The art of tailoring an approach that aligns to an organization’s unique needs 

As corporate law departments continue to look for ways to do more with less, the concept of shared services frequently enters into the equation. For most organizations, centers of excellence (COEs) represent a generally familiar approach. Historically, a “typical” COE model was often thought to rely upon lower-cost/administrative resources focused on lower-risk tasks that arise with frequency. And while this type of COE most certainly still exists, gone are the days where this one-size-fits-all approach to shared services is the only option on the table. This blog post will outline the considerations most heavily influencing the design of shared services models today, identify a few potential challenges (most of which can be proactively mitigated) and provide guidance on the next steps toward designing a (successful!) shared services model. 

In exploring how a COE might drive value in an organization, where should a corporate legal operations department start? 

There are many reasons to consider legal shared services: improving client service, reducing costs, standardizing processes, lowering legal costs or spend, supporting corporate strategy, eliminating redundant processes, or helping to introduce new technologies. So — where to start? 

1. Define  short- and long-term goals in collaboration with stakeholders for the shared services initiative 

Shared services centers appear to be underused, according to findings from a 2021 EY study in conjunction with the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession. While 73% of companies use them to support the legal function in some capacity, only 9% use them extensively. One frequent driver of this lag in shared services adoption is the absence of a clearly articulated set of goals and objectives for the initiative. In the absence of this, shared services models can stagnate, thereby reducing overall value and leaving internal resources frustrated by the lack of progress. To avoid this outcome, formally define goals at the outset and include all impacted stakeholders in the process. 

2. Solicit executive feedback on shared services goals and enlist leadership support to drive stakeholder buy-in 

The implementation of a shared services model can be challenging under the best of circumstances. However, with a well-articulated set of goals and buy-in from appropriate members of an organization’s leadership team, the likelihood of success with a COE initiative will increase exponentially! Once the goals for the shared services initiative have been defined, pressure test them with leadership to confirm alignment with other strategic initiatives that may or may not be in the COE line of sight. Finally, ask for a commitment from leadership or an executive sponsor to help drive stakeholder messaging, thereby confirming a top-down approach to promote enthusiastic acceptance of the shared services initiative and the organizational changes it will bring. 

3. Develop an implementation strategy  

There is no substitute for a well-defined strategy, except a well-defined and documented strategy. With this in mind, be sure to formally capture the requisite details of the implementation plan, socialize and gather feedback as required, and identify a resource to maintain and update the COE plan as required. 

4. Communicate early and often 

No one likes to be surprised by changes to organizational strategy and/or structure. Thus, a change management and communication plan that contemplates stakeholder outreach both early and often is likely to drive the best outcomes. 

Realistically, what legal work can be managed in a shared services setting? 

The law department’s move toward shared services does not necessarily mean making wholesale changes all at once. Typically, law departments will start a shared services journey with activities that are high volume or low risk that have clearly defined and standardized processes, for example, e-discovery, template automation, document review, entity management or contract life cycle management. Starting with high-volume or low-risk areas, companies can design specific workflows and can measure performance according to standard metrics and process guidelines. Begin with one, two or several of these activities during the initial move to this delivery model. 

However, there is a trend for companies to also look at expanding the legal shared services model beyond those traditional activities to include more transactional-type support. These activities may include regulatory remediation and repapering programs, contract drafting and negotiating (vendor or customer) intragroup service agreements, and IP rights management. These types of activities were previously thought to be too high risk to be handled by a shared services format; however, with detailed workflows and proper oversight, there has been success with expanding beyond process support. It should be noted that the expansion typically requires a legal-driven shared services model with the right mix of legally trained professionals or a COE that utilizes professionals with the right legal skills to provide the necessary amount of legal expertise to offer guidance when needed.  

Is it a COE or something different? 

There is often a lot of confusion about the differences between COEs and shared services teams. A shared services center (SSC) usually refers to a dedicated unit, including people, processes and technologies, that is structured as a centralized point of service and is focused on one or more defined business functions. Shared services may come from several different physical locations (regional or global) and can operate onshore, offshore or virtually in some cases. Service delivery may be executed by internal resources or external providers, or a hybrid combination of both, and can involve a single or multiple business functions. Companies sometimes engage external providers to consult with various elements of the design, structure, location and execution options.  

Comparatively, a COE is typically thought of as a specialized knowledge center. A COE is a team that provides leadership, leading practices, research, support or training for a particular focus area. The focus areas of COEs vary and may include technology, business concepts, strategic initiatives or specific legal skills. In other words, they are smaller groups within an organization that can get better results by devoting themselves to a particular activity or set of ideas. Within COEs, there is an emphasis on advanced training and certification, knowledge sharing, and development of standards and methodologies. For COEs to gain acceptance within an organization, they must be given a clear mission and then provide demonstrable value to the business units. Like SSCs, COEs have many variations and should be implemented to meet an organization’s individual legal needs. COEs can be centralized at the enterprise level, within business segments or in the form of smaller communities of practice.  

This is a big change — what is the best way to bring the shared services vision to life? 

The deployment of a shared services team can represent a big change from a cultural and resourcing perspective. A strong business case that clearly illustrates the overall benefits to the organization and the impacted resources will establish a solid foundation on which to build. From there, internal socialization of both project goals and project approach is key, although a methodical change management and communications plan is equally important to determine the right messaging at the right time. Finally, a flexible, phased approach to shared services implementation will allow for adjustments as needed.  

The views expressed by the author are not necessarily those of Ernst & Young LLP or other members of the global EY organization. 

EY member firms do not practice law where not permitted by local law or regulation. Ernst & Young LLP (US) does not practice law or offer legal advice. 

Co-authored by: 

Christine Sanz, Senior Manager, EY Law – Legal Function Consulting, Ernst & Young LLP 

Melissa Miller, Senior Manager, EY Law – Legal Function Consulting, Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Legal operations professionals are the cornerstone in any corporate legal department with wide ranging impact across an organization. They are the process visionaries who make sure the legal work gets done on-time and on-budget, that the right stakeholders are included, risk is identified and mitigated, and that the best technology and service partners are tapped to make everything run smoothly. 

When it comes to working with outsourced service providers from managed services or alternative legal service providers (ALSPs), there is both a science and art to managing the vendor relationship to extract maximum value.  Done right, the outsourced relationship can bring tremendous support and expertise to the legal operations function as well as other departments and external law firms.  Handled poorly, the outsourcing effort can fail, creating unnecessary risk, reflecting negatively on the legal operations team and other teams within the organization. 

So how can legal operations pivot to extract maximum value from its outsourced service providers and ensure success?  By focusing on five key areas including Building Trust, Communication, Metrics and Reporting, Active Engagement, and Honesty. 

Building Trust

If trust cannot be established between legal operations and the outsourcing provider, the relationship is doomed; trust is a two-way street.  The outsourcer must consistently and predictably provide excellent communication, quality work, and accountability with proper metrics and reporting to back it up.  All of this instills confidence in their services.  However, the legal operations person also has to become an internal advocate for the outsourcer, someone within the company who is committed to their success. Change can be frustrating so legal operations must ensure that all of the internal stakeholders remain informed and involved as the relationship grows. 

Whether it’s a one-off project or a long-term managed services contract, the legal operations professional has the power to be a champion of the outsourcing effort.  Legal operations often has to make the case for outsourcing, to show proof of concept, anticipated value, and a vision for how it can work best.  There may be some initial resistance and objections at the company, and a preference to use in-house resources.  Legal operations needs to be vocal about the reasons and benefits for outsourcing in order to overcome and address concerns. Service providers need to be very aware that their champion will also be the person taking the brunt of criticism when partners are not performing up to expectations, so their goals must include supporting that champion proactively and substantively wherever possible.

At the outset of the relationship, the provider needs to get connected to the right people and necessary information.  Their client contact within legal operations must help get them what they need to get them off to a flying start.  When both the client and the outsourcing company trust each other and have one another’s backs, the relationship really takes off. 

Legal operations people working at large organizations often face a long process to get an outsourced vendor approved for a Master Services Agreement.  Therefore, it behooves them to support the services provider so that they are able to leverage that resource to the hilt once they finally have the agreement in place.  The company doesn’t need multiple vendors if it makes the most of the ones it has vetted.  Once vendors are approved, give them the training, information, and access they need to succeed.  Document the process with playbooks, briefing documents and workflow maps to establish clarity and uniformity.  Ensure that the company’s legal operations team and in-house lawyers are on hand to provide quality control at key junctures.  Any changes in process, even slight modifications, need to be checked and approved.

Communication

Communication with outsourced providers is more than emails, conference and phone calls – it’s a mindset and modus operandi.  The communication flow must be immediate and mutual between legal operations and the external resource regardless of the information being shared.  This includes sharing good news, relaying bad news, or discussing a process change.

From a troubleshooting standpoint, if an issue or problem arises, the outsourcing company should notify the client immediately and vice versa.  By definition, the outsourcing company has one degree of separation from the company itself, so delayed notification can cause the issue to get exacerbated and potentially more out-of-control.  Communicating the problem promptly and clearly allows for a solution to be devised so resolution comes more swiftly.  Quick issue notification, communication, and resolution are primary factors in building trust in the relationship and being a true partner.

Communication is also crucial from a billing standpoint, and the onus is on the outsourcing company to keep legal operations contacts informed of the financial status of ongoing projects.  Perhaps the work is clicking along fine but the bills are totaling up much higher than the budget allows – that’s a problem.  Or maybe there is not enough work being supplied by the client and the budget is not being used to its full extent; the outsourcer needs to communicate that, too. 

As a legal services provider, there is value in establishing a client’s preferred method of communication. Important emails can be lost in a busy mailbox and phone calls can go unanswered during a hectic day.  Understanding when a short conversation would be more effective than a flurry of email messages should not be underestimated.

Metrics and Reporting

Any discussion about communication these days inevitably leads to accountability through metrics and reporting.  The outsourcing company must track and provide status updates and reporting to the satisfaction of legal operations and its stakeholders.  At any time, legal operations should be able to ask the provider for status on team size, productivity, bottlenecks, and delivery dates and get a quick, thorough response.  Where physically is the work being done, and is the location secure?  Where are the work assignments coming from within the company, and are they in line with the outsourcing agreement?  Weekly check-ins may be necessary at the beginning of an engagement and then less frequent as the relationship becomes more established.  The more granular tracking and details the outsourcer can provide, the more prepared and forthcoming legal operations can be when reporting on progress to the GC and company executives.   

Tracking and reporting on metrics can provide more than updates and status reports. They can deliver valuable insights into a client’s processes, resourcing, data and help frame conversations around methodology or delivery improvements. One of the first operational tasks in a project should be the mutual agreement of the key metrics required to manage the process and risk. Both teams will obviously have different perspectives, but the core metrics needed by both teams will be very similar.

Metrics and reporting can be enormously helpful from a diagnostic point of view if something goes wrong.  Outsourcing companies have human beings on their delivery teams, and they are going to make mistakes, despite their best efforts.  Discovering these errors and mitigating or eliminating them as soon as possible helps to keep risk low and iron out kinks for a smoother, more flawless process.

Active Engagement

Outsourcing companies cannot work in a vacuum – they need frequent interaction to operate as a seamless extension of the corporation’s own team.  The outsourcing resources must be actively engaged with the client via email but also on calls, especially now that in-person meetings are uncommon and most are done virtually. 

The legal operations/outsourcing partner relationship is ever-changing and it can grow over time to serve the client organization more adeptly.  The more the outsourcer becomes familiar with the company’s priorities, protocols and deadlines, the more successfully it can support the client.  Both sides are equally invested in a quality result, both sides are careful not to waste time and money going down the wrong road.  Ideally, both legal operations and outsourcer are empowered to call an audible if a project is going astray. 

One of the secrets of successful outsourcing companies is the personalities of the people they employ.  Client-facing outsourcing team members must be able to speak up, push back, and earn the client’s confidence.  More passive individuals who are less forthcoming may be highly intelligent or knowledgeable but they are not always well suited to client-facing positions.  The best outsourcing providers have client-facing team members who have terrier-like perseverance and who develop the confidence to speak up at the right time.  These inherent tendencies are improved by empowerment and guidance provided by experienced managers.

Honesty and Transparency

The pandemic has brought about a new level of humanity and honesty in the working world.  How many times has a dog barking or child bringing in a school paper appeared in business meetings over the past two years?  Many of the formalities of business have fallen away, giving people the opportunity to be more “real” and connect on a more level playing field.

Honesty and transparency are essential elements to building strong legal operations/outsourced provider foundations.  This involves the culmination of all the principles mentioned above including communication, metrics and reporting, building trust and active engagement.  Over time, the outsourced provider earns trust through being honest and transparent with legal operations and vice versa. 

An honest outsourcing company will admit when a project is out of its wheelhouse and will not overstate its capabilities. While legal operations may be disappointed at an initial no, this is much preferable to the outsourcing company saying it’s capable and then the project fails.  An honest answer paves the way to a possible solution, and the companies may be able to work together to co-create a solution that benefits both.  Both legal operations and the outsourcing resource must be equally transparent about what each is providing and how they meet in the middle to get the job done right.

Conclusion

Legal operations are in a central position to leverage outsourced providers to bring about successful outcomes.  By combining key principles like establishment of trust, communication, measurement and accountability, active engagement and honest transparency, they ensure that outsourcing relationships pay off and deliver on their promise.  Over time, the relationship will shift from being client and outsourcing vendor to an equal partnership.  When legal operations cultivates outsourced teams which are true extensions of their internal resources, that’s a win-win.

 

 

About the Authors:

Clare Chalkley, Robert Daniel and Randi Salzberg are all subject matter experts (SMEs) in their respective fields at Integreon, a global ALSP and managed services provider. 

• Clare Chalkley, Vice President – Legal Services, is based in London and runs managed document review and litigation services projects for Integreon, having previously been a litigation support manager at Clifford Chance law firm and other roles in the field for 25+ years. 
• Robert Daniel, Senior Director and Financial Services SME, is based in the U.S., having previously worked for Bank of America in legal discovery and related positions for 25+ years.
• Randi Salzberg is Vice President, Marketing and Creative Services in Integreon’s Business Enablement Services division. Before Integreon, she was a Managing Director in Marketing at investment firm Alliance Bernstein for 25+ years.

We’ve met with more than 50 clients in the past 12 months and have enjoyed a front seat to the transformation happening across legal departments. Our meetings have reinforced that CLOC’s 12 core competencies are not stagnant and continue to evolve in their application and impact. Here is a taste of what we are seeing you all accomplish. You can use these to plan your next project, benchmark with your colleagues, and to continue to show the value that you bring to your legal departments and companies.

Financial Management: This has evolved into so much more than simply reporting on spend or managing to the budget. Legal departments are overlaying spend against key objectives of the company to ensure that the allocation of legal resources aligns with the strategic priorities of the company.

Vendor Management: We started with preferred vendors and negotiating favorable pricing. Legal departments are working with vendors to solve common challenges in technology, ediscovery, and more. They are also asking vendors for data dashboarding to spot trends and inform future action.

Cross-Functional Alignment: Legal operations roles are often filled with business professionals from within the company, including finance, products and IT. These hires bring with them relationships and institutional know-how, and allow companies to repurpose people, process, and technology used in the business for use in the legal department.

Technology & Process Support: Legal operations is changing the culture of legal departments by driving the adoption of technology and incorporating process-driven workflows into serving the business.

Service Delivery & Alternative Support Models: This is not just about insourcing versus outsourcing. It is about right sourcing the work to ensure that tasks are assigned to the right resource. This allows everyone on the team to focus on the high-impact and high-value work. Legal operations professionals are shining a light on churn and helping legal departments to stop doing tasks that don’t bring value.

Organizational Design, Support & Management: Legal operations departments are no longer behind the scenes. The groups are front and center within legal departments and the business. Legal operations professionals are increasingly leading pitch meetings, panel selection, fee negotiations, and outside counsel evaluations, and have more optics into organizational changes impacting their legal departments.

Communications: Together with their GCs, legal operations departments are helping accelerate change and are creating innovation fluency about the company’s business and legal industry. At legal department meetings, they are highlighting how technology is transforming their business, mapping legal goals to innovation objectives of the business, and are training on skills core to legal operations. At legal department retreats, they are changing the curriculum to include design thinking sessions, technology updates, and data metrics discussions. They are also bringing together outside counsel to share innovation success stories so that they may be replicated across all firms supporting the company.

Data Analytics: Using data, legal operations is changing the conversation about value. What is the business goal for the matter? How will success be measured? Are legal resources aligned to the business’s strategies? Legal operations departments are driving the creation of dashboards to spot trends, inform future action, and identify missed opportunities. They are also capturing knowledge about the performance and use of their outside counsel. This includes tracking who at what firms have done work in particular areas for the company, working toward a future where legal operations can provide predictive analytics on who is best suited to solve a specific problem for the business.

Litigation Support & IP Management: Legal departments are partnering with IT to bring even more of the ediscovery lifecycle in-house. Teams from information security, IT, internal investigations, and legal operations are working together to show how particular license offerings can reduce spend exponentially. They are using advanced features to identify risk before litigation and are reducing their digital footprint with their vendors by 50 to 90%.

Knowledge Management: In response to the needs of the business, especially during periods of rapid growth, legal operations departments are creating on-demand, self-service legal solutions for their internal customers. To do so, they scope what the business needs, how much of the need requires interaction with a lawyer, and what portion can be solved with automation and standardization. These solutions are driven by playbooks, AI and legal bots.

Information Governance & Records Management: Legal operations departments are creating programs that provide the business better access to information so that it can harness data for a strategic advantage and, in some cases, monetize that data. They are driving the creation of policy and procedure that is practical and enhances service to the business. They are also complying with emerging data privacy laws and protecting against data breach and the associated reputational damage.

Strategic Planning: Legal operations leaders are reporting directly to their general counsel and are helping set the strategy and goals for the legal department. They increasingly have a seat at the table and are measuring their achievement and performance against the established goals for the legal department.

 

Technology is not the answer! I repeat this phrase at least a dozen times a day to my entire legal department. Don’t get me wrong – I LOVE legal tech! My first task as a legal operations leader was to assess our current tools and devise our technology road map for the future. However, it kills me when everyone assumes that once we license a tool, everything will function as ‘clockwork’. The truth is, licensing a tool is like getting a gym membership – it doesn’t work, unless you do the work. In this article, I want to emphasize the importance of the ‘2 Ps’, people and process, that make technology work. With all the hype around legal tech, I feel that everyone forgets that any technology is only as good as the people that use it and the process it supports.

Innovation means different things to different people. Against popular belief, I don’t think innovation always means some big technology implementation is the answer. Innovation starts through an adoption mindset of our people and is reflected in the process we follow.

People:

1. Change the ‘we have always done it this way’ mindset

I mentally switch off the minute I hear this phrase, and let’s face it; we all hear it at our workplace almost every day. Most people don’t believe in changing status quo or questioning why something is being done a certain way. They assume that someone else in the organization must have thought through the process and there may be a valid reason for doing a task. Well, sorry to burst that bubble – but most times no one has really thought through a process or if they did, it was possibly eons ago and is not relevant today. Most times when you actually dig deep into any process, there could be a large chunk of tasks which are non-value add tasks. And, quickly eliminating that task will save time and energy. However, keep in mind that eliminating non-value tasks can threaten the status quo and you’ll still face challenges. In my professional journey, I have always believed in building my team with people with the right attitude because only then can my innovative ideas see the light of the day. For the extended team, it is an uphill task of constantly educating the leaders and team members to look at things from various angles and from a new perspective. No matter how you hard you try, you will have naysayers in the team who generally either fall in line or fallout over a period of time.

2. Find fearless team members

An innovative environment needs people who are not scared of making mistakes. The leadership team needs to create a psychologically safe environment to let people know that it is ok to make mistakes. This needs constant reinforcement and clear messaging from the top leadership. I do like to draw some distinctions here though. While I am happy for people to try things differently and fail, I don’t have tolerance for sloppy mistakes on a business as usual process. Most team members are bogged down with so many daily operational deliverables and KRAs that it doesn’t leave them with any mind space to think of new ways to do things. The ones who genuinely have the passion to innovate will free their mind and find time to tread on new paths.

3. The doers are better than the dreamers

Most innovative people are creative and by that nature also dreamers. I am occasionally guilty of tuning out from the realities of life and imagining a world that may be. This is the space where I get my next bright idea. Unfortunately, ideas don’t work on their own and I have to quickly roll up my sleeves and get my hands dirty. I give higher points to people who actually get the job done than those who spend a large part of their day talking about an organization that should, or could, have been. There is scope for improvement in most processes across organization and those improvements are not going to magically happen on their own. We will need the doers to get down to the root of the process and fix it as required.

Process:

1. Document a process

Most legal departments don’t document their processes. Most people undermine the freedom that process documentation brings to them. They fear that documenting processes will mean that no one in the organization will need those teams in the future. I was recently working with my IT team on a tech implementation and I asked my IT team to document their process for future use so that I don’t trouble them each time. The junior IT team member looked at me innocently and said I would make him lose his job. What he didn’t realize was that I was trying to free up his time to focus on other projects, rather than constantly repeating work and wasting his valuable time. I don’t necessarily blame him for his response since he was being candid with me. He may have been sharing what he had learned from his senior team members. This brings me back to my earlier point of changing people’s mindset, which has to be a top-down approach since team members tend to emulate their leaders.

2. Break down the process

This is the key to any change. Although an end to end process may overwhelm everyone, breaking process down to every single task will help identify tasks that can be eliminated, automated, or reassigned to a different resource. We recently reviewed some of our document archival processes and were able to eliminate 60% of the tasks after they were broken down. The team can now support larger volumes and is able to manage certain other tasks that they were not doing earlier. I strongly believe that process improvement can only happen once we have detailed process and procedure maps with all steps broken down to the individual task.

3. Not a one-time task

You can’t draft process maps, file them somewhere and forget about them. Process improvement is a continuous activity. Legal departments now have dedicated legal ops team which include process experts to monitor current processes and are constantly thinking of ways and means of improving processes. Once the process experts sit side by side with lawyers, they are able to see the impact of process changes and immediately recommend tweaks as needed. Infusing legal teams with business, finance, IT and process experts also instils a culture of viewing the department as a business and not purely as an advisory shop.

While discussions on legal tech continue to grow, as they should, we need to continue to state the importance of people and process. We don’t want the very critical pillars of a successful and innovative department to be lost under the bright and shiny lights of legal technology. CLOC understands the importance of the 2 Ps and the core competencies for legal ops teams include communication, cross functional alignment, and technology and process support amongst others. As I continue to look at new technology in the market, I never lose sight of my people that I continue to train and the processes I continue to improve.

There is a lot of buzz regarding the change AI is bringing to the legal space–who hasn’t read an article about “robot lawyers” coming to take our jobs? On some level we know this isn’t an accurate forecast, but the media thrives on the vagueness and uncertainty surrounding AI. Meanwhile, it’s often difficult for GCs to determine if a software pitch is the right solution for their legal operation needs.

Some of this interpretative struggle is due to the seemingly endless applications for legal tech solutions. That’s why it is critical to understand that AI brings new processes to the table, but that lawyers and legal professionals will always work in tandem with AI. It’s not humans or machines; it’s “Humans + Machines.”.

What is LIBOR?

In July 2017, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced that by the end of 2021 British banks would no longer be required to submit rates for the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). This means that LIBOR will play a diminished role in the global financial system going forward, and may disappear altogether.

Ever since that announcement, law firms, corporate legal departments, ALSPs, and everyone in between have been asking: How many of our clients have “LIBOR-infected” contracts? How much money is at stake? How do we prioritize and facilitate re-negotiation and re-papering?

The first hurdle is to identify the LIBOR-infected contracts. After that, teams of lawyers and legal professionals can work on remediation. That’s a two-pronged problem, requiring a two-pronged solution.

Identifying LIBOR Contracts with Machine Learning

Discussing machine learning (ML) solutions brings us back to that “robot lawyers” misunderstanding. A well-trained ML platform will find a lot of relevant data points in a large set of documents and can be adapted and customized with additional ML techniques to meet the unique challenges posed by the LIBOR problem. Designing and building these robust techniques requires strategic planning and communication between various types of subject matter experts . A software development team can build ML algorithms in multiple different ways, but it takes experts in law and finance to fully flesh out all they need from a custom LIBOR analysis tool. Basically, “robot lawyers” don’t exist; effective ML requires a range of human experts to sit down and discuss how best to solve incredibly complex problems in a sophisticated and results-oriented way.

ML is not a conveyor belt where data goes in and perfect results come out. It takes time and iteration. This is actually what makes ML a natural companion discipline for legal: both disciplines require taking in imperfect data, then developing creative and effective solutions with that data.

For example, an ML implementation team handling “LIBOR-infected” contracts must ask whether a few natural language processing (NLP) techniques can find all the required data, or whether more complex vectorization models are needed. Data points are neither simple nor intuitive: spread percentages; governing law clauses; jurisdiction-specific legal language; synonymous or nearly-synonymous terms such as “Eurodollar”; and fallback clauses tied to other reference rates such as SOFR and SONIA.

ML can solve a lot of problems in legal, but sometimes it’s forgotten just how vital the contributions by experts are. At the end of the day, ML is just complex software. ML is only as good as the team that builds it, oversees it, and shepherds its evolution.

Solving LIBOR Remediation with Expert Services

The LIBOR problem requires teams of various specialists. Many organizations already have such teams, or at least a set of processes in place. Service teams from law companies like Elevate must be nimble enough to integrate with clients and their processes in order to augment what is already there. A client may not want to use ML, but an outside services team may recognize the potential for ML deployment or see that it is wiser to simply ramp up the human review team.

Either way, for an acute problem such as LIBOR, a services team must bring necessary resources, processes, and technology to their client’s team, and help deliver efficiency and cost savings in four major ways: quantification, action planning, remediation, and reporting.

Quantification

To properly determine the level of repapering a client needs to remain compliant and reduce risk, any outside services team should know how to quantify their client’s LIBOR exposure with a full historical assessment of the contract paper in question.

This initial quantification is effort-intensive, which is why many organizations bring in the efficient expertise found in law companies. Moving fast and iterating is just as important for AI developer teams as it is for a specialized services team.

Quantification efforts will typically include:

• Scoping
• Targeting data repositories for relevant contract data
• Identifying the contracts most impacted by LIBOR (perhaps using a platform like ContraxSuite)
• Reviewing and summarizing contract information for further analysis
• Working with a client’s pre-existing methodologies to provide internal stakeholders with the clearest picture: which agreements are impacted, their level of exposure, and actions needed

Action Planning

After quantification comes the action plan. For a services team, this may mean:

• Supporting Legal Project Managers as they help their teams map out necessary steps and delegate tasks
• Coordinating parties for effort estimates and accountability
• Identifying, assisting, and leveraging third parties (e.g., outside counsel, law companies, technology providers, and/or experts)
• Building consensus and internal buy-in for final action plan

Remediation

After quantification and action planning, it’s time to finalize the review and tally up the contracts that require remediation. The following are five general types of remediation:

• Level 1: Tracking all “no action” contracts
• Level 2: Notification (outgoing) of LIBOR rate transition
• Level 3: Notification and simple remediation of contract (no countersignature required)
• Level 4: Notification and simple remediation of contract (countersignature required)
• Level 5: Notification and full remediation of contract

To assist with the facilitation and resolution of these items, organizations will most likely need to hire temporary contractors or outsource the remediation process to a legal service provider.

Reporting

Throughout the process, it is important for legal teams to be aware of the progress being made, agreements pending, agreements remediated, cycle time, type of remediation, etc. A good services team knows how to support the management, tracking, and presentation of reports for internal stakeholders, ensuring accuracy on scope, quality, and budget over time. Again, the use of AI tools by a services team can take this even further, providing deeper data- based insights for future projects.

Conclusion

“Humans + Machines” is better than humans or machines by themselves. We have delivered contract insights on existing and remediated agreements, using the specialized skills of our services teams, and powerful software tools like contract analytics platforms that sift through thousands of LIBOR-infected contracts. The current centrality of the LIBOR problem is just one of the many examples of “Humans + Machines” completing high-quality enterprise legal work. It will only get better from here.

---

About Elevate

Elevate is a law company, providing consulting, technology and services to law departments and law firms. The company’s multi-disciplinary team of legal professionals, business professionals, and technology professionals extend and enable the resources and capabilities of customers worldwide. Learn more at elevateservices.com.

As the calendar flips over to 2020, many in the financial services industry are hearing the steady tic toc of the LIBOR clock counting down to 2021 when LIBOR becomes an obsolete reference rate.

Countless contracts and automation processes include LIBOR as a reference rate and over $350 trillion or more than £240 worth of financial agreements reference LIBOR — with more being created despite the looming change. Regardless of these numbers and clear warnings from regulatory bodies and other industry experts to prepare now and not delay, many organisations do not have an articulate transition plan.

Most organisations have begun to assemble multiple internal stakeholders to ascertain the best way to manage the transition. It is not too late to form a LIBOR Task Force, which should also include retained 3rd party providers that bring the expertise needed to develop and manage a transition plan. Executive support and input on Task Force prioritisations are essential and will help to eliminate any roadblocks as the project progresses. In addition, a Program Manager should be assigned supported by, in most cases, several project managers as there are typically multiple work streams requiring oversight. With the right team and project management, a seasoned Program Manager is able to oversee several projects at once, ensure accountability, and meet agreed upon milestones. Organisations that do not have a Program Manager need to fill this essential role immediately. In addition, strong communication at every step of the process cannot be stressed enough and will be a major factor in determining the project’s overall success.

Part of preparedness also means gaining an up-front understanding of the full impact and ramifications of this change. There are many known and unknown variables, ranging from the effect on balance sheets, potential stress scenarios as a result of new reference rates, as well as addressing client response. Whilst many contracts and legal documents contain fallback provisions if LIBOR becomes unavailable, since LIBOR is generally for floating rate transactions and SOFR, SONIA and others apply to fixed rate transactions, it can leave organisations open to potential financial and reputational damages, especially if risk is not properly managed.

Understanding the reverberations before-the-fact is one of the most challenging aspects of any LIBOR transition plan. To pave the way for an informed, cost effective, and streamlined path to compliance that has little to no impact on business as usual, organisations should consider the taking the following steps:

• Assess: Determine any anticipated risks or challenges. To assist in this process, Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in conjunction with experienced resources can identify what must be transitioned and what supporting materials need to be developed (documentation, systems, fallback provisions, standard operating procedures, limiting new transactions, training, etc.). AI and enhanced machine learning are highly effective in identifying active agreements and pinpointing their contents. This is a complex process that requires both human and technology resources.
• Prioritise: Identify potential issues and bottlenecks so they can preemptively be addressed and remedied. Six Sigma trained resources and applied principles can be highly advantageous during this phase of the project.
• Strategise: Establish a comprehensive and detailed roadmap complete with specific steps, stakeholders, vendors, resources, and procedures. Ultimately, the success of the project will, in large part, be determined by the quality of this plan which should include standardised approaches/playbooks for legal document drafting, remediation, amendment, and outreach.
• Execute: Execution is everything. Deploying the strategy in a streamlined, sensible and diligent way is the final step toward transition. Tracking to the strategic plan will ensure all milestones and objectives are met and compliance is achieved.

No plan can fully anticipate every roadblock or challenge. That is why the transition team must remain nimble; able to pivot and adjust prioritisations as new information and potential risks are uncovered. Paramount to successful execution is also well-articulated communications plan and function, along with rigorous calendar management to ensure all stakeholders are informed and contributors are held accountable.

A well-conceived plan will include the use of third party resources including technology solutions and alternative legal service providers (ALSP). As noted, successful execution will be delivered by a combination of human resources and technology. ALSPs like Integreon are instrumental in working with clients to expertly handle the vast amounts of documentation (contracts, prospectuses, and other legal documentation, as well as marketing collateral and product details) that requires remediation. Any mention of LIBOR as a reference rate must be replaced with agreed upon new language. Some may consider using a law firm for this work, though they may find the price tag to be cost-prohibitive. In addition, law firms do not typically handle, nor are they resourced to handle this manner of project. On the other hand, this is right in the wheelhouse of most ALSPs who ideally will bring deep expertise, access to a large pool of experienced resources, and the technology relationships required to galvanise and execute successfully.

In 2020, financial institutions need to make a New Year’s resolution to start the LIBOR transition process. Although 2021 may seem like a long way away, there is clearly much to be done to fully understand the size of the challenge, properly resource, develop a sound plan, and efficiently execute. Happy New Year and here’s to a happy and healthy LIBOR transition starting…now!

---

About Integreon

Integreon is a trusted, global provider of award-winning legal and business solutions to leading law firms, corporations and professional services firms. We apply a highly trained, experienced staff of 2,400 associates globally to a wide range of problems that require scale and expertise, enabling clients to become more operationally efficient by streamlining operations, maximizing investment and improving the quality of work they provide their end clients. With delivery centers on three continents, Integreon offers multi-lingual, around-the-clock support, as well as onshore, offshore and onsite delivery of our award-winning services. Visit us at CLOC London on January 20-21 at table 25.

Maturity: General 

White paper published by Allen & Overy

This white paper discusses how the legal function of the future will have to embrace and shift to prepare for the cost pressures, regulatory overload, challenges of scale, and new workplace expectations for this current state of the legal industry.

