, that goes without saying.
“It’s an ongoing project and it takes time to tie up with other boroughs, but we could well see legal alliances merge because local authorities are strapped for cash and are desperate to team up for the financial benefits.
“In contrast to areas such as the North West, the alliances in London are quite small. London’s unique, but I think the LBLA is ahead of the curve.”
Harrow legal head Hugh Peart said any expansion was unlikely to take place until next year because the organisation was still working on arrangements with its current members and finalising plans.
“We’re not there yet,” he added. “We don’t want to sell the idea, we want to sell the reality.”
Readers' comments (8)
Anonymous | 25-Oct-2010 10:52 am
Where there is a need for specialist advice, it is often cheaper for local authorities to club together to develop in-house expertise than to pay for exepensive external legal advice (that is often delivered without any real understanding the context).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Vince Cableman | 25-Oct-2010 1:57 pm
Fashions come and go, a few years ago there was this thing called the GLC. Good to see these Tory councils hark back to good old socialist aggregation!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Horace | 25-Oct-2010 2:52 pm
Does this provide value for money for the taxpayer? It seems like a bit of a false economy to me
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 25-Oct-2010 3:03 pm
To Anonymous - most public sector law firms in the UK are fronted by ex-public sector lawyers, who understand the context of the issue at hand extremely well. This experience permeates through their legal teams.
Additionally, due to in-house local authority lawyers generally lacking the commercial background necessary to develop and promote innovative solutions to what essentially amount to commercial problems (outsourcing, asset backed vehicles etc.), using external advisers is actually very cost efficient, as they are able to straddle both worlds effectively.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Del Boy Trotter | 25-Oct-2010 10:01 pm
@Steve 3:03 - ''...develop and promote innovative solutions to what essentially amount to commercial problems (outsourcing, asset backed vehicles etc.), using external advisers is actually very cost efficient, as they are able to straddle both worlds effectively.''
I am no public lawyer but what a load of dross. Lawyers do not 'promote innovative solutions' - that is PR window dressing to justify the price tag. I think you will find they give legal advice. Outsourcing and ABV's are not innovative solutions - any business A-level student with half a brain cell know what they are. That comment is exactly why firms should stay in-house as much as possible. Make up jargon to make up work why don’t you?
External advisers are not cost efficient, they clock up by the hour giving the exact same 'innovative' advice that any firm would give you but in doing so get a trainee or an associate to do the work, then another associate to do the same work again and then get a partner to check it all......And maybe get another trainee to do some schedules, indexes and a bible. So by the hour and by time spent, in-house is always cheaper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mo | 26-Oct-2010 10:03 am
Thank you Steve for that: plainly local authorities lack certain expertise...
"....asset backed vehicles" are otherwise known as lorries.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 26-Oct-2010 2:13 pm
Steve
There are certainly some exceptions, but my experience of working in-house in the public sector is that external law firms are rarely as expert as they believe!
I feel I'm well placed to comment having worked for a major private law firm before moving to the public sector. I niavely thought when I arrived that I would bring a better understanding, however I quickly realised that the in-house practitioners are almost always the expert. The "innovative solutions" you refer to are almost always a desperate last throw of the dice by solicitors that believe their own hype. If private sector law firms really were half as good as they believe, they would put their highly caveated engagement letters to one side!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Jan-2012 4:15 pm
I do not believe that London Borough Legal Alliance has been created to save money. That is just superficial veneer.
It provides a high level of legal expertise to London Boroughs using taxpayers money to fight against the very public the London Boroughs are supposed to work for.
In addition the cuts to legal aid to the ordinary person means that their hopes of legal reddress for injustices is vastly reduced. The imbalance is very clear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment