Chris Parr looks at legal networks and finds that, without constant management and structure, such unions can prove detrimental

Any law firm that claims to offer a service outside its immediate town or city must have some form of network; arrangements with other firms that allow a client to be advised or assisted when away from the home base.

In my years as a general counsel, I saw many law firms with large networks.

Some were impressive in both their size and capabilities but not one was impressive in its uniformity of quality.

All struggled with some essential aspects of creating and maintaining a network.

The concept of a network of law firms is against nature.

Lawyers are independent and adversarial.

Getting them to co-operate is always going to be a struggle.

If they all work for the same firm, it should be easier.

But, even then, it is never going to be perfect.

If the network is loose and unmanaged, it will be chaos.

Many networks start by accident.

A client has a need requiring a co-operative connection with another firm in another place, perhaps abroad.

There is some frantic scratching around - someone remembers using someone at some time.

Directories are consulted.

The connection is made, the work is done.

If the client is happy, no one bothers to think any further.

The firms now think that they have a network.

They haven't.

If the client is unhappy, then all sorts of 'if only we had ...' issues arise.

Some law firms set out to create a network.

This is good.

It shows thought and purpose.

But, do they think it through properly? The enormity of the task can be easily hidden.

A haze may descend on the partners as they dream of being able to boast of 'associate firms in Athens, Moscow and Prague'.

Memories of twinning association trips to Bordeaux flood back.

They underestimate the need for structure and management.

They overlook the strains created by different jurisdictional approaches to law firm control.

They underestimate the cultural differences that will appear.

The French take August off.

The Spanish do not work in the middle of the day.

The Americans will sue as soon as look at you.

What about the cost of maintaining the connections? Will partners be flying around the world checking on uniformity of quality and standards of service? Is there a mechanism for resolving disputes borne out of cultural or practice differences?

Will there be a contribution from all network firms towards the running of the venture? What about fee rates and fee sharing? Is the founding firm ready for all the dimensions of the 'network'? Probably not.

These concepts are too horrible to think about; too negative in a time of optimism.

But they must be thought about and they must be resolved.

The network must be created intentionally, following a plan and in full view of the size and cost of the task.

International fast-food chains have managed to franchise themselves all over the world.

A hamburger in Athens is essentially the same as one in London.

However, even these masters of the networking universe face challenges as they spread across the globe.

Cultural and religious issues with different ingredients will require adjustments to fixed standards.

Different attitudes to hygiene and quality require monitoring and solving - hold the line of uniformity or allow for deviation?

Deviation may create a slippery slope to anarchy in the network.

Rigidity may create resentment and unrest.

The network management soon takes on issues that would tax the UN.

All these issues will be visited upon the creators of a legal network.

Are you ready for it?

Chris Parr has 20 years' in-house experience as an international legal counsel.

He recently founded Libra, which provides transaction support services to law firms and companies