In business blog

News broke late last week that Tyco is extending the 2006 deal it signed with Eversheds, whereby the firm provides the company’s legal needs for a fixed price – in return for sole-provider status for huge swathes of Tyco’s external legal needs.

The deal was much-hyped at the time, and had it not been extended would have made a much bigger splash. The top line would have been that Eversheds had been unable to make the deal pay – built in to the agreement reached was a commitment to add additional ‘value’ year on year, and there was no guarantee that the company’s more lucrative complex instructions would go to the firm.

But the fixed-fee part of this deal was always the least interesting component – the market-changing bit of the action went on in-house.

Tyco’s then-GC in EMEA Trevor Faure reviewed, and then utterly changed, the way the business in his region sourced legal advice. Faure called it the ‘SMARTER’ model – later writing a book on it (2010), and lecturing on the model at Harvard. Orange is among the businesses that have adopted the model.

In 2006 Faure took me through the process in the room it was designed in – a meeting room where the walls were entirely covered in whiteboards, which even ran around the doors and windows.

For every part of the business he carried out a ‘stakeholder analysis’, set targets and expectations for improvement, and identified the ‘core legal essentials’ and the best practices that enable them. All before moving on to perform ‘gap analysis’ – a tool that compares actual performance with potential performance.

That’s a lot of whiteboard, and we still haven’t got to appointing a law firm.

Faure’s conclusion was that the potential/performance gap would be most effectively closed if more high value and strategic legal work was moved in-house, and more standard legal work was outsourced.

The outsourced work, and the legal risks it related to, would be best provided by a single firm that had legal advice ‘coverage’ across the EMEA region. As closing the gap between performance and potential was judged harder to achieve with external instructions, the winning firm also committed to adding ‘value’.

In the SMARTER model, it looks like a lot of infrastructure sits around the client-lawyer relationship, but Faure insisted that it was a ‘scalable’ model – fit for meeting legal needs of organisations with small or large legal spends.

Eversheds partner Stephen Hopkins notes that the firm has been in pole position to win the complex work that Tyco outsources, and that this now makes up the majority of its Tyco fee income. Dave Symonds, the current EMEA GC at Tyco, praises service levels and says the partnership will ‘grow and develop’.

The deal had its sceptics at the time. But looking back over the intervening years, does this arrangement feel anything other than fairly rational?

Well, not every GC who is changing the relationship between their business and its legal needs bought the SMARTER book or consciously conducted a gap analysis along the Tyco lines.

But the drift of strategic matters in-house is a trend, fixed (or at least ‘predictable’) fee arrangements are more widespread, and the number of in-house lawyers continues to rise – as does the status and standard of general counsel and their senior colleagues.

And the clear preference for private practice and their in-house clients is to partner with fewer law firms, but to have each firm do a higher proportion of its work.

Given all that, the challenge for those who were sceptical about the main features of the Tyco approach is to map out a convincing alternative. Mind you, if they have a pack of coloured whiteboard pens, I know of a cracking room they could ask to borrow.

Eduardo Reyes is Gazette features editor

Follow Eduardo on Twitter

With increased competition and tough economic conditions set to continue for the foreseeable future, how can you plan for growth in your law firm? There are essentially four sources of potential new business which need to be explored.

First, look at marketing more of your current legal services to existing clients. This should be the easiest, but too often the information available within a firm does not make a gap analysis easy to perform. For example, recent budget announcements may provide inheritance tax planning opportunities for wealthier private clients.

But, how easy is it to identify these from the thousands of clients that you have written wills for? How good is the firm at selling private client services to the directors of your business clients? Given that most of your business clients probably have a website, how many have come to you for their online terms? A systematic approach to cross-selling can pay the quickest dividends.

Second, you can market new legal services to existing clients. Have you identified a need amongst your clients which is not currently being met? Once you have found a solution to meeting that need, (via training, recruitment or a joint venture) you will need to plan a similar systematic approach to communicating this opportunity to your current client base.

