Robert Bourns's blogs

Regulators’ approach to failures
Robert Bourns
Monday, 11 February 2013

We live in a free market economy.

The Legal Services Act 2007 brings changed market forces to the legal services market and the Legal Services Board has a regulatory objective to encourage competition.

Apparently well-capitalised new entrants or investors in existing providers are coming into the market. There are said to be circa 100 alternative business structure applications impatiently queuing for SRA licences to practise.

The business model is changing and some practices are failing, while others are said to be on the watch list, in the face of continuing consolidation in the market and increasingly limited access to finance and working capital.

Such is the nature of competition. We see it in other sectors and have an insolvency regime that is intended to promote and protect an entrepreneurial culture, providing mechanisms that enable businesses to be ‘rescued’ by shedding some of the encumbrances (usually debt) incurred in respect of an earlier business plan, model or strategy, now overtaken by changes in the economy or innovative competition.

The legal profession was regarded as a good bet for investment and lending post-2000, but the apparently unforeseen economic impact post-2007/8, a reduced overall demand for some legal services and the introduction of new and different competition, have left some decent practitioners in difficulties.

We have seen some better resourced firms stepping forward to rescue all or part of those worst affected, using some of the mechanisms established in the wider economy.

So the pre-pack comes to the law.

I have always taken the view that practitioners are in business and commercial but working in an environment where a practice failure was traditionally regarded as indicative not of entrepreneurial capability, but of a lack of competence and probably integrity.

However, if the overarching regulator encourages the white heat of competition, particularly in an otherwise fairly static domestic market, it must anticipate the impact on existing providers and, presumably take the view that a few failures and accelerated consolidation are in the public interest.

Whether some creditors would agree that these costs of transition are in the public interest is a question I won't answer.

So what is the attitude of the regulator to the principals of a failed law firm?

Our professional Principles require us to manage our businesses effectively, in accordance with good governance and risk management. The failure of any business suggests the Principals will have failed to meet this mandatory obligation.

The question has significance for the individuals falling out of the affected firms as well as those firms who step forward to rescue - thereby avoiding serious disruption to client service, possible reputational damage to the sector as a whole, and potentially expensive interventions.

A firm may regard the individuals as good lawyers, with valuable client relationships that they can sensibly add to the reach of their own practice, or to consolidate their position on one or more panels.

However they are properly concerned to understand how the SRA will respond and how quickly. Is the rescuing firm going to find itself welcoming an individual or team/group who will later collect an adverse finding that will require disclosure and therefore prejudice later tenders?

So, in cases that arise in the future will the SRA look first at the possible regulatory breach, or have regard to a greater public/consumer interest in ensuring the damage from the failure of a firm is limited? Thus focusing on the ultimate outcome?

We will see.

The able but walking wounded and their potential employers need to know, or at least have sufficient information to form a view, in the management of risk (and discharge of their regulatory obligations).

Guidance, with usual caveats in respect of those who demonstrate a genuine lack of integrity, would be helpful.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT

5 Comments     Add comment


Integrity in practice
Robert Bourns
Friday, 30 March 2012

Discussion continues on the meaning of outcomes-focused regulation, the implementation of the now not-so-new Handbook and the attitude of the SRA to its enforcement.

Much of this concerns the retrospective justification of procedures and, in the context of entity-based regulation, whether a breach that is not demonstrated to a standard to justify disciplinary procedures against any individual, may nonetheless support action against the firm.

The risks from a review after the event are clear. A client complaint, assuming it is not entirely without merit, will not have been the intended outcome and therefore it is easy for those looking back through the history of dealings to suggest an inadequacy in the firm's procedures. There is an understandable anxiety that the credibility of either the SRA or OFR will be undermined by a response that is not sufficiently nuanced to take account of the complexities of a transaction or matter, and the sophistication and resources of the client or complainant.

For another discussion perhaps, but it is my observation that the SRA is keen to engage with the profession, to learn and understand the most appropriate indicators for any particular type or area of practice.

While there is understandable focus on what OFR has changed, there is less on those aspects of conduct that appear unchanged.

It is a principle of practice that we act with integrity - nothing new or challenging in this. The principle runs through the handbook when considering dealings with clients, the courts and our regulator, with repeated references to ‘your clients and others’.

