Let's Use the Term "Law Companies"

The “Alternative Legal Service Provider” (ALSP) market is now $28.5B, indicating significant growth and demand for legal services following revenue models aligned more closely with clients than the traditional law firm model.

It is time to drop the “alternative” moniker to improve perception and business opportunities within the legal industry.

HBR’s Austin Hyde is not alone in counterarguing that the term “alternative” continues to be merited because traditional outside counsel retains 10x the corporate spend. While a valid perspective, I’d argue that the term is itself contributing to the lack of traction.  

The term “ALSP”  increasingly reads as  a law firm term to establish baseline bias and may limit the ability of law companies to gain traction in corporate legal strategies. Just as  “standard rate card”  establishes an artificially high baseline as compared to market data, the word “alternative” –

• Reflects biases that diminish the perceived quality of legal services  (with similarly shaky data support).
• Implies the providers are a secondary choice, which may mislead some clients about their value, and
• Is associated with less institutionally reliable characteristics.

About ten years ago the term “Law Company” was established. Law companies are addressing increasingly complex legal challenges effectively, while enhancing efficiency by leveraging technology and process innovation. Together legal operations professionals and media can adopt the term “Law Company” as a more accurate reflection of evolving legal industry. Let’s reshape public perception of legal services delivery,  and encourage using the full range of quality choices.