Third, look at marketing your existing legal services to new clients. Start by looking at your current client base to see if you can attract ‘more of the same’. Then consider how you can attract new markets – for example if your private client base is elderly, what can you do to attract young families? If your business clients are mainly in manufacturing, can you attract technology or service companies?

Finally, there is the option to launch a new service to a new market. This would be the costliest and riskiest option, but occasionally an interesting opportunity can arise in this way and needs to be considered on its merits.

Whilst the first two options are the most logical routes to start along, we find that in practice it is harder for firms to access accurate client information than it is to call the local paper and book an advertisement.

There is a danger in neglecting your current clients, as they may well be members of the Co-op and RAC and purchasers of Saga holidays – companies whose marketing departments will undoubtedly have excellent client information systems. Each of these potential routes to growth can be explored and planned for, despite difficult times.

And as the saying goes ‘failure to plan, is planning to fail’.

Sue Bramall is managing director of Berners Marketing and advises law firms in the UK and overseas

There have been numerous instances in recent times of employees taking to public forums and expressing less-than-glowing opinions about their former employers - and even in some cases going so far as to write a book about them. Views on working conditions are - let’s face it - fairly common in law firms. Bitter reports of super-competitive working environments and a rather biased view of what might have been a well-handled redundancy situation can all be blown right out of proportion when hurt feelings and wounded pride come into play.

However, unfortunately, once these opinions are out in the public domain - whether via social media, internet forums or the press - the reputational damage is done and they remain a digital record of the way the firm handles its staff. As hirings, firings and resignations are a normal part of any fully functioning law firm, how do you stop disgruntled employees damaging the brand with negative views?

Establishing - or putting more energy into - an alumni organisation may not be the most obvious option when it comes to handling disgruntled former employees. However, these organisations, which are set up to retain contact with staff who have left, can be a great weapon in the war against brand-damaging comments making their way into the public domain. Regular contact with former members of staff will make them feel a tie to the firm and introduce a feeling of loyalty that protects against negative comments being made.

Plus old grievances are more likely to be forgiven over the camaraderie of an alumni dinner or a fun event. Strong alumni networks also attract top talent - where it is obvious that a firm treats both current and previous employees with considerable respect, this is a draw to those who want to work for a firm that can demonstrate integrity and a non-disposable approach to its staff.

The other important point to remember with ex-employees is that you never really know where a former employee is going to end up. Someone who struggled at one firm, or simply didn’t fit it, may thrive at a different type of firm, or even working in-house. It is worth bearing in mind that the more positive networks the firm is part of, the better the opportunities for creating work openings in the future. This is particularly the case where an ex-employee has moved in-house and effectively become the client. A previous employee who is on good terms with the firm can become a powerful advocate for the business and an inside connection that can open up doors that might otherwise be closed.

All too often those who leave a firm are regarded as ‘defectors’ or ‘failures’ and the focus of the firm’s recruitment is firmly on reducing attrition rates, snapping up the best talent and training those within the firm, rather than maintaining links with former staff. However, mismanaging the process of staff leaving a firm can result in wasted opportunities that could be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds - if not more.

For example, calculations made by the firm Latham & Watkins in the mid-1990s - and quoted in an article by Michael J Anderson for the Edge International website in 2007 - showed that around 50% of the firm’s then current business came either directly or indirectly from alums of the firm. With current recessionary pressures and many firms suffering from a drop in instructions and an increase in competition, it's likely that these connections are more important now than they have ever been.

Melissa Davis, director of MD Communications

The Olympics, and the big society, have, among other things, put volunteering firmly in the public consciousness of late.

People have been praised across the nation for the selflessness they have shown in giving up their spare time and donating their skills and talents for the greater good. There have been various debates about how all this has been achieved, and whether it will continue, but few challenge the fundamental assumption that volunteering to help your fellow man is a good thing.

LawWorks works with solicitors all over England and Wales. We rely on their support and that of their firms in order to run our various projects. We do not pay the lawyers, the clients don’t pay the lawyers, but the firms do. In that case, are they actually volunteering in the true sense of the word?