In practice, ‘others’ must include each other, in terms of employees and partners. However, chapter 7 of the Handbook, dealing with the ‘management of your business’, covers dealings with each other only by the requirement to have a ‘clear and effective governance structure’, with indicative behaviours that include the safe-keeping of documents and assets entrusted to the firm, controlling budgets, expenditure and cashflow, identifying and monitoring financial, operational and business continuity risks, including complaints and making arrangements for the continuation of your practice in the event of holiday or sickness.

All straightforward and sensible stuff - not to say, obvious.

Within these behaviours could be procedures to monitor and support integrity in dealings between partners or principals. Some might think this requires greater emphasis.

Many are excited by the opportunities for ABS in the further development of their practices. Others are apprehensive or have yet to see the benefit or relevance to their firm (large or small).

Some are concerned for the fitness of those who may become involved in the ownership of a firm or legal service provider, or the issues that may arise on changes in ownership or the exit of a particular investor. Some international competitors seek to suggest these changes go both to the integrity and independence of our profession.

However, ‘new entrants’ and many existing solicitor firms are quite properly investigating the best corporate structures to put in place, beneath or around their existing practice to make the most of opportunities, deal appropriately with regulatory issues that might arise from practising in different jurisdictions or by use of different business models, and providing the opportunity to share ownership or attract capital from third parties.

I am clear that ABS are not, as some appear to suggest, of themselves a bad thing and that solicitors do not become less trustworthy or professional by virtue of their decision to practice through an ABS. ABS are and will remain just one of a range of structures that may be used by solicitors (and others) to provide legal services.

Change in ownership is nothing new, a constant, through the admission and retirement of partners and the merger and acquisition of firms.

However the use of ABS, with the opportunity for long- and shorter-term incentives, the involvement of partners in different parts of the practice, reflecting themselves in structurally different legal entities and differing participation in ownership and profit centres, underlines the need for confidence that all are acting with integrity, beyond procedures to monitor risk.

Some put their faith in the work of the compliance officer for finance and administration (COFA) and compliance officer for legal practice (COLP). These are important positions, focused on compliance with the SRA Handbook, Solicitors' Accounts Rules and others (in passing I am not convinced that the role of COLP must be the preserve of a solicitor). However, it is inevitable that COLP and COFAs will be a part of the firm's management and therefore focused on delivering short- and long-term objectives.

While partners and principals owe each other duties, reinforced by the terms of most partnership, member or investor agreements, some may look for greater reassurance.

In short, have we reached a point where we should expect a firm or legal service provider of any significant size to put in place an audit or governance and oversight committee. Separate from management it would scrutinise all aspects of the management of the business, reviewing reports from auditors, COLP, COFA, declarations of interest, with a brief to ensure that the owners as a whole could be satisfied that not only are the risks of practice managed but all dealings are transparent, there is are no secret profits or profit shares, and integrity is demonstrated.

A shareholder group should expect nothing less, and it is unlikely partners’ meetings, conferences or other lines of communication can deliver the levels of scrutiny required to provide real assurance.

Some may not agree!

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT

2 Comments     Add comment


ABSs - unsettling times?
Robert Bourns
Thursday, 12 January 2012

The new year begins (as 2011 ended) with a discussion of the impact of alternative business structures (ABSs) on the profession.

At last, the Solicitors Regulation Authority is authorised to accept applications and license ABSs. It is reported that 10 firms have submitted applications so far. A modest beginning. No doubt others (both existing firms and new entrants) are developing their plans and will come forward during the year.

As discussed ABSs will become just another vehicle through which practitioners may choose to develop and provide legal services. There will continue to be sole practitioners, partnerships and LLPs. As before, the decision as to which vehicle is most appropriate will turn on a number of factors including the area of practice, nature of the client base, the size and spread of the practice, its ambitions for the future, capacity for investment and ability to provide returns on that investment to a range of stakeholders.

While some regard ABSs as anathema and unwelcome, there is no reason to judge a solicitor working within an ABS as less professional, fit or capable of discharging his/her obligations in respect of the mandatory Principles and Outcomes established by Outcomes Focused Regulation (OFR), than peers carrying on practising in any other form. Objections raised by reference to such an argument are wrong and draw an unnecessary demarcation line between professionals with a shared enthusiasm for providing legal advice and service with integrity, serving their clients' interests in a manner that the clients value.

