Halebury head of BD Helen Burness provides the alternative legal providers’ perspective on law firms’ strategy to outsource work (and roles) to Warsaw and Manila in The Lawyer’s 60-second interview on key topics from the upcoming Business Leadership Summit.

Are you surprised by this apparent sudden rush to places like Warsaw and Manila?

I’m not necessarily surprised by the move. Since the crash in 2008 and the rash of outsourcing which occurred, Big Law firms have been constantly looking at ways to reduce overheads and streamline their businesses. The timing of the announcements is interesting, but the fact it is happening is not a surprise. Other industries did this a long time ago.

There was the previous spate of outsourcing to countries such as India and South Africa which tended to be driven by their low-cost centres. There were mixed reviews on the success of those ventures but a lot should have been learned since then about successful outsourcing. The trend for firms to expand their international reach it is not surprising, as there is an appetite to move away from traditional large and expensive London HQs. Improved technology makes this more of a possibility too, which I suspect is why we are also seeing a broader range of outsource locations.

Is the vocabulary that firms are using i.e. ‘relocating roles’ misleading, in that the reality is these are simply job cuts?

When undergoing such streamlining, firms will always look to use ‘positive’ language, to keep the PEP levels high and meet customer expectations something has to give. However by creating these efficiencies, businesses are able to grow.

Other than costs reduction, what are the biggest advantages of Warsaw over Manchester or Belfast?

For international firms keen not to be seen as too London/UK-centric, moving part of their back office function to a CEE location could be seen as positive central ‘relocation’ of resources.

What sorts of roles do you think will be affected?

If recent examples of similar moves are an indicator, I would anticipate that back office functions such as IT helpdesk, finance and billing systems, secretarial or document systems and possibly due diligence capability would be most likely affected.

What job prospects do you think there are for the people who lose their roles in these cuts?

The legal industry and those that work in it are generally regarded as highly trained and skilled, which is one of the reasons legal secretaries and support staff in legal are more highly paid than in other industries. It is hard to say what the prospects are for those who are will lose their roles, but they should note that they have good, transferable skills.

What sorts of challenges does a move like this create for the lawyers working in head office?

Usually it’s around trust and continuity of service if a provider is moved to a different time zone/location. There will need to be internal comms to ensure all know how to access services moving forward and be reassured that support level will not be compromised by the move.

Managing change in an organisation is always a challenge and getting used to new systems and processes may be difficult. However, in reality how often lawyers will have engaged with their London based colleagues in person is questionable, so from a certain perspective there may not be much difference.

Do you think we’ll see more of these moves by other major firms?

I think all levels should consider it and will. What is important for any firm looking to outsource is to ensure that they have correct procedures in place for quality control.

Ultimately, despite the human cost involved, is this what a properly managed large business ought to be doing?

In this competitive market, I think all law firms need to ensure they are run efficiently in a business-like way and remain agile. In a partnership model where the biggest overhead (aside from property) is people, ‘back office’ functions will always be looked at first for cost-saving.

Source: Industry News