In the next of our series of explanatory articles on commercial legal issues, we asked one of the freelancers who works with us to put some thought into explaining Force Majeure.

As always, it is worth restating that HPLpro is not a legal firm, and this article should not be taken as legal advice. It is important for you and your business to have experienced legal practitioners review any legal issues or documents to ensure that they adequately meet your needs. Please feel free to request a freelance in-house lawyer from us if required.

Force Majeure is a term that is related to contracts, so if you have no interest in contracts it is probably best that you look away now. For the rest of you who are keen to understand this peculiar term, read on!

Putting it simply – and this will be a very simplified explanation given the space – force majeure is a list of disasters. Specifically, it is a list of disasters which, if they arise, mean that a party to the contract may be allowed to be in breach of that contract. The point of force majeure clauses is to attempt take a reasonable approach to apportioning risk in a contract for certain events: which party should bear the risk of a certain disaster happening. Common events are: fire, flood, strike, armed insurrection, war, and so on. You may have also seen 'act of god,' listed in a force majeure clause and in modern parlance it is best thinking of this phrase as meaning a natural disaster such as a flood or lightning strike.

Consider this: if an earthquake delays a supplier of chemicals making a delivery to their customer, that delay will likely have a real cost to the customer (it may even put them in breach of other contracts). Without a force majeure clause in a contract, the supplier is likely to be responsible for the costs of delay; with a force majeure clause inserted the supplier is likely to be able to use that clause to excuse their breach meaning that the customer will pay the costs of the delay. Which position is fairer? Should the customer or the supplier feel the pain of an earthquake that was the fault or neither party? It is hard to say really as neither party caused the earthquake and neither party could control the effects of the earthquake.

Which brings us neatly on to the next element of force majeure clauses: the concept of reasonable control. In most force majeure clauses, you are likely to see the phrase, "Beyond that party's reasonable control".  This is a reference to the outside influence of a disaster - neither party could control that disaster. The use of the word 'reasonable' in this phrase is an attempt to limit the extent of what is considered control.

For example, flooding is a common disaster that you may see listed in a force majeure clause; the week after the above earthquake, the unlucky supplier's factory got flooded meaning more delays for their customers and more cost. Oh dear. Classic force majeure. Nothing could have been done about a flood, right? Wrong; it just so happens that the supplier has a flood control system at the factory that was not activated at the time of the flood because it made a whirring noise that irritated the plant manager. Had it been activated, the flood would not have happened. The means of averting the disaster was in the supplier's control, meaning that it is only fair that the supplier bears the cost of the delay.

So, force majeure clauses are an attempt to apportion risk for external events in a contract. Whilst, on the face of it, the force majeure clause is fairly bland, standard and uninspiring, it can often be a secret battle ground between supplier and procurer who tend to want to move the risk dial toward the other party. If you are a vendor you may want that disaster list to be as comprehensive as possible. On the other hand, if you are buying a product or a service, it is highly likely that the party that you are buying from will have included a long and wide ranging list of disasters in the force majeure clause. In fact, some elements may not be a disaster at all, so it is vitally important to have a legally trained person consider the details of the language of your contracts as small changes can have a major impact. For example, a clause may list 'illness' as an event under the force majeure clause. What would the impact of that be?  The author of this piece has seen: 'objects falling out of planes' listed in a force majeure clause as well as 'inclement weather'.

The actual effect of the clause will differ depending upon the wording of the clause itself. Normally, the party relying on the force majeure clause will be excused from their breach of contract for as long as the force majeure event interrupts their performance of the contract, but that is not necessarily always going to be the case and again, having a legally trained person review those clauses is vital. For example, a clause may require the party relying on the clause to notify the other party of the event within a particular timeframe and, if they don't, they may lose the right to rely on the clause.

Additionally, a clause may contain a right for the party not affected by the force majeure event to terminate the contract if the event lasts for more than, say, a month. In the absence of such a clause, the parties may become stuck in a contract that cannot be performed due to a disaster, the risk for which rests solely on the shoulders of one party.

