Over the last 12 months the emergence of flexible resourcing providers in the legal market has picked up pace - think the likes of Halebury and Obelisk joining the Axioms and Lawyers On Demands of the world.
Where I think the traditional firms have got it wrong is by trying to compete by launching their own offering under a separate brand. It simply isn't their core competency.
Far better for firms to explore how to work alongside the new breed of providers and recognise that they're offering different things.
This article in The Lawyer sums up the issue perfectly. Talking about RSA's panel review, head of group legal Charlotte Weiss says they want firms to be able to parachute people in to help ease ad hoc resource constraints.
Is this what traditional firms are good at? No. Is it what the new flexible resource providers are good at? Yes. What better reason for teaming up?
As a wider society we're very much in the age of collaboration. Law needs to bring itself up to speed...
Speaking to The Lawyer Heiss said: “We’re asking firms to pitch a flexible approach to secondments. This represents a move away from having rolling secondees and towards being able to parachute in help to ease ad hoc resource constraints. “As you’d expect, we’re looking at a range of other value-added services including the ability of firms to actually deliver on fixed and capped fee promises.”
http://www.thelawyer.com/exclusive-rsa-re-starts-panel-review/
unknownx500
