COST: clients see panels of local advisers as equally effective


Law firms offering a multi-jurisdictional service are still struggling to provide consistent quality across borders, prompting many clients to continue to pick and choose locally, research has revealed.



A CMS Cameron McKenna survey of 57 in-house counsel at FTSE-100 and other leading companies found that just 40% of respondents agreed that full-service firms with an international network of offices were more efficient than panels made up of local advisers. Responses included: 'Some firms don't have a bloody clue in their other [overseas] offices.'



These findings were given additional weight by 64% of respondents stating that they were not interested in implementing a single adviser arrangement with just one law firm. Reasons cited included the problem of conflict and the need for specialist advice in a particular area.



However, the vast majority of respondents reported that they planned to use either fewer or the same number of external law firms in future, indicating that rationalisation is set to continue. The 17% of respondents expecting to increase the number of external law firms they used would only do so as they expanded into new foreign markets.



Nils Briedenstein, a director of legal at Pegasus Systems, said he preferred dealing with a single adviser firm. 'When you deal with multiple jurisdictions, it's easier if you have only one client partner as the main contact in a firm which has offices in other countries. That person is then able to co-ordinate international projects and assure a common approach to billing and the way work is carried out.'



Deepak Malhotra, senior counsel at Inbev, said: 'I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all. It depends on issue and jurisdiction. The key aspect is always delivery and quality.'



Jonathan Rayner