Of course, the presence of a force majeure clause doesn’t always mean that the party relying on it can get off scot free – that will depend upon the details of the clause itself and the law of the jurisdiction that governs the contract. Force majeure clauses can be highly controversial and may not always be upheld by a court as being enforceable. For example, courts in England and Wales are not likely to agree that economic hardship is a valid force majeure event, even if a contract says that it is. What will or will not be acceptable as a force majeure event will be different from country to country.

On the other hand, what is enforceable and what is written into a contract are not always the same thing. After all, you can persuade a party to a contract that you are right without having to go to court. This means that the details of the clause are important and can have a significant impact. For example, if a clause simply references 'beyond that party's control,' instead of 'beyond that party's reasonable control,' that could have a significant influence on the outcome of the clause.

Further, some clauses require the force majeure event to be unforeseen which adds a whole extra layer of complication; what does foreseen mean in the context of a flood, strike or terrorist attack? The answer will depend upon the specific circumstances of the contract and the event itself.

Even taking the above into account, force majeure clauses are often overlooked by businesses and lawyers because in many instances they will be bland and uninteresting. Every now and then, however, something more interesting pops up so it always pays to be vigilant particularly as some force majeure events may be uninsurable.

Finally, and this is something that we will revisit in a later article on contract management, it is worthwhile making sure that the force majeure clauses that your business agrees to in its procurement contracts are matched in your sales contracts. Otherwise your business could be left holding the force majeure disaster baby.

Let us know if you have any comments on the above or any exciting and interesting tales of Force Majeure!

Cheers
 
The HPLpro Team

After our extremely popular release of this free confidentiality agreement builder, we thought that it would be worthwhile to go into a little more depth on the subject of non-disclosure agreements.
But first, a little disclaimer: as always, it is worth restating that HPLpro is not a legal firm, and this article should not be taken as legal advice. It is important for you and your business to have experienced legal practitioners review any legal issues or documents to ensure that they adequately meet your needs. Please feel free to request a freelance in-house lawyer from us if required.

The words 'non-disclosure agreement', 'NDA' and 'confidentiality agreement' all refer to the same thing: a document that is entered into to protect certain information from disclosure to third parties. This article will use those terms interchangeably. Of course, NDAs are not the only documents within which you will find references to the protection of confidential information -  you are also likely to find clauses relating to protection of that information in all kinds of other agreements, such as employment contracts, services contracts, license agreements and so on. The information contained within the definition of confidential information can be defined by the agreement itself which, as we state below, can be something to look out for when agreeing an NDA. NDAs can protect the information of one party, both parties to the agreement or numerous parties.

There are a variety of reasons to enter into such a document but ultimately, they all boil down to protection of information; NDAs are a way of preventing the disclosure of information by another party.
We love to gossip, don’t we? As this article from Peggy Drexler Ph.D, the Assistant Professor of Psychology at Weill Medical College, suggests, gossip is in our make up as humans. Now it goes without saying that the inherent human prevalence for gossip causes challenges when it comes to keeping secrets, particularly business secrets. One of the functions of an NDA is to highlight the importance of the information involved and the act of a signature suggests to the recipient that discussing the matter in the lunch queue is perhaps not the best idea. That sounds quite trivial, but research suggests that there is an important psychological factor in signing your name and the affect that can subsequently have on us.

The symbolism of the NDA itself is an important reason to have an NDA - to raise the status of that information.
 
In addition to the symbolism there are numerous reasons which will be specific to the circumstances of your business. For example, in certain countries worldwide you can lose your rights to file a patent on an invention if the information relating to the invention becomes widely known (referred to as being in the public domain). An NDA can help to protect that information so that the rights to file the patent are not lost.

Within a business environment, NDAs are commonly used when a company is exploring a business opportunity with a third party – for example, a company may release its confidential information to a supplier in order for the supplier to provide a quote.

