Drafting advice . . . from Princess Leia

I enjoy a bit of sci-fi every now and again and sometimes think that much can be learned from the sage advice of Yoda and friends ... well not really but it can be fun imaging how Yoda would dispense legal advice:

"Enter into that contract will you hmm? Difficult to see the future is. Trust him I do not!"

However, when recently remembering some of Princess Leia's appearances (stop thinking bikini in Return of the Jedi guys) I remembered this line from Episode IV: The New Hope responding to Governer Tarkin's claim that the Death Star meant no planet would dare oppose the Emporer:

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"

What on earth is the relevance of this to drafting I hear you ask (not in space of course since sound cannot travel in that vacuum)?

There are some lawyers and, indeed, some clients who believe that in order to make every contract watertight (I am yet to see any contract which achieves this aim) it must cater for every possible event. They will spend painstaking hours trying to conceive every possible (and impossible) "what if" and then seek to draft a provision to deal with it.

However, too much specificity (might be an abuse of a statistical defintion this) has negative consequences. It is next to impossible to draft for every eventuality. The more specific your drafting ("the more you tighten your grip") the greater the risk that events not specifically mentioned will not get caught ("the more star systems will slip through your fingers").

So not only will you have spent a lot of time and cost on legislating for events that will probably never happen, you have quite possibly reduced the chances of dealing properly with the unpredictable one that does.

Identify the real commercial and legal risks (not the distant "what ifs") and draft specifically for those. The rest cover with more general drafting; it's cheaper, more efficient and better for your client in the long run.

Beware the dark side of the law and may the force be with you.

My computer might have broadband but my brain is still on dial-up

I was chatting with a partner of mine last week who has been in practice for nearly 40 years. He made a comment which highlights a major issue facing lawyers the world over:

"Whilst the speed with which we can send and receive documents has increased thanks to the internet, the speed with which we can review them has not."

We now live in an instant society. Everything is "on-demand". Modern technology has allowed us to perform many more tasks in a much shorter space of time. Financial calculations which took hours 30 years' ago can now be done in seconds. However, one thing has not changed - the human mind cannot go through its thought processes any quicker. Despite what the Government might want us to believe, more A's at A-Levels does not mean the next generation are all super-computers.
However, it is a fact of life that clients expect that a document can be 'turned' quicker now than 30 years' ago. True, we get it quicker. True we can print it out quicker. True it is easier to create mark-ups and identify changes. However these are all time saving factors in terms of delivery and readability. It still takes the same length of time to read, digest and consider the implications of any given clause or amendment.
Modern technology is also one of the causes of another factor which affects documents of today - length. @LegalBizzle has often tweeted regarding the "mega-contract" which in his line of work does not surprise me. But even in Real Estate, contracts continue to get longer. 30 years ago the average lease was probably 10 or 15 pages maximum. Today it would be 50 pages minimum. Just reading it takes 5 times longer, never mind amending it.
So where do we go from here? Well forget about asking clients to relax.  They are under pressure internally to get the deal done and, frankly, they pay us to transact the deal for them.  But there are things that lawyers can do for themselves and here are my suggestions:

• Use plain english - too many contracts I come across continue to use complex terms for no reason other than to appear intelligent.  However, this inevitably increases the review time and the negotiation time.  Why are we so scared of using language which is intelligible to the average man on the street?
• Use punctuation - I cannot believe that there are still lawyers who believe that not using punctuation assists in interpretation.  Not using punctuation results in multiple re-reads of the same paragraph simply to grasp what it is trying to say.
• Use short sentences - there are no prizes for drafting the longest sentence in the world.  Each sentence should be trying to say one thing.  If it has to say more than one thing at least break it down using sub-clauses so that the drafting visually reflects the thought process.  This also means that any amendment can be more easily understood.
• Be collaborative - as per my previous post on the role of a transactional lawyer, our clients are paying us to get the deal done.  In most cases they view the other party as a partner in some shape or form and their aim is not to shaft them.  Therefore, drafting should be balanced and not seek to screw the other side.  If you adopt an unbalanced approach the other side will probably (i) spot the try-on anyway and (ii) adopt a similar approach resulting in entrenchment and the deal stalling.  A balanced draft is not a sign of weakness but rather a sign of comprehension and commercial nous.

We cannot turn the clock back to a time before everything became such a rush and we are not going to be able to act as if the time pressure does not exist.  So, if we are to avoid all checking in to the nearest facility for stress affected lawyers, we must find ways to reduce the time in negotiating documents.  There will always be negotiation but we should make sure that it is as straight forward and painless as possible.

