Internet Newsletter for Lawyers |
|---|
The idea behind
First Law was simple and grew in my mind as I went about my
everyday practice back in the late 1990s. As a commercial property lawyer working in
the City during the recession I had to learn the art of haggling for almost every new
instruction I received. Clients expected me to show some competitive advantage which
gave them a reason to choose me in preference to anyone else. This often came down
to offering the lowest price, but I knew it wasn’t as simple as that.
Clients would also ask me to recommend other lawyers who specialised in different
areas. The first question was nearly always who is good and then the discussion would
turn to price. It struck me that every client should ask these questions before they
instruct a lawyer. But where could clients get such independent advice? Obviously a
practising solicitor would not be able recommend anyone outside his or her own firm,
unless perhaps it involved a legal discipline that the firm did not practice in. Even then,
the advice would be limited by the extent of that solicitor’s personal knowledge. Legal
directories tended to focus at the top end of the market and none offered information
on price.
So I conceived First Law as a specialist independent advisor to clients. Instead of
relying on ad hoc recommendations and incomplete information, clients would be able
to use First Law to help them select the most appropriate lawyers at the best price.
We started off by building an interactive website. The concept was to create an online
exchange where clients could post their instruction and firms could bid for the work. The
fact that we were doing this on the web was in some ways incidental. We were offering
a completely new service. However, back in 2000, amid all the hype about Y2K and dot
coms, it was difficult for some commentators to distinguish between the substance of
our service and the medium through which it was supplied.
Our big breakthrough came in 2001 when the new in-house lawyer at the General
Medical Council made a speculative enquiry about our tendering expertise. The GMC
was seeking lawyers to advise on the conduct of formal complaints against doctors. We
won the work and 15 law firms submitted their tenders in a pre-specified electronic form
via the website. This ensured uniformity of presentation and enabled easy comparison
among the submissions. Glossy brochures, the hallmark of many so-called beauty
parades, were not allowed and paperwork was kept to a minimum. Mills & Reeve and
Addleshaws won the work.
It was then that we realised our service could most easily be described as legal
tendering. The website underwent a facelift and we began to standardise our tender
processes. It became apparent, though, that a lot of the documentation we were using
could not be integrated into our existing online systems without a major rebuild. We did
not want to lessen the gradient of our steep learning curve at that time so we decided
to continue with our research and development using offline methods, while maintaining
email as our main form of communication. So for the next three years the website acted
more as our shop window and a means for clients and law firms to verify who we were.
Like any business we had to market to win new work. Our challenge was to target
clients who were already contemplating a panel review or a tender exercise, rather than
indiscriminate mass marketing. We did this by monitoring tender notices issued by
public sector organisations in trade journals and we soon built up a client base of local
authorities, regulators and universities.
We found that law firms were always willing to participate in tenders that we were
involved in because, for them also, it was a very effective form of targeted marketing.
The only wasted costs in an unsuccessful tender are the resources put into preparing
the tender submission and a major benefit was the feedback they received which could
help them to perform better in a future tender.
After running about 100 formal tender exercises, we have worked with over 200
different law firms on a wide range of legal instructions. We judge the success of a
tender not simply by the outcome but also by ongoing performance. For example,
Eversheds, Trowers & Hamlins, Collyer-Bristow, Hewitsons, Sharpe Pritchard, Matthew
Arnold & Baldwin and Field Fisher Waterhouse have all won tenders with significant
retainers that provided both the law firm with a steady cash flow and profitable business
and the client with a reliable service within budget.
Our experience over the last five years has enabled us to put together a tool kit of
tender documentation. It is designed to be of universal application and it includes what
we consider to be the best elements of every tender we have ever conducted.
We are calling the new service an Accreditation Scheme, as at its core it comprises the
classification of credentials, implicit in the dictionary definition of this term. The hope is
that the Scheme will save firms marketing time and resources as an entry on the
database will provide immediately accessible and comprehensive practice information,
pricing and service levels to a target audience of in-house lawyers.
Law firms can register their interest in the First Law Accreditation Scheme and find
further information on our site, at www.firstlaw.co.uk.
Anthony Armitage is a solicitor. He trained and practiced at Allen & Overy for eight
years and was a partner at Davies Arnold Cooper. Anthony founded First Law in 1999
and is its managing director. He is also the former Vice Chairman of the Law Society
Commerce and Industry Group and is current Chairman of the In-House Lawyers’
Association.
Email aa@firstlaw.co.uk.
Back to Contents.
The Story of First Law
by Anthony ArmitageAccreditation Scheme
Looking to the future, First Law is campaigning to standardise the way that in-house
lawyers manage outsourced legal work. We have built a brand new online version of the
tool kit that will contain detailed pricing and service information about law firms as well
as key tender documentation. The information that law firms submit online is password
protected and can only be viewed by authorised members of each firm and by verified
in-house lawyers. Law firms who are members of the Scheme will not be able to view
each others’ listings, thereby avoiding the disclosure of confidential and commercially
sensitive information to competitors. In-house lawyers will use the database to identify
those practices that they wish to invite to tender and instruct for new work.