A further reason to have an NDA is to protect the secrets of a third party.  If your business has, for example, just signed a licensing deal with Universal, in order to manufacture branded marshmallow-coated popcorn for an upcoming release of a new film in the Minions franchise, you will likely be bound by confidentiality provisions around the film and its release date. Accordingly, your business will need to protect that information through the use of NDAs with your suppliers.

Additionally, within a business itself, an employee will likely be exposed to significant amounts of information which the employer would rather not become publicly known; if you are an employer, you should ensure that your contracts of employment have suitable confidentiality provisions in them.

Having an NDA also gives you access to certain remedies (and these remedies will change depending upon what country you are in and what country's laws the NDA is subject to) which are discussed in more detail below.

Here are a few things to check when entering into an NDA, but again, this is general list and you will need legal advice from experienced professionals for your specific circumstances, particularly in relation to the laws that will govern the NDA and the laws of the country that you are in.

The first thing to look for is the definition of confidential information in the agreement. Some definitions can be exceptionally narrow and not necessarily capture all bits of information that they are expected to. Of course, if your company is the party receiving the information and committing to look after that information, it may suit you to have a narrow definition so that your obligations may only extend to a certain clearly-defined part of the information. Be aware of what format the definition refers to, it may exclude information disclosed verbally for example. Indeed, sometimes confidential information only covers information that is actively disclosed rather than information that is passively obtained. Some agreement limit the definition to only information which has "Confidential Information" written on it. This is why it is so important to have a lawyer who understands your business check the NDA prior to execution.

The length of the obligations within the agreement are important: you should look at both the length of the agreement itself and then the length of the confidentiality provisions as they may be two different periods of time. What does this mean? It means that information disclosed during the term of the agreement may still need to be protected after the agreement has expired. As an example, if the term of a confidentiality agreement is two years in duration, but the confidentiality obligations are stated in that agreement to last for 5 years, information collected at the very end of the second year may (depending upon the exact clauses in the agreement) need to be protected in accordance with the agreement for a further 5 years even though the agreement has already ended.

In the free NDA builder that we released last week, users can choose how long the confidentiality provisions will last from 3, 5, or ten years but the agreement itself has a fixed term of three years.

Another key element to consider is what the parties have to do with the information to comply with the agreement; what steps does the recipient need to take to protect the information? Do they have to restrict the flow of the information to certain people in their own organisation? Does the information have to be stored in a locked safe? Does the information have to be kept on servers not connected to the internet? These obligations can be particularly important in the digital age and should not be overlooked. It is common for the agreement to state that the recipient needs to look after the information in the same way that the recipient looks after its own information.

Connected to the above is the use that the information can be put to – normally defined as the 'purpose' in an NDA – in other words, this is what the agreement states can be done with the information.  For example, a supplier may need to use the information to perform a particular service and if the language of the NDA or contact clause is too restrictive the supplier may not be able to perform that service.

There are often further obligations which come into effect upon the termination or expiry of the agreement and it is worth paying attention to those obligations if there are any – for example hard drives which stored the information may need to be destroyed.

Very often, the obligations of confidence in such agreements have exceptions and it is always worth considering what those exceptions are either as the party supplying the information or as the party receiving it. Common exceptions are: if a court orders the release of the information, very often the agreement will not apply; if the information is already in the public domain; if the recipient already knew the information prior to disclosure.

Always be aware of what legal system governs the agreement as different countries often have different laws governing how such agreements are treated and the remedies that are on offer after a breach of the agreement. Speaking of remedies:

Perhaps the most important remedy for a breach of an NDA can be the ability to prevent further disclosure with a court injunction.

However, depending upon which country's legal system the agreement is governed by there are likely to be other remedies such as a financial remedy which may, for example, compensate for the losses that you have suffered. The precise nature of any remedies will be dependent on the legal system in the relevant country and the terms of the agreement itself.

For those of you who are interested and brave enough to read the transcript of an actual court case, the judge in the 2010 case of Vercoe v Rutland Fund Management Limited in the High Court of England and Wales reviewed the remedies available in that case and in that legal system for a breach of a confidentiality agreement. 
 
As for the other side of the Pond, this blog from the US has an excellent real-life cautionary tale about how you should respect confidentiality agreements, once signed, and also highlights a particular remedy for breach of an NDA in the US.

Of course, sometimes it is preferable to be exceptionally cautious with information rather than rely on a confidentiality agreement as, in many instances, the damage that can occur from the release of the information far outweighs the remedy available to the wronged party. Whatever your thoughts on the politics behind the actions, consider the damage caused by confidential information being leaked, such as with the now-famous Edward Snowden.  In many such instances, the breach of confidence can completely outweigh the remedy available to the wronged party.

You should always take additional precautions to guard confidential information as there is always a risk of disclosure. For example, if you restrict the information that the other party to the agreement has access to, the damage from any resulting breach can be limited; do not let the other party have all of the information that you have, merely the information that they need to provide the service, give the quote or perform whatever other function they require the information for. For example, if a supplier is providing a quote for an analysis of certain contracts, limit their access solely to those contracts rather than your whole contract database. Also, consider removing or obscuring parts of the information, such as supplier names and contact details.

All businesses should also consider the culture of the industry that they operate in and the culture of their own business. How is information dealt with generally? Is you company a leaky bucket or are you secrets safe in the culture of your employees? Do you need to have specific confidentially agreements with your employees relating to top secret projects?
 
It is always useful for businesses to have a periodic review, led by an in-house lawyer in conjunction with IT, of the data that they hold and what parts of their own data are confidential; what data from other parties do they hold; is that information safe and secure; where is that information located; who has access to that information?  The same questions can then be asked of parties who hold your confidential information: have they secured that information; what do they hold; do they still need the information? Some of these questions are also relevant for compliance with data protection regulations and we may feature a post on that subject at a future time.

An in-house lawyer within your organisation can periodically perform reviews, help to identify confidential information, and ensure that it is safe and secure; do contact us if you would like to request the assistance of a freelance in-house lawyer.
 
Finally, always make sure that any confidentiality agreement is signed prior to the disclosure of any information.

Please contact us if you have any queries about this or any other article.
 
Cheers
 
The HPLpro Team.

Free, you say? Well, who doesn't like free stuff, particularly on a Friday! One of our kindly freelancers has donated a confidentiality agreement builder (definition check: confidentiality agreements also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs) which is free to use until May 1st if you are legally minded. It is in an excel format so you will need to 'enable macros' when excel starts by clicking the relevant button.
 
Please note that HPlpro is not a legal firm and cannot give legal advice so we would suggest that you only use this builder if you are legally experienced and you are aware of what the language in the confidentiality agreement means. You must ensure that the language is suitable for your circumstances before use. If you are unsure feel free to request the services of an in-house lawyer.
 
All you need to do is fill out your name and email below and it will be sent back to you.

Dont forget to check out our recent article on why you should have an in-house lawyer.

Cheers

The HPlpro Team

Following on from our earlier article outlining why small and medium sized businesses need flexibility with their in-house lawyer, this article from The Hartford has been brought to our attention.

They are suggesting that as "As with any senior position, the individual characteristics of the lawyer you hire are probably more important than the intrinsic strengths or weaknesses of the role itself."

The article goes on to caution against making bad hiring choices in respect of your in-house lawyer as they play such a central role to any business. This clearly supports the flexible offering that HPLpro can provide as you can have your in-house legal cake and eat it! So, when using HPLpro freelance lawyers if, for whatever reason, you need to dial down the legal support you have on any given day, month, week or year you can! If you want to change the lawyer providing the services, you can do that as well. All with minimal fuss and notice.

Cheers

The HPLpro Team

Below are nine reasons why your business needs an in-house lawyer. Some of these points are also reflected in our earlier article on the benefits of an in-house lawyer over a private practice lawyer in which we suggest that, given the revolution in legal services that is occurring in favour of flexible freelance lawyers, now is a great time to obtain a flexible in-house lawyer rather than continuing to use a private practice lawyer. This list is applicable to all businesses but it is written with Small/mid-sized businesses, Startups and Entrepreneurs in mind.