We are now well used to talking of law firms as entities in their own right, developing their identities and brands. Some with spectacular success, others less so. Regulation of the "entity" is developing and we will soon have compliance officers for legal practice (COLPs) and compliance officers for finance and administration (COFAs) in place. Therefore it is logical that much of the current commentary speaks of the opportunities for the firm or business, frequently linked to speculation about particular named firms.

There is perhaps little consideration of the impact on the individual, other than daily offers from trainers and consultants to manage performance or manage out individuals who fall short of the mark. On the other side of that coin are the reports of transfers, team moves and lateral hires. An ongoing process as firms seek to build market share, focus on particular regions, industry sectors or service lines.

There are also moves prompted as unintended consequences of other steps taken by the practice. Individuals working at any level and in any area of a business have their own expectations, ambitions for their careers, together with opinions formed over years through training, observations and experience. Solicitors may have been working towards "partnership" as recognition of their excellence/achievement and may not understand or be keen to remain an employee, whatever the title, sharing ownership or profit with other non-legal professionals.

Other professionals working in and contributing to the success and resilience of the firm (in finance, IT, information services, business development or human resources) may be encouraged by the opportunity to take a stake in the firm, alongside, and some ahead of, their solicitor colleagues.

Some may be turned off by the prospect of working in a business whose ownership is intended to change (investors look for and plan exits) without reference to them. Others may see ABSs as appropriate to a particular type or way of working. If not currently associated with that part of the practice, they may feel a lack of support and personal opportunity. They may also feel a lack of loyalty to the practice. As an employment lawyer, I have advised a number of professionals (accountants, surveyors, engineers as well as solicitors), who have felt their loyalty to their current employer/firm weakened by the effects of recession - salary cuts, lack of promotion, redundancies, discrete exits, increased pressure all take their toll, increase scepticism and make them more inclined to move rather than bear with it.

In short, advancing the business of the firm to make the most of the real opportunities arising from changes in regulation and the permission of ABSs, will risk the loss of clients (some of whom may object to a change in the ownership of the firm they instructed) and, more relevant to this article, people.

This emphasises business risks, many of which are familiar to practitioners, the loss of good people, with relevant expertise, strong client relationships and knowledge of the way in which the firm operates. Increasingly this risk may also attach to the loss of management knowledge and expertise. How will we respond to the risk of the loss of a COFA, COLP, director of IT or business development?

Our Principles (Biblical/SRA Handbook reference - Principle 8, Chapter 7) require us to manage our business effectively with proper risk management systems.

Effective explanation internally of what the firm/business is doing (by act or default) remains vital. Most firms have highly developed and effective lines of communication (a two-way process) within and across their practices.

The current environment provides an excellent opportunity to consider who is looking on (clients and our people) and focus on those delivering services to the clients, explaining why the firm is taking a particular course and ensuring that they continue to feel they have a stake in its continued progress.

Nothing new under the sun. Change provides opportunity, but is also unsettling.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT

5 Comments     Add comment


Innovation in the profession
Robert Bourns
Wednesday, 27 July 2011

Lawyers speak in dramatic, almost biblical terms, of threats currently visited on the profession in England and Wales. Momentous change.

The changes in regulation and potential ownership are dramatic and will have a significant impact, not on all firms and practitioners at one time - nor will all be affected in the same way - but the environment in which we practice will change.

A combination of the changes to regulation and ownership, coinciding with a tougher insurance market; a more sceptical attitude from our bankers; economic uncertainty; a rolling back of the state (and its impact on legal aid); and continuing reappraisal by clients of value we offer and the manner of service delivery leads to significant challenges.

I have often observed that able lawyers, practising to the highest ethical standards, are nonetheless overtaken by events. This generates hardship, anguish and risk. In this respect we are no different to any other sector in the economy. How many excellent manufacturers and retailers have gone to the wall, notwithstanding their hard work and concern for customers, in the face of innovative newcomers or those who have successfully moved with the times?

As a group the legal profession should have greater self-confidence. We have within our ranks some of the most able and successful practices in the world. Some international, others national or local.

