KPO Consultants

“Business” as it is defined, is any activity or enterprise entered into for profit. Economists also speak about it as being a recurring task of making money over and over again through the activities of trade, commerce and industry. We wish that all those involved in the anti off-shoring law-making realized that they are actually preparing to strike at the very roots of the definition of “business” by forcing US companies, firms and corporations to buy ingredients of business activities at a higher rate than they should, resulting in reduced profits.

It is extremely tough to reason as to why some people in US (read, anti off-shoring lobbyists) refuse to acknowledge, that companies like Rio Tinto, Motorola, Microsoft, Dell, Intel and IBM do not frame business practices “just for nothing”. The very fact that these companies have been off-shoring their work to India and other countries on a regular basis bears testimony to the fact that such exercise has been beneficial to them. The savings in overheads have enabled them to give better products and services to their customers.

We wonder whether the actions of US legislators in trying to curb off-shoring activities can be of ultimate benefit to the US economy. Do you recollect how Rio Tinto bypassed their lawyers and directly off-shored huge volume of legal work to India? They did so because they were certain that the exercise would bring gains. The anti off-shoring lobby in US needs to take a look at the broader benefits than the immediate narrower issues. Wish they opened their excel sheet and calculators to calculate the bigger gain. It is anybody’s knowledge that the gains that are being made by the US companies through off-shoring have a positive ripple effect on the entire US economy.

Why, a product which is expensive in a particular country be not allowed to be sourced from another country which offers the similar product in equal quality and measure but at a lower rate? Does such outsourcing not help the economy of the importing country? Obviously it does, and the resultant fractional loss of work in the importing country pales off into insignificance when measured against the magnitude of benefits that are reaped. Ever seen any prudent business person buying an ingredient of its finished business-product from a more expensive source? “Never” is the answer, and there is no use cribbing over it.

To restrict entry of foreign workers, the US government releases specified number of H1B visas every year. But is that a way to stop engagement of foreign workers? What if an American company desirous of hiring dozen foreign workers finds that the quota of visa is over for the year? Naturally, short of having those dozen foreign workers on US soils it shall send the whole assignment to the foreign country to which those workers belong----Off-Shore! The solution is simple! If you cannot have the skilled workers brought to America send the work to the foreign worker’s home country; this is exactly what many American companies have resorted to. It seems that they know how to do business in the most cost-effective manner.

Off-shoring is no new concept. Indian history would testify that hundreds of years ago Brits used to employ weavers in India to weave silk for being taken to England instead of weaving it there; that was pure off-shoring…so what is the problem now?

The bulky and voluminous administrative documents of the British Empire were required to be hand-written--- two hundred years ago, type writers were a fancy. The job used to be labor intensive as it entailed involvement of a large number of “writers”. So they utilized the services of literate Indians in Kolkata. So much so, that they built a massive mansion and named it “Writers Building” (now the seat of Government of West Bengal) to house those “writers”. Yet another Off-Shoring! So why cry hoarse now?

In this era of globalized economies, a deserving candidate from any part of the world should be allowed to work in another country without any restrictions. Let us not even talk of globalized economy with umpteen numbers of embargo on every economic activity; let us not brag about such high flown concepts till we have dissolved the restrictive lines of exchange of work products amongst countries.

A recent clippet in the New York Times posted by Thomas Friedman reads as follows:

"When we were young kids growing up in America, we were told to eat our vegetables at dinner and not leave them. Mothers said, think of the starving children in India and finish the dinner.' And now I tell my children: "Finish your homework. Think of the children in India who would make you starve, if you don't."

This shows that they know that the Indians are competent and capable of delivering the same quality of work that they might be doing few thousand miles across the seas. This casts an undeclared responsibility on all of us to maintain the complement showered on us (albeit in a negative manner) by this clippet.

It is  not enough to just remain competent, rather it is absolutely necessary that we move towards the comparative and finally to the superlative degree of the word "competent". Now, what are we doing to take ourselves to the next level?. .....this is exactly what we need to ponder upon at this juncture.

