Law firm panel

Office anthropology™ Go Premium The JC puts on his pith-helmet, grabs his butterfly net and a rucksack full of marmalade sandwiches, and heads into the concrete jungleIndex: Click ᐅ to expand: Work anthropology Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you. Sign up for our newsletter.

“Within a couple of millennia, bankers in many parts of the franchise were doing little from dawn to dusk other than taking care of law firms. It wasn’t easy. The lawyers demanded a lot of them. Lawyers didn’t like liability, so the bankers gave them assumptions and conditions precedents. broke their backs clearing their instructions of assumptions. Lawyers didn’t like sharing their fees with other firms, so legal departments laboured long days creating legal panel arrangements under the scorching sun. . . .

The structure of the investment bank was not evolved for such tasks. It was adapted to looting sovereign wealth funds, appropriating customer deposits towards casino banking and ripping faces off derivatives end-users, not to mutely agreeing terms of engagement and carrying water buckets. Banker spines and brass necks paid the price. Moreover, the new agricultural tasks demanded so much time that banks were forced to install thousands of lawyers permanently in their businesses, instinctively throwing out countless instructions on any matter of doubt that crossed the desk. This completely changed the banks’ way of life. Banks did not domesticate law firms. Law firms domesticated banks.”

—Noah Yuval Harari, Legio Cadabra: A Brief History of The Magic Circle

As good an illustration as you could ask for that the financial markets are an extended phenotype — a ghastly, metastasised spandrel that exists for the pleasure and enrichment of the commercial law industry.

Investment banking is riven with contradiction:

That a calling devoted to the principles of the anarchic free market systematically organises itself into enterprises that behave like Communist dictatorships.

That these cash-generating leviathans can be harnessed towards the better ends of not their shareholders, nor even employees, but a scarcely visible constituency of legal advisors.

The image of investment banks as docile harnessed sauropods munching stupidly away in the service of pan-dimensional superbeings — and not just their executives — might not be the first one that springs to mind. But then, nor does it immediately grab you that wheat has domesticated humankind to its biological ends, but that is what Noah Yuval Harari tells us.

The law firm panel looks like the banks taming and cultivating their lawfirms, but springs from an observation — investment banks spend an awful lot of money of legal fees — coupled with that unavoidable trope of modern commerce: scale is everything.

Picture the scene: an enterprising fellow in the legal COO team has pulled 5 years’ of legal spend, totalled it, and used the AVERAGE function in Excel. It generates this no-brainer:

“We spend £750m a year on external legal across 1,500 firms at an average run rate of half a million quid each firm. This is insane. If we concentrated that on say ten firms — even a hundred — we could dramatically reduce our administrative costs and leverage our scale. If we guarantee firms £50 million in billings we can push down their hourly rates, commit them to a programme of rolling secondees, have them run our annual training programme. That way we could cut our overall spend by 30% and get more legal value than we get right now.

This logic being unimpeachable, an action plan is implemented without ado. The pathological impulse to shower good money randomly over a myriad of anonymous law firms will be controlled. Order will be restored.

There will be a colossal multilateral

Now, had our fellow used a pivot chart he might have told a different story. For these firms span for 150 different jurisdictions, for a start. The mean may have been half a million, but the median spend was £10,000.

Five hundred of them billed less than £5,000 each. That third of the group account for just 2m of the total spend.