GLD Vacancies

Richmond and Merton home in on London’s first shared legal service

The prospect of the first shared legal service in London could move a step closer this evening as the Cabinet at the London Borough of Richmond mulls a deal with neighbour Merton Council.

The two local authorities have had an interim joint head of legal in place since August 2010, when Merton’s head of civic and legal services Helen White was appointed to the role on the retirement of her Richmond counterpart. The councils also agreed to conduct a feasibility exercise for merging the two legal services departments.

Under the plans, which have already been approved by Merton, the shared service will:

  • Be a new service with a new identity, distinct from the existing legal services, “which is customer focussed, innovative and with a high performance culture”
  • Be physically hosted in the London Borough of Merton
  • See all staff employed by Merton, with Richmond’s staff transferred across. There will also be a “new flatter management structure”
  • Use a shared IT case management system
  • Use hot desks in Richmond “so that when staff are needed for meetings they can undertake other work without the need for additional travel”
  • Have a joint governance board which will monitor the performance of the service and be responsible for directing the strategy and development
  • See lawyers work on cases for either authority depending on their expertise and the needs of the clients. “There will no longer be a distinction between a LBM or LRBuT lawyer”

Have a joint head of service to “allow for clear and certain leadership through the implementation of the new legal service”. The two authorities’ chief executives will consider the process for this appointment.

According to the background report, “the shared service should be sustainable in light of any future budget reductions and have the potential for expansion with other local authorities who may in the future look to share legal services”.

The initial plan is for each authority to meet the cost of the shared service in proportion to their existing costs. However, the view is to move later to a direct charging model to each authority based on the amount of time spent.

The cost of the shared legal service has been estimated at approximately £2.2m a year, with savings of £100,000 in 2011/12. Legal costs are expected to be reduced by 20% by the end of the second year of operation. Further one-off savings of £20,000 are likely to be made in relation to books and resources, while Richmond will see lower costs for IT support.

The report said these savings would be delivered “by implementing a flatter structure, driving through further efficiencies through the economies of scale and creating a more resilient structure minimising the increase of external legal spend”. External legal spend is also expected to fall as a result of increased physical capacity.

The set-up costs have been estimated at £90,000 on top of costs associated with redundancies and pay protection. “It is anticipated that the costs of redundancies will be met by the originating authority,” the report said. “However, in the spirit of the underlying principle of mutual benefit, if one authority bears a disproportionate share of the set-up costs then the chief executives in consideration with the leaders will reconsider the apportionment of funding.”

The report did not set out how many redundancies are expected to be made as a result of implementing the service.

Alternative options to a shared legal service were considered but ruled out. They were:

  • Hosting of the service by Richmond or in a third party location. However, Richmond had insufficient space and Merton had enough to rule out the need for a separate location
  • Seconding staff into the service rather than transferring to Merton. The report suggested that the benefits obtained by a restructure and relocation of staff would not have been realised under this model.
  • Creating satellite offices in each authority with a central business support team. This would have reduced the ability to achieve maximum savings and resilience, the report said.

Richmond’s Cabinet was being asked to approve the establishment of the shared legal service tonight (24 February).

Philip Hoult
Richmond and Merton home in on London’s first shared legal service

The prospect of the first shared legal service in London could move a step closer this evening as the
Cabinet at the London Borough of Richmond mulls a deal with neighbour Merton Council.

The two local authorities have had an interim joint head of legal in place since August 2010, when
Merton’s head of civic and legal services Helen White was appointed to the role on the retirement of
her Richmond counterpart. The councils also agreed to conduct a feasibility exercise for merging the
two legal services departments.

Under the plans, which have already been approved by Merton, the shared service will:

•

Be a new service with a new identity, distinct from the existing legal services, “which is
customer focussed, innovative and with a high performance culture”
Be physically hosted in the London Borough of Merton
See all staff employed by Merton, with Richmond’s staff transferred across. There will also
be a “new flatter management structure”
Use a shared IT case management system
Use hot desks in Richmond “so that when staff are needed for meetings they can undertake
other work without the need for additional travel”
Have a joint governance board which will monitor the performance of the service and be
responsible for directing the strategy and development
See lawyers work on cases for either authority depending on their expertise and the needs
of the clients. “There will no longer be a distinction between a LBM or LRBuT lawyer”

•
•

•
•

•

•

Have a joint head of service to “allow for clear and certain leadership through the implementation
of the new legal service”. The two authorities’ chief executives will consider the process for this
appointment.

According to the background report, “the shared service should be sustainable in light of any future
budget reductions and have the potential for expansion with other local authorities who may in the
future look to share legal services”.

The initial plan is for each authority to meet the cost of the shared service in proportion to their
existing costs. However, the view is to move later to a direct charging model to each authority based
on the amount of time spent.

The cost of the shared legal service has been estimated at approximately £2.2m a year, with savings
of £100,000 in 2011/12. Legal costs are expected to be reduced by 20% by the end of the second
year of operation. Further one-off savings of £20,000 are likely to be made in relation to books and
resources, while Richmond will see lower costs for IT support.

The report said these savings would be delivered “by implementing a flatter structure, driving
through further efficiencies through the economies of scale and creating a more resilient structure
minimising the increase of external legal spend”. External legal spend is also expected to fall as a
result of increased physical capacity.

The set-up costs have been estimated at £90,000 on top of costs associated with redundancies

and pay protection. “It is anticipated that the costs of redundancies will be met by the originating
authority,” the report said. “However, in the spirit of the underlying principle of mutual benefit,
if one authority bears a disproportionate share of the set-up costs then the chief executives in
consideration with the leaders will reconsider the apportionment of funding.”

The report did not set out how many redundancies are expected to be made as a result of
implementing the service.

Alternative options to a shared legal service were considered but ruled out. They were:

•

Hosting of the service by Richmond or in a third party location. However, Richmond had
insufficient space and Merton had enough to rule out the need for a separate location
Seconding staff into the service rather than transferring to Merton. The report suggested
that the benefits obtained by a restructure and relocation of staff would not have been
realised under this model.
Creating satellite offices in each authority with a central business support team. This would
have reduced the ability to achieve maximum savings and resilience, the report said.

•

•

Richmond’s Cabinet was being asked to approve the establishment of the shared legal service
tonight (24 February).

Philip Hoult