News UK Law firms Slow start for Integreon as offshoring proves less popular By The Lawyer 18 July 2010 00:00 17 December 2015 16:09 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 oops 19 July 2010 at 18:07 Fear not ,Integreon. Cameron McKenna won’t have any qualms about sending work overseas if it means more profits. Reply Link Load of Bull 19 July 2010 at 18:11 Surely their offer to Cameron McKenna is not disintegreonating before our eyes? If Bristol is making a loss then their Bristol and London plan sounds extremely doubtful. Presumably they’ll be hoping they can ship as much work overseas as possible before their financing runs out? Reply Link Anonymous 19 July 2010 at 18:14 If they cant make it work in Bristol or North Dakota how will it work in EC1? Are these people numerate? Reply Link Michael Taylor 20 July 2010 at 10:19 No one likes to send work outside of the office, nevermind outside the EEA. The levels of offshoring have consistently failed to meet expectations (which have largely been assumed by the perceived cost benefits). The new disclosure questionnaire opens questions about how review is conducted and I expect the amount of offshoring will continue to disappoint those involved in it particularly with an increase in the availability of cost effective onshore alternatives. Reply Link Anonymous 20 July 2010 at 18:21 i see that Integreon is “the cool provider 2010” . Cool in Rolling Stone sense or more Jordan and the cage fighter? Class, real class… Reply Link Anonymous 20 July 2010 at 18:23 If they cant keep their own information confidential??? Reply Link IPA 20 July 2010 at 18:33 so senior partner at CMS not at all feeling embarassed. Of course he knew that his new friend is bleeding. Great supplier due diligence – must try it…. Reply Link S Purani | www.lposavvy.info 21 July 2010 at 03:49 I would assume the clients fully understand that the lower fees offered by LPO the are due to the fact that the work is done offshore, not onshore. If it’s being done onshore, and for the likes of Integreon’s Fargo operations to contribute to profitable margins, there should be some other value being offered by the onshore LPO. Only then will it be justified, and that the LPO can charge the fees to positively contribute. The offshore reluctance is surprising given that the clients have given the LPO the business in the first place… Reply Link wrldsen 21 September 2010 at 00:15 Depending on what you are reading and who you are talking to it can be unclear whether or not legal process outsourcing is making true headway in the legal industry. A report on some sites surfaced this week which discuss apparent reluctance to sending even simpler legal tasks offshore. The Lawyer reported how Integreon’s operations both in Fargo and in Bristol was cost prohibitive to the firm’s operations since clients do not prefer the LPO to send any work overseas. It’s quite interesting that the LPO’s clients, who give their business to Integreon, want the provider to perform work onshore rather than reap benefits of the lower cost offshore model which they signed on to profit from in the first place. Is this a trend in legal process outsourcing which has been largely synonymous with transmitting work overseas to the lower cost centers in India, Philippines and beyond? Or rather, does this story reflect the eve of an inflection point that will breed LPO differentiation to new service delivery models moving forward? The reason for the differentiation question lies in the case seen in the Integreon story. Providers will adjust and offer service as dictated by their clients – when it makes sense. It’s a fact of doing business. Otherwise turning your back on clients doesn’t bode well for your future business, and in turn helps your competitors who adjust and offer accordingly. But does this story actually make sense – to essentially abandon the offshore model which is the foundation for the cost savings and is at the heart of the law firm attraction to LPO? Onshore arms do make sense to the LPO model if the delivery model finds a way for it to make it economically viable. Paying up to 90% of revenues to onshore salaries does not, but it could if fees could be raised to justify the overall service being provided. Or perhaps volumes will allow them to achieve economies of scale thus pushing them into the black. But this does call for another look at the overall legal outsourcing value proposition. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.