Transactional law: A bit like being a London cabbie

This blog was encouraged/requested by LegalEagleMHM and is being co-hosted on her fantastic blog : Diary of a Diploma in Legal Practice student which contains many thought-provoking and inciteful blogs and the latest of which on "What makes a 'great' lawyer and do clients want 'greatness' or savings?" clearly shows someone thinking about the actual facts of the job.

Every six months we have a new intake of trainees.  These trainees were generally signed up at least 2 years' previously either in the September of their final year in University or immediately prior to their embarking on the CPE (commonly known as the Law Conversion).  Every six months I find myself asking the same question:

"What do I expect from the new intake?"

You might think I am pretty daft constantly considering the same question but in reality I believe it actually reflects the constantly changing nature of the role lawyers perform.  The graph shows two important attributes that are required from lawyers today - legal knowledge and commercial acumen.  Most law students probably believe (and I admit I am guessing to a certain extent) that legal knowledge is fundamental and that commercial acumen is a distant second.  However, this is very wrong and here is why.

I am a transactional real estate lawyer.  My clients do not care about the law they merely care not to fall foul of it, or if they do, to reduce the negative effects.  My clients come to me with a vision, a transaction they wish to transact, and I am a facilitator seeking to turn their vision into reality.  What matters to my client is getting the deal done.  In order to be able to service them I must understand their commercial drivers, what it is they are trying to achieve.  Without that understanding I cannot possibly enable them to achieve their vision.  With that understanding I am more than merely a facilitator, I am someone who can help develop the vision and improve on it.

So does that mean that legal knowledge is not important?  Absolutely not.  I must know the potential pitfalls that could destroy my client's vision but not so that I can then tell him all the issues but rather so that I can manage the transaction so that the vision is realised whilst avoiding the issues.  Like the London cabbie - I tell him the destination and expect him to get me there in the swiftest, safest and cheapest way.  Sometimes I might ask why he went a certain way but I do not want to hear from him a running commentary on why he did not go a different way.

Back to my fresh intake of trainees joining next week; which is more important - commerciality vs. legal knowledge.  Well, when I started as a trainee in the 20th century(!) my first seat was with a senior property partner at Berwin Leighton called David Rhodes.  On my first day David turned to me and said:

"Barry, you undoubtedly know more law than I do, but I know how to use it better"

This thought has remained with me throughout my career.  Obviously David did know more law than me but that was not relevant.  It is not knowing the law that is important but rather knowing how to use it. 

I expect trainees to know the law in detail and, more importantly, how to be able to research and find out the law.  I do not expect trainees to know instantly when the specific legal point can be disregarded as it does not affect the client's vision.  In fact, I would be very concerned if trainees and junior associates were not considering the full legal picture before telling me what they propose to advise the client.  But that is where the commercial acumen comes in.  I do expect my trainees to show they understand what the client's vision is and how it is our role to deliver that vision whilst negotiating the legal minefield.  They show this by telling me what advice they would give the client after going through the issues.  Clients do not want academic papers; they want actionable advice.  Only commercial awareness allows you to give actionable advice.

So which is more important.  Both and a lawyer missing one or the other will eventually fail.  A lawyer with a lack in the legal knowledge department will lose clients due to negligence.  A lawyer with a lack in the commercial awareness department will lose clients due to failure to deliver the client's vision swiftly, efficiently and safely; a bit like a bad cabbie.

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.

The client care debate - an out houser's view.

Let's get one thing straight.  This is meant to be controversial, it is meant to stimulate debate.

There have been a number of excellent posts in the last couple of weeks by stalwarts of the in-house blogging circuit on the provision of legal services by law firms and lawyers.  Specific examples include:

• "It's client care but not as we know it" by @legalbrat
• "Crossing a (red)line" and "It's not about the biscuits" by @legalbizzle

These blogs are excellent and provide a singularly valuable resource to the out house lawyer who wants to gain a better understanding of how in-house lawyers (and by extension) clients view their legal advisors as well as the do's and don'ts likely to result in praise or a swift disinstruction.  My message to them and all in-house lawyers who blog on these subjects is "keep it up".

Clearly one of the purposes of the above blogs is to encourage debate with the providers of legal services, Big Firm LLP.  And yet, for example, @legalbrat is failing miserably to get any response from any out house blogger to his challenge despite it being featured in @legal_week (see here).

