header-logo header-logo

12 November 2018
Issue: 7817 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Employment
printer mail-detail

Lawyers in the gig economy

Platform law firms on the rise as lawyers embrace flexibility

The gig economy is taking hold in the legal sector, with more than 1,000 lawyers now working remotely at ‘platform’ law firms.

Platform firms—such as Keystone Law, which recently listed on the London Stock Exchange, Excello Law and gunnercooke—allow lawyers to step outside of the traditional firm structure and have more choice in how they work. Lawyers at these firms are usually self-employed and work remotely using shared services such as accounting, IT, marketing and compliance provided by a central hub.

According to research by accountants Hazlewoods, the number of UK lawyers working for platform firms has risen 29% to 1,035 in 2018, up from 803 in 2017.

The advantage for lawyers is they can work flexibly, avoid the legal profession’s long hours culture, choose how much attention they pay to marketing versus fee-earning, and keep a higher percentage of the fees they charge. It’s a model well-suited to parents or those who don’t want to commute.

Platform firms usually have fewer overhead costs on rent and on-site IT staff, which they argue means they can offer high-quality services at lower rates. They can also expand into niche markets or into geographical regions without a large presence of traditional law firms.

Jon Cartwright, partner at Hazlewoods, said: ‘The continued growth of platform law firms reflects the enthusiasm in the legal sector to adapt to new ways of working.

‘It is also part of broader trend amongst lawyers to be more entrepreneurial, to strike out on their own. Some because they want to do things their way, some because they feel big law firms involve too much politics and others because they feel they are getting enough out of the fees they earn.

‘Platform law firms are also tapping into the trend of placing greater importance on the work/life balance across many sectors, not just in law firms.’

Issue: 7817 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Employment
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll