Multi-level teams – the future for in-house legal?

In today’s in-house profession very little is static. What has been standard practice is transforming in the face of growing pressures. It’s not just about technology or process – the composition of the legal team itself is having to adapt and evolve. Fluctuating work levels, the need to demonstrate value, and evolving attitudes to new ways of working are changing the way in-house teams allocate their work. As teams become multi-level and resourced in new ways, what are the benefits for GCs wanting to boost the value they bring to the business?

What is driving the change?

You’ve heard it a thousand times before but it’s not going away: GCs need to spend less and drive more value from their teams. It’s the challenge of finding ways to do more without increasing head count. With well-being now so important to running a successful, happy team, the solution clearly doesn’t involve overloading and overstressing lawyers. Instead, GCs are devising alternative strategies by using a mixture of resources:

·        Internal and external resource

·        Trainees

·        Legal executives

·        Paralegals.

Is solely employing qualified solicitors the most efficient and cost-effective approach to achieving the results expected from the legal team? A team of qualified solicitors may be conventional but, as the environment changes, there are no hard and fast rules. Different types of work can be better suited to different resourcing options. GCs shouldn’t be afraid to challenge convention; in fact, it is their responsibility to shake things up. If they don’t then it will be someone who doesn’t understand the legal team who steps in wielding an axe.

Internal or external resource?

The questions GCs need to ask themselves about internal versus external resource are big – yet they’re also simple. What are you trying to achieve? What are your biggest issues? What are you trying to do differently?

·        Analysis of the types of work carried out by the team may reveal a duplication of effort that could be handled more efficiently by using alternative external providers – on-demand legal providers or legal process outsourcing (LPO).

·        Fluctuating levels of work might be the biggest issue, for example the need to temporarily accelerate contracting but without sufficient internal resource to handle it. Is employing another (expensive) internal lawyer with 5 years’ + PQE the best solution? If the volume is large then an external solution could be a far better option.

Key to making resourcing decisions is evaluating the full cost of an employee (including overheads) and comparing this to what it would cost per hour to outsource the work. A GC who doesn’t know the ins and outs of their costs in granular detail is never going to be able to make effective use of resources, internal or external.

Recruitment of trainees

Traditionally, most lawyers who join in-house teams are recruited from private practice. However, the number of juniors joining to complete a training contract looks set to grow as the benefits become better understood.

Paul Gilbert, Chief Executive of LBC Wise Counsel, summarises the benefits of leveraging trainees in a great article that all GCs should read. He highlights the following pluses:

·        Minimal recruitment costs.

·        Less hiring risk – the training contract is a fixed term with no employment obligation at the end.

·        Career management is less contentious during the training contract as expectations for moving up are not an issue in the way they could be with a qualified lawyer.

·        Ideal for low risk legal work and frees up the rest of the team for higher risk, higher value work.

·        Opportunity to mentor and shape skills and the in-house mindset: “at the end of each training contract there is a ready-made lawyer, familiar with every aspect of the operation”.

·        Using trainees “helps to rebalance power within the profession, de-stresses and de-risks the build up of pressure in the in-house environment …. As teams become more used to the opportunity so the market will grow and quality, already good, will improve further.”

Last year, the Law Society’s GC350 Report, which surveyed 100 senior in-house decision makers, reached the same conclusions in relation to newly qualified solicitors. The appeal to GCs was “lower costs and the ability to mould these individuals into rounded members of the business”.

Such is the potential of traineeships, Aspire, together with LexisNexis, has put together a Best Practice Framework for In-house Training Contracts. The Framework is a tool for general counsel, training principals, supervisors and trainees, setting out what is required of an in-house training contract provider and each step of the training contract process. It provides pointers to the materials available to assist with establishing and providing a great in-house training programme. 

Legal executives

The value of legal executives shouldn’t be ignored. Chartered legal executives are lawyers but train in a narrower range of subjects and therefore tend to specialise. Their skills are of great value in-house and come at a much lower cost than a solicitor who has expertise in a wide variety of legal areas. Again, GCs must consider: what work needs doing and who’s best to do it? What works best for the team and for the business won’t necessarily be down to PQE years so don’t overlook the other credible options available.

Paralegals

Last but by no means least – indeed, they make up the largest sector of the legal profession – paralegals can be a vital component of an in-house team. They are highly skilled in specific areas yet come at a far lower cost than qualified solicitors. Their knowledge and training in substantive legal work makes paralegals an asset in, for example, contract management, an area that can be extremely time-consuming but that doesn’t necessarily require a qualified solicitor.

Conclusions

Creating a multi-level team is a great example of how changes in-house can be an opportunity rather than a threat. Forward-thinking GCs already have alternative team and resourcing structures in place and are reaping the rewards: reduced costs and more effective use of the skills within the team.

Ultimately, the process of developing and implementing a multi-level team demonstrates to the business the value that legal brings. Thankfully, it’s never too late to start shaping a new team that’s ready to face whatever business challenges the future brings. As changes in the profession and technology continue apace, latecomers may even find themselves one step ahead of the early adopters!