Law Firm Apprenticeship Programs

Law.com recently profiled the growing implementation of apprenticeship programs for first-year attorneys.

Notable firms across the country embracing the apprenticeship model include Howrey; Philadelphia's Drinker Biddle & Reath; labor firm Ford & Harrison; Ohio/Kentucky firm Frost Brown Todd; and Dallas' Strasburger & Price.

"Firms are putting new recruits through additional apprenticeship programs that they say will better train their attorneys for life at a law firm and for handling clients. Think of it as the equivalent of a medical residency, only with suits instead of scrubs."

"The latest -- and so far largest -- firm to move to an apprenticeship model, 659-lawyer Howrey, announced its program last week. Starting next year, first-years at the firm will get a pay cut -- from $160,000 to $100,000 in base pay plus a $25,000 bonus to pay down law school loans -- and they'll spend a good portion of their time attending classes with partners and shadowing them on client matters. The apprenticeship period will last two years.

"Robert Ruyak, Howrey's managing partner, said associates will be doing far less client work, and when they do work on client matters it won't necessarily be billed to clients. "We really want them to focus on learning the skill they need to be first-rate litigators," Ruyak said."

"The old model is broken," Ruyak said. "You're bringing on these extremely bright individuals and letting them waste their careers buried in documents where they aren't really learning the practical skills it takes to be a lawyer."

Ah, yes. Here we see -- yet again -- another real-world distinction between the two separate job functions that have been each historically covered by the umbrella term attorney. On the one hand, there is the redundant, commoditizable, associate level work, and on the other hand we have the role of adviser, counselor, manager, and/or litigator.

As we discussed previously, while the future of the legal profession is changing, the need for the experience, insight, and perspective of a seasoned attorney will always be in demand.

These apprenticeship programs seem to acknowledge that, and then take it a step further by explicitly separating the training of litigators/advisers/counselors from the redundant, high volume work that can be executed at a more cost-efficient level, either by in-house staff attorneys or -- with even more cost-efficiency -- by highly trained attorneys at an LPO.

A Lesson from the Engineers

Marketplace, a radio program run on many NPR stations, recently discussed how the sour economy was eliminating engineering jobs at a faster rate than many other professionals, with high profile companies looking to offshore their engineers.

Obviously, this sounds very familiar to legal professionals.

Interestingly, the American Society of Civil Engineers read the writing on the wall long enough ago to start revising their Body of Knowledge, which was created in a 1998 policy statement to define prerequisites for licensure and practice.

Last year the ASCE published Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century, Preparing The Civil Engineer for the Future, Second Edition.

The purpose of the book is to acknowledge new professional challenges and identify improvements to the education and licensure process. The book states:

"The manner in which civil engineering is practiced must change. That change is necessitated by such forces as globalization, sustainability requirements, emerging technology, and increased complexity with the corresponding need to identify, define, and solve problems at the boundaries of traditional disciplines."

Again, to those following the legal profession, there is a familiar echo: Globalization. Emerging technology. Problem solving at the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

Of equal importance, the ASCE also includes a telling word choice in one of their stated goals for the book.

" [to] focus on outcomes to the proposed changes in the way civil engineering is taught and learned, including the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for entry into professional practice."

Pretty striking. The American Society of Civil Engineers -- not a group historically known as wild-eyed, knee-jerk, doom sayers -- is 1) stating that the manner in which they practice their profession must change and, 2) suggesting that a change in attitude is a key component to succeeding in the 21st.

As attorneys peer into the coming years, it might not be a bad idea to steal a page from the ASCE's Body of Knowledge for the 21st Century and acknowledge that a change in attitude may be a successful strategy to address the challenges of globalization, emerging technology, and problem solving at the boundaries of traditional disciplines.

The Business of Law vs. The Service of Legal Counseling

The New York Times ran an article last week on how the most venerable law firms -- we're talking multinational, centuries old, most upper of the upper crust firms -- continue to purge their ranks in unprecedented fashion.

As anyone who is paying attention knows, the landscape of how legal work is organized and delivered is shifting beneath us as we speak. What no one knows exactly is how it's all going to shake out.

But there were a few more interesting signposts offered in the Times article that may at least help shape the way we perceive and articulate it.

Here is what the New York Times had to say (and I'm reordering some of their paragraphs):

"The gentleman’s profession of the law is becoming a vestige of the past, removed enough from reality to be remembered, like phone booths or fedoras."

