News Banking and finance US & The Americas In-house Law firms RBS posits Mexican wave model to cut legal outlay By The Lawyer 7 March 2010 00:00 17 December 2015 09:35 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer mary 8 March 2010 at 12:25 In theory this is a very good idea but how would it work in practice? The firms may have been well evaluated but does that necessarily mean that they’ll work well together? Who will oversee the work – the dominant firm in the pairing or someone at RBS? What happens if things go wrong further down the line – who’ll take responsibility for errors? If they can work all that out it could be a very beneficial arrangement and one that will save money for the bank we all own. That would be good given that the legal spend id £200m!!!!!! It’s only a mater of time before more inhouse lawyers look at this I reckon. Reply Link Johnny 8 March 2010 at 12:42 One wonders whether this could end up being something of a false economy unless RBS can guarantee fixed fees on all their transactions. Otherwise, it might be a case that lower fees come hand in hand with an increase in billable hours as the firms work out how to offer something that’s fully joined up. Reply Link scotlandthebrave 8 March 2010 at 15:48 Duplication of work could certainly be an issue here but so long as it was well managed there’s no reason why it would be a deal breaker. legal process outsourcing is no longer a scary concept for most firms, but it has its drawbacks, such as the amount of time you have to devote to training the team working on your account. This would potentially be much easier to put in place and to verify what the quality would be upfront. Reply Link Suhasini Sakhare 10 March 2010 at 06:36 I work for an LPO, Zeta Intelex. Have also worked as a solicitor in London for a couple of years. RBS has the wrong end of the problem. Non standardization, hoarding of knowledge, anti-KM and anti-collaborative practices happen because legal work is distributed within the firm in a whimsical, capricious and error prone manner. LPO in fact would not appeal, if the process of allocating work was reasonable. Its a self feeding cycle of errors, work gets allocated on random basis, which have nothing to do with consumer welfare, and knowledge stays muddled. Knowledge stays muddled, there is no way to objectively track merit, and work continues to be allocated on random basis. Its rich if RBS thinks that it could leverage the fundamental problem afflicting an employed solicitor’s work life to solve consequent problems. It won’t work, simply because this fundamental problem did not originate at the workplace at all, but has its roots in how lawyers get trained. Or rather, in how they do not get trained. Reply Link Anonymous 25 March 2010 at 17:20 what on earth does the LPO’er’s comments mean??!?? Its no wonder LPO arrangements do not work if that type of person is behind them. Good grief!! Reply Link C Johnson 8 April 2010 at 22:38 Please stop using the term “Mexican Wave” to explain this concept. The world is global now and firms and corporations can not afford to allienate the Latin America and Mexican market places or talent that comes from these regions. The proper term would be “maquiladora” which really refers to the old miller’s portion concept for grain mills. Moreover, the practice of maquiladoras spans all through Latin America, and it is not solely something that is set up in Mexico. Challenge yourself to find better words that do not offend a large number of people, even if it just for the sake of your company’s image and reputation. The world is now an international place and survival requires respect across cultures and countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.