We mentioned recently that there is plenty of noise in the Australian corporate space on the issue of outsourcing, This follows from major moves internationally:
In 2010, the US lost approximately 35,000 legal jobs offshore and Forrester Research estimates this will increase to 79,000 by 2015.
Until now, there has been a paucity of hard evidence as to which firms are overtly trying to siphon jobs offshore to lower cost jurisdictions. However, it looks like something is happening at AAR.
We received the following intel from an anonymous AAR spy a few days ago:
Allens (AAR) are aggressively pursuing BPO in order to cut costs. That’s Business Process Outsourcing for the neophyte. They are holding on-going meetings with international outsourcing firm Integreon. The head of every non-legal department has been sent Integreon documentation and been given orders to examine them for opportunities to use their services. Other organizations that offer business related services have also been contacted. Meetings to examine results will be held soon. There are over 100 people in non-legal areas who might want to brush their resumes.
That’s fantastic news. Everytime AAR staff want to fix a computer glitch and a payroll issue they’ll be patched through to Punjab. Perhaps AAR could even sort out a better deal on its building facilities too. Oh, wait…
Integreon notes on its website:
Our nearly 2,000 associates across four continents work collaboratively with leading global corporations, law firms, and investment banks to address their specific support needs in areas such as market and competitive intelligence, discovery, legal process outsourcing (LPO), and other professional business services such as IT, finance, and HR.
Has your firm move jobs offshore? Tell FS first!
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
A zzzzzz…dead boring story about Allens compared to your series of recent news-breaking posts about Michael Robinson being on the board of an Allens client and his and Allens’ legal problems arising from this arrangement. Based on what you have reported, if the main claims are sustained against Allens by regulators or in civil actions, it may not just be Allens non-legal areas who are brushing their resumes
@An0n
Don’t be a killjoy. It’s a good story.
This is the perfect opportunity for even closer client ties. AAR can award Aconex the outsourcing contract for storing and managing all AAR’s documents. AAR can act for Aconex and draw up the business outsourcing contract. Win/Win. Michael Robinson can facilitate the whole thing, and then everybody’s happy.
@ QE2
Good call. I looked it up, and Aconex actally has an office in India opened to do business in 2006
http://www.infolink.com.au/c/Aconex-238405/Aconex-opens-for-business-in-India-n764286
Errrrr …. so what? I feel sorry for any individuals who are made redundant as a result, but if those individuals receive their statutory/contractual redundancy payments then AAR will have honoured the deal that was struck when the relevant individuals were employed. AAR is a business and its owners are entitled to require that it be run for their benefit. They need to be careful not to kill the golden goose, of course (i.e., taking out costs in a manner that affects the delivery of the very thing that makes them money, client service). But this is an issue that has faced plenty of businesses over the past decade. If you leave the law you’ll find that people are surprised that the legal profession thinks this is a novel issue.
I have heard quite a few lawyers say over the past few weeks so and so who was a partner or consultant to such and such firm went on a board and his firm advised and nothing happened. ‘If they can get away with it, why all the heat on Allens and Michael Robinson?!’
Just because someone or several people ‘got away with it’ does not make it right.
Having member of a firm of solicitors on the board of a client is wrong for a very simple reason. It creates a conflict of interest for the firm between their own interests and their duty to their client. Their own interests are in protecting the member of their firm and the advantage it creates for them – both of these conflict with their client’s interests. It is just not sound to put someone on a client board to ‘do a bit of business development for the firm’.
The moral for outsourcing, is do not outsource or outplace staff onto client boards. If the client later objects to something that has happened, the unsound arrangement could be used as a basis for succeeding in a claim against the solicitors.
There would have to be a saving in outsourcing business services jobs to India. As it stands those in the Allens’ offices working in business services are on third world wages, while the partners each take home well over $1m per year.