This is perhaps top on the list for many businesses; cost is a significant factor in why any business would have an in-house lawyer rather than either going to private practice lawyers or, worse, not going to a lawyer at all. An in-house lawyer represents an incredibly cost effective method of obtaining legal advice for your business and that is even more the case if you use a HPLpro freelance in-house lawyer.

Even with in-house legal resource, there may still be occasions when an external lawyer is required, perhaps in the event that you are purchasing property in Scotland or require advice on complicated Irish tax matters, and in those instances an in-house lawyer will be able to extract value from that external lawyer on account of knowing how long such work should take and a reasonable cost for such work.

Perhaps the most important function of an In-house lawyer is the identification, management and review of the legal risks that the business faces and provide advice and solutions on the best way to minimise those risks in alignment with the strategies of the business. The in-house lawyer will also be able to weigh up the relative importance of those risks and prioritise the most fundamental. Whilst this is true for business of all sizes it could be particularly useful for start-ups and entrepreneurs to ensure that their business ideas start on the right track – indeed a business may not even be aware of the risks that it faces.

Given that an in-house lawyer is a dedicated business resource, that lawyer will be accessible to your business at the times that you require. With a HPLpro flexible in-house lawyer, you can have the best of all worlds: the accessibility of an in-house lawyer with the flexibility of using freelancers.

Unlike private practice lawyers, In-house lawyers will be going beyond their brief to proactively analyse areas of the business for risks and solutions and be able to prevent mishaps prior to them occurring, including by helping to shape business strategy, rather than fire-fighting after the event.

As an in-house lawyer is embedded within your business that lawyer will become aligned with the priorities of the business and will ensure that the legal solutions that he or she proposes will match the direction of travel for the business.

In addition to aligning to the business, the in-house lawyer will also develop an in depth understanding of the industry that the business operates I, this is key to providing the best strategic legal advice for any business.  

Given the training and experience involved in becoming an in-house lawyer, including being at the heart of business risk planning, in-house lawyers can add an additional element of strategic thinking, planning and organising to a company.

In-house lawyers generally have seen and experienced an incredibly wide range of matters meaning that it would be rare for an experienced in-house lawyer not to have come across a situation or legal issue before. This compounds the benefit that they bring to any business, particularly entrepreneurial businesses where unusual situations arise all the time!

Hope this was useful!
 
The HPLpro Team

The legal world is changing after many, many years of stagnation. Firstly, the percentage of large companies who wanted their own lawyers working for them started to grow, primarily because employing your own lawyer is more cost effective than continually using external lawyers (see our earlier article of the benefits of in-house lawyers). Now there is a trend for those large companies to use freelance in–house lawyers instead of directly employing those in-house lawyers, and thus getting even more benefits. Here at HPLpro, we think that small and mid-sized businesses, entrepreneurs and start ups should take advantage of this cost-effective method of obtaining quality in-house legal support. Here are six reasons why using a freelance in– house lawyer gives you the flexibility that you need :

Ultimately, none of us really know what the future holds, as has been proven by recent major world events. Hiring a flexible HPLpro in-house lawyer will give you the flexibility that you need to turn that in-house legal resource on and off at will, something that is simply not possible with an employee.

Using a freelance in-house lawyer will also minimise the other burdens of traditional employees, such as pension contributions, bonuses, car allowances, holidays and so on.

The beauty of using a flexible resource for your in-house legal requirements means that you can scale up that resource as and when necessary for any peak season or project work and then bring that resource down again upon the completion of the busy period or project in question.

When businesses actually operate in the day is changing rapidly, particularly now that so much business spans numerous time zones. With a flexible in-house legal resource, you can obtain a resource that will work to suit your business needs. You want one hour on a Monday morning? No problem. Three hours on Saturday evening? Fine.  Our flexible resources can bend to match your requirements, whatever the time of day or night.