Equipping ourselves with knowledge, changing of behavioral pattern, modification of thought pattern, amending the work culture, getting ready for the great race, and taking up the challenge to walk across the globe should be high on the personal agenda of all of us.

It would be nothing short of temerity to suggest that we are indispensable, Philippines is fast catching up in many matters including the LPO sector, we have this competitor breathing right on our necks.

This is a call to all those twenty-somethings all across the country to get rid of all fear and inhibitions and pick up the gauntlet. If you are not strong and fluent in English, learn it. If you do not know computers, master it. If you come from a relatively smaller city in India, upgrade your skills to be at par with those from the metros. If you are getting a chance to learn something new, grab it. Opportunity does not knock twice.

In this era of globalization, acquire all that you need to in order to stand as a strong and deserving claimant of a global citizenship; or else you shall be left to rotten in the deep, dark depth of a suburban well.

It is not tough to reason why foreign Attorneys sometimes raise their eyebrows while going through the websites of medium and small sized Indian LPOs.

An impartial reading of the websites of majority of such LPOs would show that each of them kind of jot down a laundry list of all legal and paralegal activities to be "their" "area of expertise". Amazing! How can a LPO with a strength of anything between 5 to 20/30 people possess the expertise of “doing it all”?

Many foreign lawyers have time and again refused to believe such information served by the LPOs in their respective websites.

It would be relevant to mention in this context that even medium sized law firms in US would not be able to do all that are listed by majority of the LPOs in India….. So why are they going to believe that you could do it all?

It is useless to project a medium sized LPO to be an expert of “all that comes its way”….trying to project it like a full service law firm does not yield any result. As the wise men have always said…Jack of all trades, master of none.

It is quite reasonable for a large Indian LPO to list very many services in their website, it suits their stature and infrastructural capabilities. One could assume that they maintain different teams for different verticals. In fact with their kind of earning it is quite possible for them to do so and pending the arrival of a live project even maintain an “idle team” in a particular vertical.

It is high time that the small and medium-sized LPOs created their niche service areas. This would give them better credibility in the international market. If the industry is to grow at all levels then it is time for specialization.

Either specialize or perish…this seems to be one of the messages that comes forth from the lessons that we have learned from the past.

India needs two distinct categories of LPOs…..Full Service and Niche….and one should stick to it.

The landscape of legal outsourcing is radically changing all across the globe. It has virtually become a full time task to keep track of it all. Now, buyers not only have the options of multiple vendors with different billing patterns and delivery models but at the same time they now enjoy the option of various “degrees” of outsourcing.

By “degrees” we mean that the buyer law firm/corporation can now decide whether it would outsource its work to:

• An on-shore vendor (On-shoring---age old concept in the US)

• An onshore vendor with its offices located in the rural areas, thus having lower over- heads than a vendor typically based in a Tier I city in the US (Rural-Shoring)

• A vendor which has its office in a different geographical location but at the same time not being too far away from US (Near- Shoring)

• A vendor which has its operational set-up far away from US, say in a country like India (Off-Shoring…or may be down the line it would be termed as “Far-Shoring”….sounds good?)

• A vendor which has its operational set up in US as well as different other countries( Multi-Shoring…this is a combination of on-shoring, near-shoring and off-shoring/far-shoring)

The above is indicative of the fact, that on its way to India, the US buyer can feel free to drop down in very many locations of its choice. As if that was not enough, Philippines is fast developing as a favored Legal Off-shoring destination for US buyers. Statistics say that the rates offered by LPOs in Philippines are extremely competitive. To top it all, South Africa seems to be coming to the table to have its fare share of the legal-off-shoring-feast.

So what should a medium/small sized Indian LPO do to offer a more competitive billing rate and at the same time maintain its profitability without compromising on quality?

Obviously, everyone in chorus would say “cut-costs”.

But how, where, when and which…….. ?