Success reflects the long term and there are many examples of innovation within the legal profession. Traditionally, and probably rightly, the legal profession has not been encouraged to become entrepreneurial against a backdrop of a forgiving insolvency regime. While other areas of commerce have had the shelter of bankruptcy, some suggesting that at least one business failure is required before anyone can be regarded as truly entrepreneurial, solicitors face disciplinary sanctions for failing to manage their business competently.

Firms, large and small, demonstrate a real enthusiasm for innovation, led by their wish to meet the needs of their clients. We continue to deliver and innovate the delivery of our services and advice to better match the needs and interests of our clients.

The development of multi-disciplined and easily scalable teams to support transactional work; the assembly of project teams for finite pieces of work; analysis of workflow; use of case management; and appropriate supervision demonstrate many good examples of innovation.

These are not confined to firms of a particular size, although there is no doubt that the significant costs associated with investment in systems, will, in some segments, create pressure for firms to merge. In other segments, the size of client and transaction and the need for perceived strength in depth provide a more obvious pressure to grow, whether organically or through merger.

However, in other areas, there are examples of practitioners providing cover through associations with other practitioners without merger. Associations via virtual offices, providing access to expertise without the standing overhead cost.

Others choose to go it alone, providing valued support and advice to those of limited means with a surgery style, enabling the individual to leave at the end of a consultation with written advice, having dealt with regulatory requirements and paid their fee.

Clearly, the opportunity to increase the scale and speed of investment via external ownership/investment (alternative business structures) will have an impact on some areas of practice in short order.

However, it is wrong to assume that lawyers will necessarily relinquish control and must be subservient to the investor. Many solicitors are innovative and accomplished people of business and will attract investment because of their strategic and management skills. We must retain confidence in our abilities to use additional resources, complimentary business skills and acumen to develop the services we already provide, demonstrating ever-great innovation.

We can do this without undermining integrity, independence or the furtherance of clients' interest. That is the opportunity.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT. He is a City of London representative on the Law Society Council, a past president of Bristol Law Society, and secretary of the Association of South Western Law Societies

0 Comments     Add comment


Decision to support SRA structures regulation shows leadership
Robert Bourns
Thursday, 28 April 2011

As announced in the Gazette, the Law Society has voted to support the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) application to the Legal Services Board for approval as a licensor of alternative business structures.

In doing so the Law Society demonstrated an element of the leadership that any representative body must offer.

There should be no surprise that the SRA should seek to protect and enhance its role as a regulator. It is, after all, what it does!

To fail to do so in circumstances where there is a longstanding political will for alternative business structures would have limited the opportunities for the SRA.

This would leave the field open for the Legal Services Board (LSB) to licence directly or some other ABS regulator to come into existence.

It has been said by some representing a would-be ABS that if no fit regulator existed they would encourage one to come forward.

Providing the best opportunity for a single regulator to balance regulation across the broad spectrum of legal practice/service providers shows good business sense from the SRA- something that capitalises on a strength developed by the Law Society over many years.

The legal profession has long represented wholly disparate business models from small one-man bands through to broadly-based local, national, regional, West End, silver circle, magic circle and global law firms.

These have been regulated by a single regulator requiring them to adhere to principles of professional practice.

The response from many - that ABS is an anathema which the SRA should have nothing to do with - was always predictable.

The cacophony that could be anticipated to follow any support for the SRA's application appears to have caused the representative Law Society to consider long and hard before declaring its support.

However, support it must, recognising that many solicitors have well advanced plans to own or promote ABS.

Therefore, to fail to make application to licence would have left the Law Society/SRA unable either to licence or represent such bodies.

The writing has been on the wall for a very long time.

The time for protest and name calling passed long ago. ABS' are as good as a reality and many will be promoted by existing law firms taking steps to take advantage of the opportunities that they see flowing from the different funding, ownership and remuneration models that go with it.

There is no reason why those who promote ABS should be regarded or characterised as either unprofessional or untrustworthy.

There is professionalism in business as there is in the management of a law firm.

That the competent management of our firms should be one of the mandatory principles of outcomes-focused regulation, both demonstrates the point and may suggest that some lawyers have fallen short.

To do so is damaging to client interest and the standing of the profession generally.

It is also correct to be concerned that the reputation of solicitors will be damaged by any failure of ABS, in the way that we so often are by some disreputable will writers who the general public believe to be legally qualified solicitors.