In fact, out house blogs generally fall into the following categories:

• recent legal developments/statutes (yawn!)
• anonymised (amusing) anecdotes of a day in our life (some of which are a joy to read - @magiccircleminx being one such example - but hardly are just there for enjoyment)
• random musings on some news with possibly a connection to the law (does anyone really care about my opinion on interest rates?)

However, what I have failed to find is a single blog by an out houser which considers the challenges facing private practice firms in their provision of legal services to the world and ways these challenges could be addressed.  Why is this?

A number of possible answers spring to mind:

• The "It's a wonderful world" answer - There are no challenges.  Life is just about perfect and we happily are able always to meet if not exceed our client's expectations; associates are completely satisfied and would work for free with no job expectations; our fees are always agreed because we unerringly get it right and our clients love us to bits and gleefully pay all bills because they see the value ooze out of every penny like a BOG10F would in a supermarket.
• The "We haven't a clue" answer - what do lawyers know about addressing the challenges?  Of course there are challenges but we went to law school not business school and so have not got a clue how these challenges should be addressed.  All we can do is employ expensive consultants to tell us the same thing they have told every other firm they have provided consultancy services to: cost-cut, outsource, commoditise, value-add; show the client you love them.
• The "We are afraid of corporate espionage" answer - Behind the scenes we are working very hard at changing the way we do business and work with our clients.  When we think we have discovered the secret then we will tell the world with a front page splash all over @thelawyer or @legal_week but until then we daren't breath a word because one of our competitors might latch on to the idea and steal it from us and of course they could not possibly be considering the same things we are.
• The "Bury our head in the sand" answer - we are aware of the challenges but hope that if we wait long enough either they will go away or we will retire before they are big enough to kill us. 
• The "Too scared to engage" answer - we have some ideas and would really like to engage with our clients to discuss them but we are afraid that in order for our clients to work with us on developing those ideas we would need to have a full and frank discussion regarding our feelings as well as theirs.  They might not like some of what we say and we can't afford to upset them.

In truth the answer is likely to be a bit of all of the above.  Many law firms are engaging with their clients on a one-to-one basis and in doing so are improving the level of client care and client satisfaction.  But even in these closed discussions one has to wonder how much is raised of what a law firm expects from its clients and focuses almost exclusively on how the law firm can improve the service it gives to the client.

Maybe I am naive but in my view the law firm-client relationship should be symbiotic as opposed to parasitic.  As such, would we (clients and firms) not be significantly better off if we could actually openly talk to each other about what we both like and dislike about each other; about what we each could do to make the other's life easier and more fulfilled.  I know that my firm's success is intrinsically linked to my clients' success but do my clients think that their success is in any way dependant on my firm's success?  I doubt it and yet I believe it is.  A successful firm, full of fulfilled lawyers who feel appreciated for the work that they do (and I do not mean in pure financial terms) will provide a much better service.

This kind of fulfilled relationship requires openness on both sides.  But how can we ever expect our clients to help us achieve such a level if we do not even tell them what we genuinely want from them.  How it would be nice to be thanked for working through the night and cancelling dinner with your wife.  How, having done the deal and invoicing at the agreed fee it would be nice if the bill was paid without any need to chase.  How, fundamentally we accept and appreciate that we are service providers who must always be at their best but that it would be nice if the service recipients recognised that this is not always easy.

At the moment it seems to me that all the input is from the in-house lawyer setting out what they want with no input from the out-house lawyer setting out his stall.  We tell the client what they want to hear and listen to what they have to say about the services we provide.  But do we ever tell them how they could change the way they work to help us?  So my challenge to my fellow out housers is let's engage with our clients in a more meaningful manner.  They do not have all the answers and we are not solely responsible for all that is ill with the client-lawyer relationship.  Do this and then maybe together we will reach new heights in the provision of legal services.

Then again, maybe not. . .

Exceeding the client's expectations = job satisfaction



The Shard at night



It's been a bit quiet on the blogging front this week which, for me, means one of two things:

1. I have been away; or
2. I have been having a crazy week in the office.

Looking out of my office window just now at a complete white out of London my view of The Shard being completely blocked a part of me wished the reason was 1.  However the real reason has been that I have had one of the busiest weeks in the office for quite some time.  Back to the good old pre-Xmas deal rush.

In the course of this week, trying to juggle multiple balls, I got to thinking about what it was about my job that I really enjoyed because, despite the pressure of managing various client demands, annoying deadlines and the usual last minute issues, I was in a great mood and since I do not celebrate Xmas (and am not gonig away this year) it was not connected to the impending holidays.