– A Legal Tipping Point, the shift of the buyer and seller markets
– Green Shoots, a market in transition
– The Future, a buyer’s market
– Client Challenges including self-serve work, flow transactions, large scale change, compliance programs, risk anticipation, and more
– Foundations of the Future like technology and data
– Building Innovation Capacity and develop your own approach

#Legal-Innovation
#Change-Management
#Legal-Evolution
#AssetType-WhitePaper
#Function-StrategicPlanning
#Function-Technology
​​​​​​​​

LIBOR, the London Inter-bank Offered Rate, is estimated to be tied to over $240 trillion dollars of financial arrangements globally – including public and private loans and bonds, credit cards, mortgages, student loans and interest rate derivatives – and will be discontinued by 2021. LIBOR is a reference rate that is calculated daily from voluntary submissions provided by a panel of banks. The panel banks each provide the rate at which they believe they can borrow currency from another bank. When LIBOR is rising, the indication is that banks believe that there is a greater risk of defaulting on loans, thereby necessitating a higher interest rate to offset the potential risk of that default. The rise or fall of LIBOR generally indicates the rise or fall of interest rates.

As a matter of historical interest, LIBOR was first published in 1986, and quickly became the benchmark rate that influences interest payments on a wide range of financial products and contracts. By the end of 2016, contracts based on USD LIBOR totaled nearly $200 trillion in gross national exposure, according to the New York Fed. Last year, Bloomberg reported that LIBOR underpinned $370 trillion in contracts globally.

LIBOR had been under scrutiny for some time, by some accounts as early as 2003, as accusations and later investigations revealed that certain panel banks were dishonest in their submissions to manipulate LIBOR to make profits. The validity of LIBOR was challenged by these scandals and more so, after billions of dollars of fines were levied by regulators against panel banks proven to be involved in LIBOR manipulation. As a result, many panel banks were deterred from further participation with LIBOR and its use as a widely regarded benchmark has fallen out of favor. In 2017, it was announced that LIBOR would not be sustained after 2021. The impact of the LIBOR is widespread, and market participants will be impacted from consumers, businesses, investors, to banks and countless others.

Many adjustable rate financial products are tied to the performance of LIBOR. Now that LIBOR is going away, many questions arise such as what will dictate my interest rate after LIBOR? Does my contract have a fall-back provision? Similarly, businesses big and small will need to identify contracts that are tied to LIBOR and ask themselves similar questions to assess risk and navigate the course of action moving forward.

If your legal department is losing sleep over the sunsetting of LIBOR take heart. Although you may have a large volume of contracts to repaper before this financial industry benchmark becomes obsolete at the end of 2021, you can put systems and partners into place now to minimize the workload and stress on your team.

What can you do to prepare?

1. Identify. The first step of the process will necessarily include identification of all contracts referencing LIBOR. Considerations during this identification phase include: (1) whether there are any exceptions that need to be addressed to ensure an exhaustive search; (2) whether there is a way to systematically identify those contracts where the LIBOR reference does not require further action, i.e. the maturity date of the contract is prior to 2021; and (3) how you will determine, upon identification of the universe of LIBOR contracts with potential impact, the priority order of contract review by contract type/customer; topping the list should be those contracts that will need additional time for renegotiations and internal systems compliance.
2. Review and analyze. Once all contracts referencing LIBOR have been identified, those requiring additional action will need to be reviewed and analyzed to assess LIBOR implication, fallback provisions and whether contracts will need to be renegotiated.
3. Determine next steps based on categorization. Examples:
   • Contract needs no further action; it is not impacted by the LIBOR transition.
   • Contract can be amended by a letter to the customer with updated terms. Customer contact information must be extracted, and a template letter prepared and sent to the customer with updated terms. Internal systems modification must be initiated to ensure systems compliance with updated terms by the date designated in the letter.
   • Contract needs to be renegotiated in accordance with the LIBOR replacement. Customer contact information must be extracted, and a notification letter prepared and sent to advise the customer of the pending renegotiation. Create a playbook for renegotiations and the associated process.

How will you get it all done?

The sheer volume of time and attention this task could require may at first seem overwhelming. Most legal organizations run lean to begin with; adding another project, especially one that will likely require a dedicated project team, is the last thing you need.

Fortunately, an alternative legal service provider (ALSP) can provide you with a team equipped to carry out project management, training, workflow design, labor and delivery of the amended contracts seamlessly so that you don’t have to tie up your own attorneys and paralegals. They can continue working on priority projects, as the ALSP manages your LIBOR-related activities.

Your ALSP partner should provide you with:

• A dedicated resource team that includes paralegals and seasoned practitioners with a range of skills that enable an end-to-end solution. Team members should be prepared to assist at every stage, from the identification phase through repapering efforts, using your chosen technology.
• The workflow design, a substantive training protocol/playbook and training modules. Workflow design is critical to ensuring that similar contracts are treated in the same way from a process perspective through a logical, documented, defensible approach. Training ensures that every person working on the project has a roadmap for dealing with various contract provisions and conditions.
• Project management and quality control. Skillful project management and a rigorous quality assurance process are essential to ensuring accuracy and defensibility of process.
• Efficient and cost-effective work product delivery. An outstanding ALSP will work to keep your costs down and efficiency high by streamlining processes, leveraging technology and allocating resources to functions accordingly, as a means of cost control.

About Tower Legal Solutions:

Tower Legal Solutions is a WBENC certified women-owned alternative legal services provider that focuses on project staffing, temporary attorney engagements, and managed services. Our specialties include secondments, managed review, contract management and direct hire placement. Our clients can count on transparent and value-added people solutions that solve staffing challenges and optimize efficiency.

HBR Consulting is proud to be a Platinum Sponsor of CLOC’s 2019 Corporate Legal Operations Institute and to present one of the educational sessions, “Don’t Gamble Your Future . . . Advance Your Operations Maturity.” In this featured session, we will combine interactive technology with expert guidance to help attendees identify their department’s position on several dimensions of the CLOC Legal Operations Maturity continuum, and will discuss strategies to advance on that continuum in those critical areas. Participants will take home a customized roadmap tailored to help legal operations teams advance to the next level. I hope you will join us!

