Pinsents – first firm to offshore work of qualified UK lawyers

  • Print
  • Comments (38)

Readers' comments (38)

  • Reading all these posts has been interesting.
    To suggest that work going to another English speaking country and in a different continent will automatically suffer in quality is plain stupid. The quality of lawyers all depends on who Exigent hire. Just as the quality of lawyers at Pinsents depends on who they hire. It should be noted that there partners in City law firms who were educated in South Africa.
    Now the move by Pinsents - this has happened either because the clients have demanded a reduction in fees or the partners want to keep their level of profits......or both! Pinsents cannot now state they provide excellent contentious training for their trainees and NQs anymore because the work will be outsourced.
    In this a revolution? I don' think so. One size does not fit all. Solutions have to be catered to a client's specific needs. You need a lawyer's expertise for this. Clients will realise this one day but in the meantime they'll do whatever to reduce the amount of fees they are paying.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This professional ethics argument against offshoring is just so much hot air.
    If what's done is not a reserved activity, it can be done by anyone - lawyer or not. So, if you don’t need to be a lawyer to do it, professional ethics don’t even come into it.
    Anyway - don't lawyers in other countries have professional ethics? How arrogant to assume that foreign ethics are some how less “ethical” that English legal ethics. Especially considering that English legal ethics have been found time and time again to be nothing more than protectionist attempts at market-grabbing.
    Perhaps it would be nice if ethics required that law firms didn’t rip clients off, by overcharging for their services. But they don’t, so there you go.
    And one final point – if a document can be reviewed by a senior south African lawyer more cheaply than a junior English associate – or even trainee or paralegal – just how is the client suffering?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is less to this than meets the eye. You don't have to go as far as SA to find decent enough lawyers working for a fraction of city rates.
    If, say, Simmons and Simmons want to acheive "a 50 per cent cost saving on each role", they hardly need to use overseas lawyers to do that. The could outsource to any given UK national firm and make those savings.
    The reasons firms will not do that are obvious and have nothing to do with cost, quality, or client service. Much better to tell your clients you are saving them money by offshoring than admitting that, in fact, 80% of their work could be done by almost any decent firm. I struggle to see that it will be either cheaper or easier to manage work in another jurisdiction. Offshoring support functions is not without its probems, (churn being a big one) and I can't see this will be any easier. I rather suspect that in time clients will see through this move.
    In fact, it looks more like an opportunity to me. "Why pay for hoity toity city firms to send your work to a shed in SA when you can come to UK National LLP (who will send your work to a shed in the Midlands) ".
    The only losers are firms whose model is to charge £200 ph for recent gradates to turn pages. My heart bleeds.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Very interesting .... I think many are missing the point. Changes WILL happen no matter what. That's evolution and that's the impact of technological and other developments.
    FACT - some legal services / advice / processes can be automated or fulfilled by less skilled people with the right training.
    FACT - technology will continue to offer efficiency opportunities
    FACT - clients will demand better value for money
    FACT - clients will expect to get value
    Our challenge is to harness the opportunities to improve our offering.
    Don't fight it - embrace it in the way that will best suit your business. For some this will be to look at how they can harness technonlogy or outsourced services and use them for their business; for others it will be using the marketing oportunity for letting everyone know that the work is all done in house, by a local and legally qualified person.

    And let's remember the most important person here - the client.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision to outsource referred to in this article, and the previous story regarding cost cutting and redundancy talks, the firm needs to take a long hard look at itself and its pretence that it treats its staff well by virtue of its "values" and "diversity" programmes. These are often cited and talked about, but in practice rarely followed.
    Only time will tell when the job market picks up whether it is able to retain any of the assistants which remain or recruit any new ones.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well, as a Pinsent Masons litigation assistant I must say that I am very upset to learn about this first here on The Lawyer website.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So many comments by English lawyers shows the condition of English law firms work levels. I pity them, while they were sleeping and enjoying on the clients money Indians and SA's has moved ahead.

    Change and innovate, don't crib.

    Peace!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 2.59 makes the point. Those who are carping on about how stupid clients are to fall for low cost-low quality offerings should market themselves as quality outfits whose due diligence or document processing is worth the (much) higher price. If clients agree, they'll pay, If not those firms will be revealed as dinosaurs.
    In the meantime other firms will be trying to work out how they can make money without leverage (i.e. pyramid training schemes). Maybe now is the time to think about setting up a London Wachtell Lipton...with equity financed by Goldmans, finally earning fees that investment bankers find normal, and really adding value.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I fail to see the issue here. I implemented an outsourcing project with Exigent in 2005 enabling secretarial work to be carried out in SA at around 60% of the costs of employing a secretary. Where were the lawyers then complaining on behalf of their co-workers? The silence was deafening. Strange how the situation changes when the boot is on the other foot.
    Lawyers must remember three things;equity partners are in business to make a profit, a law firm is a business (forget all you have been told about it being a profession- law has moved on), and quality will rise to the top meaning that average lawyers who earned a big salary on the back of corporate clients need to think again.
    As I have said quality lawyers will rise up the ranks and be the partners of tomorrow. Many average lawyers will probably end up in South Africa working for Exigent!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The heart of the issue is that assistants and trainees seem to have been led to believe, over the past 10 years or so, that law firms will look after them and their training requirements. If you read law firm recruitment brochures you'd be forgiven for thinking this. But time to wake up. Law firms look after their clients first and foremost. If it was your business you'd do the same. The needs of staff are already met by their salaries. The only way to counter this is to vote with your feet. If your law firm is ignoring your requirements, then when things get busy and law firms cannot recruit enough, remember who did what and when.

    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 (38)