We should benefit from the SRA taking on the role of licensing ABS.

It is of course important that it continues to develop competencies to understand and regulate legal service providers.

The signs are that it is endeavouring to do so, seeking to better understand the work of City firms and their clients as well as larger firms and those providing services in volume (in their time also regarded with suspicion by some parts of the profession).

Frankly, the profession should be engaging with the SRA and the Legal Services Board.

In so doing it stands the best chance of informing what is required to deliver the outcomes desired by outcomes-focused regulation.

The Law Society is doing this and it is right that the SRA should seek to regulate ABS.

Not all promoters of ABS will choose regulation through the SRA, but if they come within the broad remit of the solicitors' profession, they will have to measure up to the prescribed standards.

To stand on the sidelines shouting does not alter the inevitable outcome but does mean that we as a profession would be increasingly disenfranchised.

In short, well done to the Law Society for having the guts to get on with it.

It will need more of the same if it is to square the awkward circle of representing both those who would promote ABS as well as those who are inevitably adversely affected by an increasingly competitive marketplace, some aspects of which will no doubt be blamed on ABS.

The fact is reforms and developments date back many years – look to the competition authorities report describing restrictive practices in the provision of professional services.

We now see the active implementation of changes long required by parliament.

There is no reason why able lawyers, practicing to the highest professional standards should be overtaken by these events.

The sadness is that too many are protesting against change, rather than using their excellent intellects to analyse and pick an advantageous route through it.

There are opportunities for those who make the best of them and the Law Society was right to lead the way.

Robert Bourns is Senior Partner at national law firm TLT.

3 Comments     Add comment


Properly rewarding and promoting law support staff is overdue
Robert Bourns
Thursday, 3 March 2011

The advent of ABS and the personal opportunities that will follow throw into focus the skills required to manage and promote a successful law firm.

Over many years, firms have invested in a robust and in many cases excellent management team, bringing together a full range of management skills - financial, personnel, business development, systems, risk and compliance and others.

Many approach this on the basis that management skills are always subordinate and less important than legal skills.

This is understandable: first there were lawyers and then there were support staff – fee earners and non-fee earners.

Historically firms were owned and managed by the partners who worked in them. They delegated work to clerks and solicitors and in due course parts of administration.

However, over time, and as law firms have increased in size and complexity, the work undertaken by the management team has become every bit as important as many aspects of the work undertaken by lawyers.

Unfortunately, some of the language used to describe the benefits of outsourcing may encourage lawyers to overlook the value and ambition of those working in the day-to-day management of law firms.

The traditional reality of ownership pre-ABS is consistent with solicitors providing capital, accepting risk and therefore taking the profits.

In this context firms spend time, effort and money mentoring and promoting the best legal talent, creating structure to support the encouragement and selection of the best, perhaps paying less attention to those working within the management teams themselves.

It is likely that this will soon be seen as outmoded and anachronistic, creating a business risk, as "support" staff become increasingly mobile.

ABS will encourage new entrants, the restructuring of existing providers and the opportunity to share ownership and profit with non-lawyers.

Outcomes Focused Regulation will encourage firms to develop their own rules for the demonstrable delivery of mandatory principles.

Those starting with a clean sheet will look hard at the skills required to run a profitable legal business.

The answer will include a mix of excellent lawyers and managers, whose value in the context of many law firms will be equivalent.

They expect their rewards, both by way of income and participation in ownership to reflect their value relative to each other.

Firms that don't recognise this will risk losing their best talent to others who do.

A law firm is the sum of its parts.

We work together and contribute our different skills jointly to the benefit of our clients. In order to demonstrate this, old fashioned demarcation lines should be avoided and members of the firm treated similarly.

We should take time and trouble to develop our support staff, creating career paths that provide opportunity.

We should involve all members of the firm in training (particularly the softer skills associated with presentation, service standards and delivery), in initiatives around the firm's values, in community engagement and, indeed, in strategic review.

The skills, enthusiasm and insights to be obtained within the support groups are every bit as good and relevant as those of their lawyer colleagues - in many cases, more so.

We need increasingly to provide similarly rewarding career structures and to encourage mutual respect and recognition from the lawyer population to those who work with them.

