JJB proposed CVA: Will it succeed?

A colleague has just sent to me a copy of the announcement by JJB regarding its proposed CVAs.  Only a month ago I wrote a blog regarding the possibility of HMV proposing a CVA which contained some advice for Landlords.  Thus far it has not happened and, I have been told that my expectations may have been too high since HMV remains profitable despite its troublesome retail sites.
However, from the sidelines JJB is now proposing a CVA the mainstay of which appears to be an attempt to get rid of underperforming sites.  The announcement states the following:

"The key objectives of the CVA proposal will be to:

• enable the closure over the next 12 months of up to 45 stores which are underperforming (the "Category 1 Stores");
• enable a review to be carried out in relation to the remaining stores, with an option to close over the next 24 months up to a further 50 stores which are also underperforming (the"Category 2 Stores");
• enable the Company to continue to pay rates on closed stores in the period up to the first break date under each lease;
• vary the terms of the leases of the Category 1 Stores and Category 2 Stores such that rent will be payable on a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis;
• reduce the amount of rent payable in respect of stores which will be closed in due course for a period of up to 12 months for the Category 1 Stores and a period of up to 24 months for the Category 2 Stores (if the stores are closed after the end of the relevant period, no further rent will be payable);
• enable landlords of the stores for closure to require the Company to vacate and determine or assign the lease of the relevant property upon at least 30 days notice; and
• vary the terms of the continuing leases such that rent will be payable on a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis for a period of 24 months."

In November 2009, following the first successful CVA by JJB I blogged on "Tenant CVAs - what makes them successful?".  In this blog I identified a number of common themes which ran through the successful CVAs.  Let's look at those in the context of the JJB announcement:

1. No additional store closures over and above those that had already closed (i.e. landlords knew if their site was closed) - the new JJB proposal leaves 95 stores at threat of closure.  The landlords of those stores may or may not be identified at the outset creating significant uncertainty.  New JJB Proposal fails the test
2. No rent reductions on stores remaining open although movement to monthly rent payments - the new proposal is that rents will be reduced on Category 1 and Category 2 Stores and that on these stores rent will be payable monthly.  On the remaining 150 stores the rent will remain the same.  Double whammy for landlords of Cat 1 and Cat 2 stores.  New JJB Proposal largely fails the test
3. On closed stores the tenant would continue to pay the rates (landlords were protected from this oppressive liability) - this appears to be the proposal on the JJB CVA.  Test passed
4. A pot of money (normally equal to 6 months' rent) was distributed between the landlords of closed stores as compensation - there is nothing in the announcement suggesting such a pot and the implication is there will be none.  Test failed

Therefore, based on my previous views as to what makes a Tenant CVA proposal acceptable to Landlords it is doubtful that the JJB proposal passes the test.

So what should you do if you are a Landlord who has a property let to JJB?  Well, all I can do is re-iterate what I said in my blog on the possibility of an HMV CVA:

• first and foremost do not go it alone - unless you are a significant creditor your ability to block or seek changes in the proposals will be fruitless unless others share your views. Therefore find out who the other landlords are and talk to them
• take legal advice - CVAs amount to binding contracts on both the company and the creditors. Some proposals can mean that the CVA is liable to challenge for "unfair prejudice" but the law is complex
• take valuation advice - especially if your property is one which JJB seeks to dispose of as you need to understand what this would mean in terms of reletting
• act quickly - waiting until the week before the meeting to read the proposals and ask a lawyer to advise you on what it means for you is a case of too little too late. My advice to all of JJB's landlords is to take action now so that you are well prepared in the event a CVA is proposed
• beware breach of your loan covenants - if you have borrowed against the property then any action you take is likely to require the endorsement of your bank.  Also, agreeing reductions in rent could put you in breach of interest cover tests so you will need to check your loan documentation too

Of course the formal CVA proposal has not yet been published so the final form may differ from the outline proposals.  If you are a Landlord who is affected then please feel free to contact me.

Legal Process Outsourcing: A crime against . . . ?