We have all worked in a business or industry where things change quickly and that is particularly true of small and medium sized businesses and start-up ventures. To keep up with that change a business vision will need to move quickly to take advantages of new products, markets and opportunities. Again, a flexible in-house legal resource will enable you to capture those opportunities quickly without having to wait for a lengthy recruitment process.

In house lawyers need a real breadth of knowledge and this is what an experienced in-house lawyer will have. However, HPLpro also has experienced specialist freelance in-house lawyers on our roster enabling you to turn on and off specialist legal skills when required.

Please comment or contact us if you have any thoughts on the above
 
HPLpro Team

We have been asked to give a brief explanation of what an in-house lawyer actually is and an explanation of some of the language used to describe lawyers.
 
Let us start with the word 'lawyer' itself, which, simply put, is a reference to anyone who works in and around the law and can include: solicitors, barristers, attorney (US), paralegals, judges, conveyancers, legal executives and so on, with the difference between these being the types of qualification that they have, the type of work that they do and, sometimes, the country that they work in. We will explain some of those types of lawyer below.

A solicitor is an individual who has a certain qualification (in the UK this is currently called the Legal Practice Course) and has taken an apprenticeship known as a training contract. Once passing the training contract, the solicitor is deemed to have been accepted 'on to the roll' of solicitors. Solicitors in the UK are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page ) and their industry body is called the Law Society. You can search for any person who is a qualified solicitor using the Law Society's 'find a solicitors' search function: http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/. Solicitors work in many different fields (company law, business law, commercial law, wills & probate, family law, criminal law and so on) and in legal firms that vary greatly in size from international law firms to tiny local law firms (known as 'high street' law firms given their common location in small towns and villages). By law, certain types of work are reserved exclusively to solicitors and it is illegal to impersonate a solicitor or perform the work that is reserved to solicitors. A solicitor will, very often, have direct contact with their clients. The traditional image of a solicitor was of an old man sat in a dusty office, up to his eyeballs in books, folders and papers. The modern solicitor is far from that and is more likely to be a young woman working in a shiny office block than a dusty study.

You may be familiar with Barristers (not to be confused with a Barista) as they are the people who are depicted as wearing the wigs and gowns and who represent the sides of a case in court. Barristers, unlike solicitors, very often do not have direct contact with their clients. Indeed, a barrister is often sourced by a solicitor to work on behalf of the client of the solicitor. Barristers have a similar path to qualification to solicitors, save that in the UK their exams are called the Bar Examination, their apprenticeship is called a Pupillage and, upon qualifying, they are 'called to the Bar'. The representative body for Barristers in the UK is called the Bar Council. Unlike solicitors (who have to obtain an additional qualification), barristers automatically have what are called higher rights of audience which means that they can speak in the highest courts in the land. As a result of their sometimes-theatrical court appearances, we liken them to highly intelligent thespians.

We do not have the space to go into detail about all other types of lawyers in this article, save to say that in the US there is not the same distinction between solicitors and barristers in the way that happens in the UK, they simply have 'attorneys', which are essentially an amalgam of solicitors and barristers.
Legal Executives carry out similar tasks to solicitors but have a different qualification route, they emerged out of the 19th century practice of having clerks in solicitors firms for certain areas of work.
A paralegal is someone who is not qualified as a solicitor or a barrister but nevertheless operates in the legal field, the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (http://www.nationalparalegals.co.uk/what_is_a_paralegal ) describes them thusly: " A Paralegal is a person qualified through education and training to perform substantive legal work that requires knowledge of the law and procedures but who is not a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive. Paralegals may work for, or be retained by solicitors within the legal profession or they may work within a legal environment within commerce, industry or the public sector."

Most lawyers that you will encounter will work in what is commonly called a lawyers 'practice' (hence the phrase 'private practice'), which is a business that provides legal work for the general public. You may also hear them referred to as 'external lawyers' as they are external to a company. The lawyer (or lawyers) in that private practice can, and will, work for numerous different clients and customers; those lawyers are not normally dedicated to one particular client. See our article on some of the differences between in-house and private practice lawyers.

