A changing market: the rise of the flexible lawyer

Part 1 of 4, by Peter Workman

For as long as I can remember, businesses have used temporary personnel. Traditionally, the purpose was to fill a temporary gap in the team. This might have arisen from long term illness or parental leave, or between a departure and a permanent replacement. These continue to be among the common reasons for temporary hires and they make sense.

For most of the past decade, while a corporate lawyer at two of the Big Four consulting firms, I led the firm’s flexible legal support business. Over that period, I’ve seen major changes in clients’ approach to the use of lawyers on temporary contracts. There has been a dramatic rise in such use and a broadening of how and when this occurs. It is no longer just to fill a gap, but increasingly in other situations too. I’ve also seen corresponding changes in attitude, and a growing embrace of this way of working, on the part of lawyers.

In this article I will briefly describe these changes and how they have inspired me to launch my own flexible legal support business, Source.

Flexible legal support may also be referred to as flexible legal resourcing or interim legal support. I prefer the first term, as the simplest and broadest phrase to describe what is taking place.

Businesses large enough to employ in-house lawyers have traditionally obtained legal expertise through a combination of the in-house team and law firms. The balance adopted varies widely between organisations. Some have a large in-house legal team, in some cases numbering in triple figures, handling all but the largest and most complex transactions internally. Others have a smaller group of employed solicitors who regularly instruct and oversee law firms.

Flexible lawyers (i.e. those involved in temporary contracting) have historically been involved in all such contexts, as the “stopgap” measure described earlier. But over the past decade, and especially since 2020, the picture has changed. Previously used reactively, flexible legal support is now used proactively. By using this resource, in-house legal teams can expand and contract according to demand. Flexible lawyers are used to increase capacity or to implement a project requiring additional, specialist skills. There may be no intention to augment the team permanently.

Why has this development occurred? There are many specific tactical advantages in using flexible lawyers (which I will explore in the next article), but I believe there are three high level factors behind the change.

The first is the inexorable shift, across a vast range of industries and indeed our whole culture, towards greater flexibility. The disruption of traditional structures and relationships has been enabled by technology, and especially the internet. Technology has compressed distance, opened competition, and increased choice. It is therefore natural for businesses to source some elements of legal expertise through an “on demand” model involving neither traditional employment nor a traditional law firm retainer.

The second factor is the corresponding shift in the attitudes and working practices of high calibre lawyers. Flexible lawyers are being used more widely than they were because, on average, they are better than they were. This model has credibility, as the “flexible career” has become a familiar and respected path for credible lawyers. Lawyers who would once have aspired only to partnership or a permanent senior in-house position are now building flexible careers, comprising temporary in-house placements and perhaps other elements. The growing enthusiasm for a more flexible professional life applies not only to working hours and locations, but also to the career structure itself.

The third factor is affordability for clients. If flexible legal support is treated as not just a stopgap, but a category of legal services for use in a broad range of situations, it becomes a cost-effective middle path between the recruitment of permanent in-house lawyers and the engagement of a law firm. Recruiting new permanent team members involves higher fixed costs and a time-consuming recruitment process. Engaging a traditional law firm is rarely cost-effective for a task or role likely to absorb an experienced lawyer for months. An experienced flexible lawyer may be less expensive than the equivalent person under a law firm engagement and no less skilled. Indeed, experienced flexible lawyers usually bring specific skills (such as adaptability, commerciality, and familiarity with in-house practice) which will be very attractive to businesses.

I believe the explosion in flexible legal services and careers that I have seen firsthand over the past decade is just the beginning. We are going to see increasing fluidity in the UK legal services market.

So there is an enormous opportunity for a provider of lawyers for temporary contracts that focuses on these three virtues – flexibility, credibility and affordability – that have led to the dramatic rise in the popularity of this approach. This is why, after eight years working in this field through two Big Four firms, I have now launched Source. Or, to use the full name, Source by Temple Bright. I have teamed up with Temple Bright, an innovative law firm of 70+ lawyers operating a streamlined, partner-only model. I am excited to be joined on the Source board by the Temple Bright co-founders, Tim Summers and Justyn McIlhinney.

Source will collaborate with Temple Bright to provide a streamlined full service, including not only in-house placements but also legal advice on discrete matters. All our services will be provided by high calibre, experienced lawyers. Through a seamless collaboration with a leading new model law firm, we hope to score high on all three factors: flexibility, credibility and affordability.

In the next article I will describe some specific advantages that the flexible support model has for in-house legal teams.

Part 2: More for less: how flexible lawyers can benefit in-house legal teams

Part 3: Taking control: why lawyers are embracing flexible careers

Part 4: Source and Temple Bright: the best of the traditional and the innovative