Many might recall that in one of our recent post we wrote that;

“For an Indian LPO to function effectively, it is not all necessary that the same be housed in an all-glass-office located in the most expensive area in the uptown of the city or the floor be laid with Persian carpets” ………….

................now does that spring an idea in your mind? Correct!….look at the Tier II and Tier III cities for the purpose of housing your operational set up…..the savings shall be immense. In this era of well laid telecommunication infrastructure, good internet bandwidths are highly available in the Tier II and Tier III cities as well.

By now you must have started pondering on issue of availability of a pool of “LPO-trained-lawyers” in such smaller cities of India. Worry not; with a few LPO training companies concentrating on the Tier II and Tier III cities, the availability of trained personnel is no longer a pain area. These LPO Training Companies have realized that Tier II and Tier III cities in India host a huge pool of “English Speaking” lawyers and such young Indian law graduates can be adequately trained to suit the requirements of an LPO job.

A strategic placement of your operational set-up would lead to huge accumulated savings on rentals, lower rates of salaries, lower rates of internet tariffs and other incidentals. It is bound to keep you well ahead of competition. Perhaps it is worth opening your excel sheet now to get going with the calculations.

Recently an LPO training Company (www.mindlawtraining.com)has taken up the task of training the law graduates in smaller cities with LPO related issues. It would be worth getting in touch with

Read more »

The whole of the legal fraternity in UK is abuzz with discussions about the changes that the legal profession shall undergo after the implementation of the Legal Services Act (LSA). To be specific, people are worried about the Alternative Business Structure (ABS) that the Act propounds.

In its 3rd March, 2010 edition, “The Lawyer” reported that nearly 40 senior clerks wined and dined at The Ivy while discussing the challenges facing the profession’s commercial development.

The Legal Services Reform Fact Sheet issued by the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) interalia states that:

“Alternative Business Structures are bodies that have lawyer and non-lawyer management and/or ownership, and that may carry out solely legal services or legal services in combination with other non-legal services. ABS will also allow for increased flexibility: non-legal firms such as insurance companies, banks and estate agents will have the freedom to realize synergies with legal firms by forming ABS firms and offering integrated legal and other professional services.”

The M.O.J. expects that allowing new providers into the marketplace should lead to innovation and price reductions. This should result in more people being able to access legal services.

So the crux of the whole concept is all about:

 Flexibility;

 Increased efficiency;

 Participation of lawyers and non-lawyers to provide “one stop shops” to the customers of legal services;

 Effective competition;

 Wider opportunities for better quality;

 Cheaper legal services for consumers in UK;

Currently of course, the whole scenario is extremely dilute with an air of uncertainty about every aspect of the matter and people are busy discussing the regulatory aspect of the ABS regime.

One of our legal consultants, who is deeply looking into the scheme of Alternative Business Structure (ABS) as contemplated in the LSA, was researching as to whether the creation of synergies between law firms and non-legal firms could be stretched to an extent where Indian LPOs can create ABS synergies with UK law firms. Extensive reading and research on the available materials in the matter did not help. He however proceeded to write to an UK Solicitor asking, whether in the ABS regime an Indian LPO can create synergies with a UK law firm to provide cost effective solutions and services. In reply, the considered opinion of the UK Solicitor was, “There is no reason why an Indian LPO could not be part of the ABS”.

This is where the Indian LPO companies now need to put their thoughts into. As for the aspiring Indian LPOs, it is worth taking further legal opinions from Solicitors in England and Wales and gauge whether they can open up a new horizon for themselves. Being a part of the ABS and having synergies with UK law firms would definitely mean a high level of business activity.

Undoubtedly, Indian LPOs are famous in the UK and US for providing cost efficient and high quality services. We believe that given a chance to be a part of the ABS regime, Indian LPOs can be of great help to the MOJ in giving shape to its proposal of providing cost efficient legal services to the people of UK.

Now we just need to watch as to how the regulatory provisions of the LSA takes shape in UK.