 An in-house lawyer is a lawyer who works for just the one client, normally a company but it could also be a governmental department. Traditionally an in-house lawyer is a lawyer who is employed directly by a company just like any other employee. At HPLpro, we are taking the concept of an in-house lawyer one step further by embedding freelance lawyers into companies instead of employees (see our Services here). In respect of the type of lawyers who become in-house lawyers, most in house lawyers in the UK are solicitors.

In respect of other terms used to describe in-house lawyers you will also see the phrases, 'in-house counsel', 'general counsel' , 'head of legal', 'legal VP', 'legal manager', 'contracts manager' and so on and so forth – we will explain what those terms mean in a later article! 
 
Feel free to leave a comment if you have any thoughts on the above.
 
HPLpro Team

Following our recent article ("Five key benefits of an in-house lawyer over a private practice lawyer"), we can bring you even more benefits of an in-house legal team from this US based article which has been brought to our attention by one of our freelance in-house lawyers:
http://www.franchise.org/the-benefits-of-having-a-full-in-house-legal-team

The article, written last May by, Christine S. Johnson, the general counsel of, Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants, a franchise of barbeque fast food restaurants in the United States, eloquently supports the notion of having an in house team.

This element in particular resonated with us:
"Any in-house legal team spends a significant amount of time drafting legal documents and providing traditional legal advice, but the skill set found in most qualified legal staff (e.g. being organized, detail oriented, and capable of creative problem solving) is often useful to other departments within the company. Lawyers and other legal staff are often happy to take an active role in managing large scale projects company-wide and are typically not intimidated by the need to produce quality results within an aggressive timeline."

In house lawyers – sometimes referred to as 'in house counsel' – have numerous advantages over private practice lawyers; in this article, we lay out some of the key advantages (in no particular order).

Private practice lawyers have a reputation for being too cautious and their advice often involves a black or white analysis of the law. Of course, many businesses, particularly small businesses, need solutions instead of blockers and require a more commercial approach. In-house lawyers tend to be significantly more commercial in their outlook than private practice lawyers as a result of the fact that they are embedded within a company, they understand that 'no' is not a viable answer in the majority of situations and that, for a lawyer to give maximum value to a company, a healthy degree of commercial outlook is needed.

A significant benefit of an in-house lawyer is cost effectiveness. Private practice firms tend to be either enormous entities which have vast infrastructure which needs to be paid for through high fees, or they are small high street firms which don't have the breadth of knowledge of an in-house lawyer. Costs can also rise steeply in private practice depending upon the specific legal work involved. If you are a company which already uses private practice solicitors for general commercial work, have a look at the billable hours for your external lawyers, you are likely to find that those sums fall dramatically if you use in-house lawyers, and further still if you use an HPLpro freelance in-house lawyer.

As an in-house lawyer gains more experience from working within companies they also gain more experience of both the industry and the specific business. It is extremely difficult to obtain that kind of advanced knowledge of the specifics of a company from a private practice position. This is vital, as the advice of any lawyer will be shaped by their understanding, or lack of it, of your business.

In-house lawyers are excellent at identifying risks and the more depth of knowledge a lawyer has in respect of your business the more risks they can identify and deal with. Often, the first time that a small/medium sized business or start-up involves a lawyer is when something has already gone wrong, which oftentimes is way too late, whereas an in-house lawyer can proactively spot and resolve issues prior to there being a problem.

In-house lawyers tend to have more breadth of knowledge than private practice lawyers and this is due to the fact that they are exposed to all and any legal issues that arise for a company, be they related to regulation, legislation, mergers and acquisitions, litigation, contracts and so on. This means that having an in-house lawyer is a bit like having ten private practice lawyers rolled in to one!

Feel free to leave a comment if you have any thoughts on the above.
 
Contact us if you want to learn more about the freelance in-house lawyers that HPLpro can provide you with, particularly if you are a small to medium sized business, entrepreneur or start-up.
 
HPLpro Team