The news that Herbert Smith and Allen & Overy have opened offices in Belfast followed by further news that Addleshaw Goddard is opening a depot in Manchester to do due diligence and less complex legal tasks has resulted in a tumult of comments across the twitter- and blog- sphere.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this subject but I take issue with those whose opinion is that the only reason that these law firms (or indeed any law firm) undertakes a form of outsourcing is to cut costs and line the partners' pockets as if that was a heinous crime.  All businesses must manage their cost bases in a sensible way in order to remain competitive.

Let's be a bit more analytical about this. The UK does not lack law firms and, whilst this might surprise some, competition between firms is pretty fierce.  Whilst repeatedly in surveys of buyers of legal services pricing is not at the top of the list of reasons for choosing a law firm personal experience tells me that in reality price is often the factor (it's just that price knocks you out before the race can even start!). Therefore firms must be competitive and that means cutting costs so that fees can be maintained at a level the market will bear.
 

Because it is a market, lawyers will charge what they believe their services are worth. Where a law firm has a recognised niche it is normal market forces which allow them to charge more. This is no different to Apple setting the price of its iPad - set it too high and only the die-hards will buy it.  Therefore, the so-called Magic Circle can charge more for services which the market perceives only they can provide.  Proving that the perception is wrong is a completely different point but simply charging less is unlikely to win over those clients.

The second point is that law firms are not only competing against each other for work but also to hire and retain talent. A firm which fails to maintain its PEP is going to start losing its higher billing partners and seem less attractive to associates and even prospective trainees. Again this is no different to any other business seeking to attract the highest quality staff.  The argument regarding banks and bonuses is not a million miles away.

Therefore to attack Legal Process Outsourcing on the basis that the sole purpose is to line the pockets of partners with no benefits to clients shows a complete lack of understanding of the competitive legal market of today. Part of the end result and indeed the aim may be to increase profitability but to achieve this a firm has to remain attractive to its clients and be competitive.

There are issues with LPO as a concept especially in terms of quality of the product being provided and potential negative effects on training. In terms of quality the main concern is how do you ensure that the output is good enough.  This is a serious reputational issue but I find it hard to believe that the likes of A&O have just said "Who gives a damn about quality just show me the money".  Reputation is everything.

The training issue is more difficult.  Addleshaw's PR blurb highlighted that their new project would mean "No more drudge work for associates".  This was followed quickly by a remark that whilst associates do need to undertake due diligence exercises to understand the processes they do not need to do 500 of them.  The problem is that once you have a system in place which means associates do not need to do any of them you automatically go from 500 to zero with the result that associates have no experience.  This would seem to suggest that there must be a level of sacrificing associate experience to cut costs.  Full experience of the process and work is a necessary step to managing the process.

In my area, Real Estate, this is a real issue.  A significant proportion of Real Estate work could be considered relatively straight forward - basic leases, licences to assign, licences for alterations and even simple sale and purchases of pieces of land.  Pricing competition in these areas is intense and it is difficult to compete against regional firms on price.  The obvious answer would be for us to open a regional office and send all the low value work to that office.  However, unless we forced every trainee and associate to spend a proportion of time in that office (thus losing a major cost save in terms of lower salaries in the regions) our office in London would be populated with Real Estate lawyers who do not have proper hands-on experience of the nuts and bolts of the assets they are dealing with.  That would be failing our associates and failing our clients and putting at risk our status as the go to firm for Real Estate.  Whilst it might be possible to reach a happy medium by sending out some of this work and retaining some the temptation will always be there to send it all out to improve the bottom line.

In summary:

• Competition amongst law firms has never been greater
• All firms are looking to create competitive advantage and LPOs are just one way of creating that advantage
• Successfully creating such an advantage over competitors should result in increased profitability afterall that is the primary function of any business (as opposed to a charity).

Whether the short term gains offset the long term risks remains to be seen but criticising it simply because it might mean some law firms become more profitable as a result is like criticising Tesco for driving down prices and becoming more profitable at the same time. 