How many lawyers (particularly more senior members of any firm) understand that many of those working in support are highly qualified and experienced graduates, with a very clear idea of the opportunities opening in the legal services sector to well-managed and effective legal businesses.

Recognition and the opportunity for development and promotion are important.

Many firms provide their lawyers with access to MBA and other postgraduate qualifications.

Similar opportunities should be offered to others involved in the management and development of the firm.

Salary structures can be developed to ensure that support staff are incentivised in a way that is similar to the partners interest in profit.

Base salaries, with additional remuneration dependent on successful implementation or delivery of particular projects and firm profit.

The advent of ABS emphasises the range of skills and qualifications required to operate a successful law firm and includes lawyers, providing they demonstrate real management skills, and also finance, IT systems/operations, sales and marketing, regulation and human resources management.

There should be no surprise that this appears corporate.

These are the skills and accountabilities found within a corporate Board structure, to manage the business in the interests of all, including the shareholder/investors.

ABS will allow ownership to be shared with support staff or others.

Career and remuneration structures that reward the best support staff are long overdue. They can expect to be sought after and to become as mobile as their lawyer colleagues.

Law firms therefore, need to bind them in by giving them a stake in the practice in terms of reward, even if they remain unwilling, for the time being to introduce part of capital.

As a footnote, it is worth adding that those who seek to represent the interests of law firms or legal service providers must engage effectively with the non-lawyers who are responsible for important aspects of the management and development of the business, procurement of services and payment of subscriptions.

Recognition and inclusion are long over due.

Robert Bourns is Senior Partner at national law firm TLT

9 Comments     Add comment


Expertise, experience and efficiency – the outsourcing dilemma
Robert Bourns
Tuesday, 11 January 2011

A strong feature of 2010 was the growing debate about legal process outsourcing (LPO), offshoring and commoditising. To some practitioners this is anathema: a deskilling and cheapening of the practice of law.

Others see it, more positively, as a separation of the repetitive, low value and boring work, allowing lawyers to apply their minds and time to complex, stimulating and more satisfying work which will command higher fees. Practitioners are right to reflect on the issues of separation and the value clients attach to the work undertaken.

Many years ago we were invited to consider the effect of the ‘3Es’ – Expertise, Experience and Efficiency – on how we practise. Reflection on this may avoid practitioners placing demarcation lines between areas of work in the wrong place or assuming that they are fixed.

The ‘3Es’ describe the way we do things, rather than categorising the work itself. They apply to all work however defined, whether complex advisory or volume and impact in different proportions from time to time.

The first attempt at a complex transaction will require significant intellectual expertise to ensure all aspects, commercial, corporate and regulatory are dealt with appropriately and thoroughly to protect the client’s interest. Subsequent transactions can be dealt with more quickly and with greater confidence as practitioners capitalise on their earlier experience.

Over time they can be expected to apply their expertise and experience to deal with cases more efficiently and, therefore, more economically. Certain elements of the transaction can be dealt with by less highly qualified personnel, reducing cost and freeing more experienced personnel to move on to other transactions.

This is nothing new: it’s a method of production that has been the backbone of the traditional law firm structure for years. The process is inexorable and common to all services and sectors. The use of technology and the opportunity to relocate operations to other jurisdictions quickens the pace and rewards for those who take advantage, and increases the risk of failure by those who can’t or won’t. It underlies the client’s push for value. They see the benefits of efficiency in their own businesses and believe the legal services sector is susceptible to the same opportunities. Those preparing to invest in the provision of legal services will demonstrate the point.

Practitioners who separate ‘low value’ work, but otherwise carry on as before, will remain vulnerable as they may be inclined to think that they have done what needs to be done.

Fundamentally, there is a need to recognise not only the expertise in extracting maximum benefit from the experience of able lawyers, but also the real expertise required to manage and supervise the work carried on within a firm. This is an expertise that many lawyers do not have and are too often inclined to dismiss.

Historically, many complaints and claims against solicitors can be attributed to failures in supervision. Firms that attempt to create a leaner structure, forcing work to ‘an appropriate level’ and/or to operate at greater volumes, must ensure that work is undertaken by appropriately qualified/trained people, operating robust systems, that are properly supervised. There is real expertise in this, which must be recognised if client matters are to be carried out effectively and profitably. Many principles of outcomes-focused regulation require this.