"... the natural order of this world has been set on end by the economic crisis and the possible disappearance of fixtures like the pyramid system (under which associates are thrown en masse at certain cases, fattening the fees), and the billable hour itself (increasingly replaced by flat rates or retainers in a client’s market). The tectonic plates have begun to shift in a nauseating manner, bringing fear, ambiguity and psychological scars."

Philip K. Howard, a senior partner at Covington & Burling, another multinational firm, laments
that as the bottom line increases in importance, the traditional role of the lawyer as a trusted counselor slips away.

In another passage, Mr. Howard underscores his observation, saying that he's not really "interested in the business of law".

In other words, Mr. Howard is equating the current emphasis on the bottom line with the "business of law", and distinguishing that from the role of lawyer as counselor.

And this is consistent with our conversation regarding the distinction between legal information and legal advise.

The unbundling of legal services that we've been watching unfold in front of us can be framed in this way: the business of legal work is being separated from the service of legal counseling.

If this way of looking at it is accurate, and if this divide -- between the business of legal work and the service of legal counsel -- continues to solidify, that would seem to argue for the continued growth of LPO as attractively priced virtual associates and virtual attorneys to contribute to the business of legal work.

Legal Information vs. Legal Advice

The unbundling of traditional legal offerings -- which is an emerging trend central to Richard Susskind's recent book The End of Lawyers -- has been a hot topic in these parts lately.

The idea of different legal services becoming available in new venues and formats is one that we're seeing manifest itself in a number of ways from web-based companies offering legal forms, legal facts, entreprenuerial start-up guidance, copyright filing, and more.

And it's happening in both the U.S. and the U.K.

In fact, the U.K.'s Legal Services Act 2007 is a national initiative providing a legislative framework to actually reform the way legal services in England and Wales are regulated and delivered.

The Act specifically allows legal services "to be provided under new business structures" with a stated goal of promoting "competition and innovation".

The BBC recently reported on this, highlighting that "future providers, including large retail brands, could seek a license to offer legal services."

The article includes opposing views, including an attorney who says the move "demonstrates utter contempt for the consumer of legal services. The solicitor profession faces being all but wiped out by a government seemingly intent on robbing the public of access to good quality, local legal advice."

Ah, but here is something to keep in mind: As we talk about the fragmenting of legal offerings, it's important to be consistent in distinguishing between legal information and legal advice.

In fact, it could be argued that the BBC's reporting fails to do this. Or, at the least, it allows for the interchanging of the terms.

The American Bar Association distinguishes between legal information and legal advice. Legal information is general, non case specific, and can be provided by anyone. Legal advice, on the other hand, is "provided by a trained lawyer who uses his or her knowledge of the law to tell you how the law applies to your specific circumstances."

When listening to all the voices on both sides of the conversation, it's important to keep the distinction in mind and remember that legal advice isn't going anywhere.

Legal experience, insight, and strategy aimed at an outcome will always be in demand. What is evolving, and will continue to evolve, is how the more rudimentary and "commoditizable" aspects of the law will be unbundled and delivered.

The Managing Onshore Attorney - Part II

Law.com's Legal Blog Watch summarizes a recent study of emerging trends for contract lawyers conducted by The Posse List. In regards to Legal Process Outsourcing, they write:

"Though firms are under pressure to cut costs, data security and quality of work are two key deterrents to sending projects to India. Still, Bufithis notes that "off-shoring is not going away." It's moving toward a blended approach, with a first pass at review in India followed by second review in the United States."

Here is another acknowledgment that the blended onshore/offshore model provides the benefit of a second layer of quality control and oversight from the onshore attorneys, and it dovetails nicely with the second part of our conversation with Managing Onshore Attorney, Chris Crawford.

Q: Generally, what is the breakdown in terms of the percentage of work executed by the offshore attorneys and the percentage executed by the onshore staff?

A: “It can really vary. Depending on the complexity of the work, it ranges from 10% onshore to 90% onshore. The benefit to the client is that the cost does not change whether the work is performed by a U.S. trained attorney or an India trained attorney.”

Q: What are the types of work that you have seen translate successfully to being outsourced?

A: "India is a common law country, and the attorneys there have all gone to law school. So they can be trained to do any legal work that a U.S. attorney can be trained to do. We have successfully assisted law firms and corporations in many areas of the law including research and writing, contract drafting and review, discovery and document review, drafting of motions, briefs, and pleadings, as well as all general paralegal services."

Q: What are the educational backgrounds of the offshore attorneys?

