½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

Almost all law firms once followed the same structure. Firms were structured around the partnership model, with lawyers working up the ranks and aiming to share the firm’s profits. But the emergence of alternative legal services has burst the sector wide open.

The models are now endless, as we’ve explored in our recent report ‘An in-house lawyer's guide to outsourcing legal work’. There are flexible and freelance lawyers performing on an ad hoc and project basis, the alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) that offer on-demand and tech-driven solutions, the disruptive Big Four set up to deal swiftly with high-volume work, the platform firms structured around autonomy and client solutions, and so on.

For in-house teams, the appeal of different models can prove confusing. Each model comes with myriad risks and benefits. In this article, we look at each model in detail, discuss the pros and cons, and offer some vital information to help better understand the various models.

Read the full report: An in-house lawyer's guide to outsourcing legal work

Flexible resourcing model

Let’s start with the flexible resourcing model. The number of flexible lawyers or freelance lawyers has grown considerably in recent years, largely due to changes in the labour market, the impact of the pandemic, and the growth of complementary technology.

The flexible resourcing model has become increasingly popular, with big-name options such as , , and . The resourcing model depends on organisations deploying lawyers as consultants and offering them to clients on a project basis. Firms such as , , and all adopted flexible resourcing units that provide freelance lawyers, with lawyers typically paid on a day rate.

There are a lot of benefits. The most obvious one – the clue is in the name – is flexibility. The model allows lawyers to work in ways that suit lifestyles and aspirations. That leads to a consequent benefit: happy lawyers are more productive, more likely to remain, and broadly improve client satisfaction.

Another benefit to the is specificity. Law firms and clients increasingly demand access to specialist lawyers on a case-by-case basis. The wide pool of talent ensures that clients and firms are more likely to find the right lawyer for the right task. And, in turn, lawyers are more often asked to work directly in their field of expertise.

Another benefit is stability. platform in 2013, for example, to manage increased workloads in the wake of the financial crisis. It was a time when internal staff struggled and the arrival of freelance lawyers met the increased demand.

That means that flexible lawyers are able to provide quick solutions in the short-term and stability in the long-term, both elements often prized by in-house teams.

There are risks to the model, however. One is unpredictability. A freelance lawyer may seem perfect on paper, but may turn out to be the precise opposite. Internal colleagues often work closely together, understand strengths and weaknesses, and can predictably ensure the right person is working on the right job. The flexible model does not provide the same assurance.

Platform law firm model

The platform law model allows lawyers to act as self-employed legal consultants under a revenue-sharing structure that offers them to keep the bulk of client fees. Platform firms simply provide the tools lawyers need: legal technology, insurance, branding, and so on.

Platform firms are rising. According to , for example, the number of UK lawyers in platform law firms increased by 29% in 2018 and that growth has continued. Major platform firms include , who currently employ 350 fee earners, , who currently employ around 400 earners, and , who currently employ 500.

One of the pros of platform law firms is the culture. They offer greater transparency and accountability, with most work performed on a fixed-fee basis, which eliminates hourly targets and . The firms pride themselves on letting lawyers focus on client solutions – and that source of pride is reflected in their compensation structure.

That also means that clients become priority. A suggested that the average lawyer works only two-and-a-half hours per day on client-facing tasks. Platform firms reduce hierarchy, automate admin, banish bureaucracy, allowing lawyers to spend more time doing the valuable work: finding solutions for their valued clients.

Platform firms are also flexible, allowing lawyers to work remotely and choose their own working hours. They emphasise autonomy, employing an ‘eat what you kill’ mindset.

Absence of hierarchy is often considered a benefit. But it can prove a risk. Consider, for example, that reduce collaboration and accountability. Legal consultants may work remotely, may work in siloes, and may receive no support from other consultants.

Many consultants at platform firms will have no manager, no hierarchy, meaning that they have very little organisation-wide objective and no people holding them to account. That is an element of the platform law model that in-house teams may hope to avoid. 

ALSP model

Alternative Legal Service Providers, or ALSPS, have exploded in recent years, carving out significant space in the legal landscape.

ALSPs are organisations that provide legal-related services as an alternative to a traditional law firm. They are tech-driven companies that possess expertise that surpass the traditional boundaries of legal knowledge and rely on the worlds or business, tech, and beyond.

Watch now: What are ALSPS and how do in-house teams use them?

The most obvious benefit of ALSPs is their ability to harness non-legal expertise. That tech-driven, non-legal solutionism allows them to complete highly repetitive and high-volume work at a low cost, with initiatives such as automated billing, predictive coding, legal software design, and so on. ALSPs can take advantage of economies of scale, as they are often global companies, which again leads to greater efficiency, a wider knowledge base, and so on.

ALSPs aim to reduce costs through tech, automated services, and broad large-scale operations. They tend to work on fixed cost arrangements rather than billable hours, which can help General Counsel grappling with squeezed budgets. The business model of ALSPs are also generally designed to focus on specific areas of work and optimise efficiency. This means that they can complete routine legal work faster and are more cost effective.

One problem with the ALSP model is the focus on high-volume work can mean less emphasis on bespoke client solutions, which is the sort of work that lawyers typically enjoy. Lots of the strengths of ALSPs depend on completing repetitive tasks at low-cost, so the model is arguably less well adapted to deal with the more complex demands that clients often make. 

Managed services model

The most obvious examples of the managed services model are the so-called Big Four: , , , and . Like ALSPs, the Big Four help clients to identify high-volume, low-value legal tasks that they are able to streamline through tech and the right resourcing profile.

The Big Four are accountancy firms that mainly focus on completing the day-to-day work rather than the highly competitive legal work. They focus on managing services, ensuring legal teams are not being bogged down by routine and repetitive work.

They offer many of the same benefits of ALSPs. But, unlike ALSPs, the Big Four can ‘outsource’ services through the provision of , which means clients can complete tedious work at reduced cost and legal teams can pursue the more complex legal issues. The Big Four are more embedded with clients than other ALSPs and offer a more collaborative working style, often managing ‘key accounts’ with efficiency.

One downside to the Big Four is that their large-scale can lead to certain regulatory barriers, which stop auditors from providing other services where the provision of legal services by a non-law firm is forbidden. They are also generally staying clear of litigation because of the conflicts that would arise.

Read the full report: An in-house lawyer's guide to outsourcing legal work