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