Protecting Attorneys' Ethical Obligations

Every business assesses the obstacles in its path – hurdles that can range from a crowded marketplace to shifting customer trends to a lack of eyeballs. From the perspective of a Legal Process Outsourcing firm, one of those hurdles is attorney reticence.

In-house counsel and firm-based attorneys both share a strong and altogether appropriate sense of loyalty to their clients. So when an attorney weighs the pros and cons of outsourcing legal work, the scale looks a little something like this: On one side is the efficiency and significant cost savings that every client is looking for, and on the other side is the nagging twinge of concern that outsourcing could expose their client to certain risks, like conflicts of interest.

Attorneys work hard to ensure that neither their firm nor their employees have any competing interests that would conflict with the best interests of their client. And attorneys have every right to expect an extension of that trust from an LPO.

That's why it's crucial for an LPO to step up and 1) acknowledge those concerns as legitimate, and 2) proactively take every step to protect both the original counsel and the counsel's client.

In-house and firm-based counsels’ conservative approach to LPOs makes sense when you consider the relatively young nature of legal outsourcing. Other business process outsourcing areas have decades of history and a track record that can be evaluated, whereas LPO is relatively new to the game. So, it makes sense that attorney trepidation stems from lack of familiarity.

That’s why one of the first orders of business for an LPO – and a mandate at LegalEase Solutions – must be protecting the ethical standards that counsel promises their clients.