Retaining lawyers on demand is not the only way to meet client expectations

Managing a firm in the famous 'squeezed middle' brings many challenges, but also copious advice from consultants about how we should be structured, how we should remunerate our people and how we should engage with the market.

A recurrent theme in the advice and in the media generally is flexible working and, more specifically, the rise of the concept of 'lawyers on demand'. In theory, the concept is a good, albeit not a novel, one - build a bank of lawyers with various skill sets and engage them on a project-by-project basis. It is tried and tested in other industries - banks of nursing staff, freelance journalists, IT specialists, so why not law? Certainly from a business point of view, the overhead costs would be significantly reduced and the risk of having teams of people with nothing to do but take home their wages would be diminished.

I also agree that there is a need to think more creatively about how we engage staff, how we meet their needs and how we manage our resource within law firms at a time when margins are being squeezed, pricing remains very competitive and increasing numbers of service lines are being successfully commoditised.

For our corporate clients, there has always been an on-demand service. They have an in-house legal team which serves the day-to-day needs of the business and then turn to external teams to supplement and support them on bigger projects or when their in-house staff experience a peak in activity.

Law firms have traditionally borne the risk of overcapacity and engaged teams who can support their in-house clients in the hope and expectation that the firm's portfolio of clients will allow it to sail relatively calmly through the ebbs and flows of demand. But, can law firms also adopt the model of having a core of specialists and only engage a wider team when the client calls for support?

Obviously, the typical lawyer's answer is… it depends.

Balancing demands

My dilemma is this: How does a law firm balance the lawyers-on-demand concept (which is attractive from an overhead point of view) with client expectations of a relationship-driven service and a predominantly traditional workforce that prioritises regular hours and job security?

Arguably, there is a conflict between having a flexible workforce engaged on a project-by-project basis and the desire of clients to have a relationship team that knows them, understands them and can proactively anticipate their needs.

Indeed, our own client feedback and our resulting market proposition is that we can offer that famous partner-led service with a dedicated client team that will spend time getting to know the client's business and the ways in which the client works, thereby 'adding value'.

I think there is a way through it. Law firms such as ours will certainly need to maintain, for now, the core client teams within the firm for its key clients, to ensure that it can deliver on the issues that are important to clients.

However, with some creative thinking and careful planning, resourcing and systemisation, there is no reason why law firms cannot combine core client teams with a flexible workforce that supports them. It would create a different look and feel to the traditional law firm, but it certainly feels like an option in a price-sensitive market.

Add into that mix Generation-Y workers - who love the flexibility of work/life balance and are very comfortable with technology and social media as a primary way of interacting and communicating - and it starts to look inevitable.

Myriad options

Lawyering on demand is not to be ignored but, equally, I don't think it is the only way forward.

One size never fits all - the challenge to law firms is to think about our clients, to think about what they want, to look at the generational changes and expectations of our workforce and to use that to our advantage in the marketplace.

Vicky Brackett is managing partner of UK law firm Thomas Eggar (www.thomaseggar.com)