There are lots of reasons to enjoy my job - the rush of a deal, the intellectual rigour, the large sums of money involved, the social interaction.  My conclusion was that I enjoy my job because I provide a service to someone and if I provide that service in an excellent way and, hopefully, exceed the recipient's expectations I feel good about myself.

That is what I did this week.  I had a number of transactions with ludicrously tight timescales even the client was doubtful were realistic and yet we delivered.  We worked together as a team and produced the result the client wanted in a timeframe the client asked for but believed was unachievable and all with a smile on everyone's face.

Law is a service profession and therefore is no different to any other service provider such as being a waiter.  You can be slow to respond, surly, dump the product before the customer and blame the chef or the management for things going wrong.  The customer will still pay for the food but he will not have enjoyed the experience (and probably not come back) and, to be frank, neither will you.  But provide an excellent service, show you care about the client and not only will the client be happier and ready to come back for more but you might be happier too.

Exceeding your client's expectations is not just about making the client happy; it is about getting the maximum enjoyment and fulfillment from your job.

"Why do lawyers exist?", by Tim Bratton

In his first ever blog, Tim Bratton, GC of the FT says it all when he says ". . . successful lawyering is all about getting clients from A to B over whatever hurdles might lie-in-between" and not, as some lawyers believe, to put the hurdles in the way of the client!

You can read his whole blog here:

thelegalbratblawg: The First Post

Thanks Tim for reminding all of us of the important facts.

Am I about to be outsourced to South Africa?

I awoke this morning to read in The Lawyer that Pinsent Masons is the first firm to send real legal work (i.e. work that qualified associates would do) to a company in South Africa. Outsourcing is not new to law firms and nor is outsourcing off-shore. However this is a first as it means real legal work going off-shore and judging by some of the comments made by my peers on TheLawyer.com they are not happy about it!

This is a fascinating development in the provision of legal services. I think that there is little argument that to a large extent geographical location is no longer an important factor in the provision of any services apart from those requiring you to be in a specific place (e.g. a plumber). So why did lawyers possibly consider themselves different? Afterall, in some ways our jobs are even more easily transferable across the globe. I could be writing this blog, reviewing and drafting documents and reports and generally conducting my work life from anywhere on the planet (and, I suspect, from the International Space Station as well) - my clients do not care where I am as long as they can get hold of me when they need to!

So what is the big issue?

Well I think that there is a difference between a firm based in another country with limited or no office in the UK providing legal advice from a cheaper base and a firm existing properly in the UK and outsourcing legal work to another company in another country to cut costs. In the first case, from trainee up there is the potential to get exposure to all parts of transactions. The only thing that might be partially lacking is client contact although this would increase as you became more senior and your skills would develop accordingly.

However, in the second form, which Pinsent Masons has adopted, there is a whole chunk of work experience that is now being removed from trainees and junior lawyers. One cannot play down the importance of that kind of experience in developing a well-rounded lawyer. The ability to run a transaction well can only come from the experience of being a tiny part of a similar transaction and seeing the effect that decisions made at the higher level have further down the chain.

Am I surprised?

Of course not. The increasing dichotomy between partners' needs to keep profits growing and clients' needs to see fees fall meant that something had to give. Law firms have to find a cheaper way of conducting business especially in the current climate and this is one way to go.

Will it affect quality?

This is an impossible question to answer as often quality is dependent on the individual as much as the company employed. However, the fear of failing to impress a given supervisor will be lost as will concern regarding damage to brand. Again, these are not tangible things which can be measured.

Is this the end (or at least the beginning of the end)?

Who knows. I do not see it as being possible to remove the human touch, certainly at the higher value end of the spectrum. Clients want specific lawyers for specific deals. The problem is, as pointed out by a number of comments on TheLawyer.com, what effect will the outsourcing of the low value work to cheaper locales have on the experience required for the next generation of lawyers just starting out? Could it ever be positive?

Don't the partners and clients know this?

I think they do but at the end of the day we now live in a short-term view society. This has been highlighted as one of the main causes of the financial crisis. Partners and managers are not worrying about the effects of something in 10 years' time but rather the benefits that will be achieved in 2-4 years' time. Some may also suspect that the whole fees issue is a short term one and once the economy recovers it will disappear.

The problem is that whilst it might be true that law firms will not be expected to further cut fees it is highly improbable that they will be able to significantly increase them either. Further, if you were a partner in a firm who had outsourced work to South Africa and you could now increase your fees and either (i) bring more work back on-shore at a higher recoverable cost or (ii) keep it off-shore and make more profit, which would you opt for?