Those who accept the effect of the ‘3Es’ will recognise that the proportion of each element required in any piece of work or area of practice will alter from time to time, as experience and client expectation push for ever greater efficiency or other changes require a rebalancing.

For example, a change in legislation, regulation or practice will require the reintroduction of the technical skills of a highly qualified lawyer to review process, practices and procedures (as well as to provide training to those involved day-to-day) but, having done so, the technical expertise in terms of personnel can be withdrawn and applied to other more complex work, allowing the expertise of effective supervision and work management to carry on, providing benefit to the client and firm.

In short, successful legal service providers (whether existing firms or new entrants) are entitled to take the benefits of their expertise and experience, including their expertise in effective work management and supervision.

Robert Bourns is senior partner at national law firm TLT

4 Comments     Add comment


Corporate social responsibility and community engagement
Robert Bourns
Tuesday, 7 December 2010

Some while ago I attended a meeting addressed by a Pro Bono officer. We were advised that the government would be pleased to think that the profession had demonstrated its community spirit by making good the shortcomings in legal aid provision by offering services free of charge through a pro bono scheme.

Sensibly, those present were concerned that there should be a match between their skills and those required to fill the gaps left by those who had withdrawn from legal aid. There was some indignation among those present that we should be encouraged to fill a void created by a shortfall in government provision.

I was surprised recently to be told candidly by a senior partner at another substantial law firm that CSR ‘wasn’t for them’. They had taken the view that they have enough to do, coping with changes to regulation, adverse economic conditions, and the need to run the business. That is an understandable and legitimate reaction, but one that misses the point.

When considering CSR there can be a happy coincidence between what we want to do as members of the community and a compelling business case for doing it. The business case goes beyond the ability to tick boxes on a tender document. It can establish and demonstrate the firm’s values to those within it as well as clients, referrers and potential recruits – thereby promoting the firm within the community. It can play an important part in the development of those working within the firm and, yes, it can also be just charitable.

As with many aspects of practice that can be regarded as a time-consuming and costly additional burden, CSR is most effective when incidental to the way we do things. Indeed, the financial benefits of doing so are both real and quantifiable.

Good ‘CSR’ is not confined to a charity committee, nor only the lawyers within the firm. It grips all aspects of the practice and its management and is at least as active a part of work of the firm’s HR, Business Development and Facilities Management as any practice group or team.

We recognise the need to develop and practice the ‘softer’ skills of those working within the firm and are inclined to introduce expensive training to provide workshops and a variety of other means to this end. CSR can provide the means, not in substitution, but as part of the offering.

Employees who are encouraged to volunteer time will provide benefit to the community and gain real experience of the softer skills required. As this involves working in a different environment, with or without work colleagues present it will provide them with additional insight into how others work. There will be real challenges, both to preconceptions and to their own skills and abilities.

The benefits to the firm are obvious: a more complete individual, pleased to have assisted others, appreciative of the support provided in their workplace, the quality of the relationship they have with colleagues, clients and developing a vision that could contribute to the firm's strategic reviews. It is hard to see how there can be a downside.

The request to volunteer can be compared against objectives agreed for an individual in his or her appraisal. If permission is granted, the benefits can be evaluated as with any other type of training and discussed at later review.

The firm can invite employees to identify themes for support. The schemes and causes supported should be identified and recorded for use in those tender enquiries if nothing else. Case studies can be compiled as a ready response to the testing questions – you say you do it, but prove it! – put by clients or equally sceptical recruits.

Perhaps unfortunately, there are plenty of opportunities to work with various charitable organisations in every community. Most charities now recognise that employers will be encouraged to support their employees volunteering if they can see tangible benefits. They will usually provide necessary training and support to your employee prior to and during their volunteering process to ensure identified objectives are met. At a time when public funds are under review and are said to have accounted for 40% of the revenue of charities in the UK, the charitable sector is keener than ever to do business with others.

The environment in which we work is also changing; firms need people who have wide experience, capable of a flexible approach, resilient and optimistic. There are many opportunities and the ability and willingness to exploit them requires a range of skills beyond and in addition to being an able lawyer. Those qualities can be obtained through sensible and practical e