To help provide context for our session, the HBR team will be publishing a three-part series of blog posts regarding major strategic areas in which law departments can advance in their maturity. This post will focus on the topic of resource optimization and how departments can put the right resources in place to ensure work is done in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Resource optimization ties to the CLOC competencies of Vendor Management and Service Delivery & Alternative Support Models, and also relates to Cross-Functional Alignment and Organizational Design, Structure & Management.

Importance of Resource Optimization

Most corporate law department professionals are facing some version of the same dilemma: you are under pressure to control costs while at the same time facing rising legal demands. In fact, “cost control and cost management” was the number-one challenge facing corporate law departments last year, according to the 2018 HBR Consulting Law Department Survey The survey also found that over 80% of law departments expect their legal needs will continue to increase this year.

This pressure to deal with increased legal work while holding the reins on spending requires managers to take a hard look at their legal service delivery models and evaluate any opportunities to drive operational efficiencies. In working with our clients, we often find that a good place to start is with identifying potential resource misalignment; for example, when senior-level attorneys are spending too much time performing lower-value tasks instead of focusing on more strategic work.

Optimizing your internal and external resources creates some important benefits for your company:

• Productivity and Client Service – when the skills and expertise of your internal and external teams are properly aligned and leveraged, it directly improves both the department’s productivity level and business clients’ level of service.
• Cost Containment – there is a direct line between more efficient resource allocation and cost expenditures by the department because the work is handled by the most cost-effective resource for the level of work, rather than paying costly resources to handle work that does not require their level of expertise or experience.
• Employee Engagement – efficiently managing your legal talent is an important way to keep attorneys engaged and invested in the roles they play in the organization, boosting morale and elevating their roles.

There are three key steps that any corporate law department can take to optimize their resources and make sure they are properly aligned to maximize efficiency.

Step One: Define the Scope of Work

It is a good idea to start by identifying the tasks and matters under the department’s purview, including an objective evaluation of whether that work is properly within the scope of the legal function. Your goal here should be to empower your business clients with training and self-service options to perform the work that is non-legal in nature, so it can be managed with more appropriate resources.

For the work that is truly is legal in nature, examine the risk and complexity connected to those tasks. Is the assignment one of high risk and/or complexity? If so, it likely has the potential to impact the organization from a financial, operational or reputational standpoint, so it should be resourced accordingly. Or, is the assignment fairly routine and/or a low-risk task? If so, the potential organizational impact is likely to be minimal and can therefore be resourced more cost-efficiently.

Step Two: Identify the Proper Resource

Now that you have defined the scope of work and identified the organizational risks associated with those tasks, it is time to determine the proper resource to get the work done. One decision is whether to keep the work in-house, send it to outside counsel or leverage an alternative legal service provider (ALSP).

For internal resource allocation decisions, seek to delegate the low-risk work as much as possible to junior attorneys or legal support staff as this work tends to require minimal oversight by management. High-complexity work, such as strategic transactions, will of course require greater expertise and should be expected to be handled by more senior and specialized attorneys.

For external resource optimization, make sure you send the right work to the right law firms. While there are some matters that, because of their high risk or high value stakes, require high-end firms, whereas other, more commoditized work can be sent to firms with lower billing rates or set at volume-based pricing. It is essential to build a value-based relationship with each of your outside law firms. Limiting the number of law firms you use to a preferred panel allows outside counsel to become familiar with your business, priorities and matter history, ultimately strengthening the relationship and providing you and the business with stronger representation and better value.

Step Three: Go to the Next Level

The third key is to make resource optimization an ongoing part of the culture of your law department. This requires stretching the limits of what your available department resources can accomplish and structuring your operations a bit differently to maximize the benefits of other potential resources. For example, you may want to create centers of excellence in your department – nimble teams that effectively leverage experienced, professional legal resources (lawyers and allied legal professionals) to handle lower-complexity work (e.g., contracts) in different ways.

In addition to the internal considerations, it is also a good idea to make sure your outside counsel understand your organizational priorities as relate to staffing and are attuned with your expectations regarding proper resource alignment and staffing on the matters they handle for your company. Clear expectations, guidelines and monitoring of matter staffing help law departments better manage their budgets with outside counsel and ensure the work is handled by the most cost-effective resource and help law firms better plan, as well.

Moreover, you may want to expand the way you think about external resources beyond the use of outside counsel. The use of ALSPs for specific types of legal work is gaining wider acceptance by in-house law departments. Challenge yourself to explore some of these new models that may provide a vehicle for greater efficiencies in the way you utilize outside resources.

Resource optimization should be a continuous improvement initiative for your department, not a one-off project exercise. This means you should regularly use data analytics, risk and complexity assessments, and business planning sessions to evaluate the work in your matter portfolio and make sure you are properly aligning your resources to that work. The goal should be to apply your available in-house legal resources to the highest value functions in the most efficient way.

In the next two posts in HBR’s three-part series, my colleagues will explore: the importance of technology to support your department’s advancement on the CLOC maturity continuum; and the use of analytics to measure performance and to guide your department’s decision making.

See You in Vegas for the 2019 CLOC Institute!

Register here to attend CLOC 2019 Vegas Institute – and please join our CLOC session:

Don’t Gamble Your Future…Advance Your Operations Maturity
Wednesday, May 15th at 1:30pm
Speakers:

• Kevin Clem, Chief Commercial Officer, HBR Consulting
• Marc Allen, Senior Director, HBR Consulting
• Molly Perry, Chief Operating Officer, Office of Legal and Administrative Affairs, Hewlett Packard Enterprise
• Gary Tully, Head of Legal Operations, Gilead Sciences

Questions? Email info@cloc.org.