The client-lawyer relationship - can we fix it?

This blog really continues a debate that was started by @legalbizzle and @legalbrat a few weeks ago.  There are a number of postings relevant which you might consider pre-course material including:

• What lawyers can learn from call centres by Legal Bizzle
• It's not about the biscuits by Legal Bizzle
• It's client care but not as we know it by Legal Brat

In truth this is not a new debate, in fact it is not really a debate.  It is obvious that relationships can only exist between individuals and not between corporate entities - a relationship is not a contractual bond it is an emotional bond and entities do not have emotions.  A CEO or Group Counsel might say "We use BLP for our Real Estate work" and it might be true that Berwin Leighton Paisner have been appointed but the reason for that appointment will be due to that same CEO/Group Counsel having a relationship with individuals at BLP.  As a firm we cannot take the relationship for granted and as with any relationship it must be constantly worked on.

I have often pondered why it is that people can be in a relationship for years and even living together but then get divorced relatively quickly after getting married.  I believe the answer is obvious - prior to getting married both parties worked at the relationship to maintain it.  Both realised that in order for the relationship to be sustained it required effort and sacrifice on both sides.  However, once the couple are married they fall into the trap of thinking that the marriage certificate is proof of their commitment and no more effort to maintain the relationship is required.  However, the opposite is clearly true, the marriage is simply a new phase to the relationship and the parties must still go to great effort and make the same sacrifices if the marriage and thus the relationship is to survive.

Leaving the sphere of marriage counselling and returning to client-lawyer relationships, it is clear both from the articles above and personal experience that the same is true.  During the courting phase lawyers will spend a large amount of time talking to and supposedly getting to know the prospective client.  Then once the appointment has been made many lawyers will simply stop with the "idle chatter" and only talk business.  It should hardly be surprising that the client, in such circumstances, wakes up in the morning and views his lawyer in a negative way.  His lawyer is not interested in helping him achieve his goals.  His lawyer's sole motivation is acquiring instructions for the purpose of making money.

So if it is so obvious why are so many lawyers bad at it?

The answer to this is not so clear but I believe it may lie partially in the traits of the average lawyer and partially in the billable hours tradition that has built up.

In terms of the billable hours tradition I think that this is something which has been mentioned before.  From a young age it is impressed upon the junior lawyer the importance of the billable hour.  That is how firms have traditionally made money.  Your associate's salary is a fixed annual sum but the more billable hours you can get out of them the more profit you will make.  The problem is that in the associates' minds this translates into anything which is not billable as being evil.  Accordingly, said associates do not want to "waste" their time in "idle chit chat" with clients when they could be billing another client.  By the time the associate has reached a more senior level the habit is embedded and breaking that habit is significantly harder and requires effort.

Therefore, this part of the problem is systematic and within the power of the profession to address by better recognition of the non-billable hour at the most junior level.  Certainly at BLP we actively encourage our junior associates to engage on a social basis with clients.  But we have not solved the problem because, at the end of the day, there continues to be the pressure to record time, leaving associates making bad cost-benefit analysis decisions and probably not investing sufficient time in building the relationship.  But it is a start which will hopefully better equip our associates as they move towards partnership or into in-house roles.

The traits issue is less tangible but I want to throw it out there as a thought for discussion.  I just wonder whether law attracts a certain type of individual who is not as comfortable with developing personal relationships with multiple contacts.  As with everything there are exceptions to the rule and these exceptions are found in the rainmakers.  Whilst some of what these rainmakers are good at can be learnt, their success is due in a large part to their personal character traits.  Whilst we might be able to provide training and alter some bad habits fundamentally it is unlikely we can ever change (nor do I believe we would want to) a person's character to such a large degree.  If that is correct then there may be an argument that whilst small improvements will be made in client-lawyer relationships, fundamentally if you expect all the lawyers to suddenly become the best relationship people around it just ain't going to happen. 

What category do I fall into?  I suggest you ask my clients.