A: “All Indian attorneys have graduated from an accredited Indian law school, which requires either three or five years of schooling, depending on the law degree obtained. We only hire those that have graduated within the top 10% of their class.”

Q: How are the attorneys trained once they join LegalEase?

A: “LegalEase has its own six month training program, designed by a Harvard Law School graduate. All LegalEase attorneys must complete that training program before working on live projects. This program is designed to teach the attorneys the major distinctions between U.S. and Indian law, and to give the Indian attorneys an opportunity to further hone their writing skills.”

Q: How do you address ethical concerns, e.g. how do the off-shore attorneys ensure confidentiality and conflict checking?

A: “All attorneys working for LegalEase sign confidentiality agreements. In addition, most clients require that LegalEase employees sign confidentiality agreements before commencing work on a project. Regarding conflicts of interest, we have an internal conflict checking system to ensure that we do not undertake work that would present a potential conflict of interest with another client.”

Q: How do you guarantee client satisfaction?

A: “We have always provided our clients with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. If the client is for some reason dissatisfied, we only ask that they provide the reason for the dissatisfaction and give U.S. an opportunity to re-work the project until it is to their satisfaction.”

You can read the first part of our conversation here.

The World Gets Flatter -- Virtual Law Firms

Another dispatch from the front line of the rapidly shifting landscape of legal outsourcing and offshoring.

Virtual law firms are not a new or particularly cutting-edge idea. A wikipedia page on virtual law firms notes that they have been around since 2004. And, if you think about it, even having a wikipedia page probably precludes any sort of "underground" status.

The ABA's Law Practice Today generally characterizes virtual law firms as having the following traits:

1. A stable core group of attorneys
2. Established collaborative relationships with other specialized law firms that possess expertise that’s occasionally needed
3. Technologically linked infrastructure via appropriate computer and telecommunications systems
   
4. Ability to expand and reduce personnel as needed

In other words, we're talking about a team of attorneys -- saving on overhead by forgoing the traditional bricks and mortar office buildings -- networked together via the web.

Some virtual law firms employ attorneys scattered throughout the U.S.. Other virtual law firms, like Rimon Law Group (a firm with a very creative and intriguing billing model that factors client satisfaction), manages to reduce overhead even further by including attorneys who live in locations with lower costs of living -- areas in the United States as well as other countries.

And this makes perfect sense as a business model.

Because virtual law firms employing U.S. attorneys located outside the U.S. are leveraging the exact same dynamic as Legal Process Outsourcing: Work is completed by qualified colleagues who live in areas with lower costs of living, and those savings in overhead translate to lower costs to the client.

An interesting element at play here is the distinction in terminology.

Whereas a network of U.S. attorneys living in different countries is a "virtual law firm", a network combining U.S. attorneys with attorneys trained and accredited in other countries is thought of as "offshoring".

As the lines between old guard legal paradigms and new, global legal paradigms blur, it is likely that the terminology will, too. So, when an LPO engages offshore attorneys to perform some of the more redundant legal processes (litigation support, legal research/writing, contract/document review, etc.), couldn't we just call them "virtual associates"?

The Onshore Attorney's Role in the Review Process

When United States attorneys evaluate the efficiencies and savings of outsourcing certain legal tasks, they find themselves weighing the merits of two different LPO business models: The entirely offshore model versus the blended onshore/offshore model.

While an entirely offshore model connects the client directly with the offshore office, the blended onshore/offshore model inserts a layer of United States based attorneys to work with the client and shepherd each project.

This layer of onshore managing attorneys serves a number of crucial functions, including project management, quality control, and as a liaison directly from one U.S. attorney to another.

LegalEase's managing onshore attorney, Chris Crawford, recently explained the organizational structure and the managing attorneys role in the workflow and review process. Here's an excerpt from that article.

When a client approaches an LPO with a blended onshore/offshore model, how is the work organized and what is the workflow process?

“Initially, the client will contact the U.S. office about a project. A U.S. based attorney will then get the client specifications for the project, including all facts, documents and directions needed to complete the project. The U.S. based attorney then reviews the project, doing preliminary research and drafting as necessary. He/she then assigns components of the project to the offshore attorneys with specific instructions for the completion of the project.”

What is the review process?

“The U.S. and offshore team work together to complete the project, much the same way an associate and a partner would work to complete a project at a law firm. There is a constant, open line of communication between the two offices for feedback and to answer any questions that may arise. Once the project is complete, a U.S. attorney gives it final review and approval for delivery.”