Some large American law firms have ‘death row’ departments. Essentially, the firms employ specialist practitioners to work on death row cases on a pro bono basis. There is no question that this work is commendable, but the lawyers can hardly be described as volunteers. Does this same argument apply to salaried solicitors doing the odd pro bono case alongside their other work? And how does the position differ from that of a self-employed barrister who chooses to do a pro bono case?

The majority of LawWorks members are large commercial firms. Their lawyers are paid well. If they take on a pro bono case they do so in the name of their firm, and they cannot do so without the firm’s approval. I am not aware of any firm that reduces the amount of the lawyer’s salary in these circumstances, so – despite the fact that the client is not paying – can this really be described as voluntary work?

I have heard from several legal aid firms who say that they simply could not run a case without an element of pro bono. For example, in welfare benefits cases (where representation at the First Tier Tribunal was never covered by legal aid) many solicitors would just go along to the hearings on a pro bono basis. The firm itself will receive less from the Legal Services Commission for that case than if the hearing was covered, but the lawyer will still be paid the same.

However, a direct result of the legal aid lawyer attending that hearing is that he or she will have to work later to finish whatever other work needs to be done. If the lawyer is paid nothing extra for doing so, surely this falls squarely within the definition of voluntary work? And if that’s right, surely the same can be said of the lawyers at the commercial firms? I do not know of any solicitor – legal aid or commercial – who works regular hours. A commercial solicitor doing pro bono work sacrifices their evenings and weekends in exactly the same way as the welfare benefits lawyer described above. The only obvious difference is that the commercial lawyer is usually paid more. But that would be the case whether they both do pro bono, neither do pro bono, or one does and the other doesn’t.

In fact, commercial lawyers are probably more likely to see a reduction in their take home pay if they fail to confine their pro bono work to their spare time. Many commercial firms offer fee-earners the opportunity to get involved with a range of pro bono projects. At some firms it is even positively encouraged by the setting of pro bono targets. But I imagine that it remains the responsibility of each lawyer to ensure that any pro bono work done does not interfere with fee-earning work. Failure to do so will probably have consequences come bonus time.

I accept that it is pointless comparing legal aid firms to commercial firms. But, in fact, the comparison is not necessary. Within the two very different worlds of legal aid and commercial firms there will be some firms that do pro bono, and some that don’t. And within those firms that do pro bono, there will be individuals who will choose to do it and individuals who do not.

The solicitor who chooses to do pro bono will work longer hours (without additional pay) than they would have if they chose not to. That makes the position rather the same as that of the self-employed barrister. The starting point might be different for legal aid lawyers and commercial lawyers, but the outcome is the same: they have less free time as result of their choice. Whether legal aid or commercial, employed or self-employed, the choice to do pro bono work is motivated, at least in part, by altruism.

Certainly, the firms who set up ‘death row’ departments or similar should be commended for creating those jobs, but in an environment where the state is increasingly looking to individuals to somehow provide the services it would previously have done, recognition for the value of the individual volunteers’ contribution is increasingly important. April 1, 2013 marked the start of a period of monumental change to state-funded services. At this significant time the focus has been on changes in welfare and health. Little has been said about the reduction of legal aid in the fields of employment, housing, welfare benefits and family law. Even less has been said about the role that volunteer lawyers will play (and have played for many years) in reducing the hardship that is suffered as a result of inadequate public funding for legal services in those areas.

The LawWorks pro bono awards will take place on June 19, 2013. This is an opportunity to recognise the contribution made by those firms and individuals. That is not to say that they do it for the glory, but at the very least we hope that this recognition will help to set an example to others and inspire them to do the same.

If you would like to recognise the pro bono work done by a colleague, please consider nominating them for a LawWorks award (nominations close this Friday).

Lia Moses is a caseworker at LawWorks, a national charity working with solicitors to support, promote and encourage a commitment to pro bono across the profession