Back to overview Advisory Board Our Guarantee

Although we are under no particular obligation to do so, as former practising lawyers, we have chosen to apply to our consulting work the exact same high standards of professionalism, confidentiality and conflict of interest as we did in our private practice days.

The global legal marketplace is surprisingly small, particularly amongst the firms with which Validatum® works. As a result, from time to time Validatum® is engaged by a firm that competes with a prior or even a current client. To help guide our efforts, we adhere to the following principles:

Our expertise and credibility as a trusted advisor comes from having access to, and conversations with, multiple parties across many topics. We do not compromise our integrity by serving as a confidential source to the press or betraying confidences among competing parties.

  • We do not disclose confidential information obtained through client engagements unless it is expressly authorised in writing.
  • We do not disclose an association with a particular client unless it is expressly authorised in writing.
  • We avoid even the appearance of impropriety by proactively disclosing all relationships that might overlap.
  • We do not accept simultaneous client-specific assignments from direct competitors. From time to time, however, we may work with different groups within competing entities. For example, we may work with one firm's litigation practice and another firm's labour & employment practice.
  • When asked to provide pricing, procurement or other support to a firm in relation to a specific client, bid, pitch, tender, RFP or ITT, we will not act for more than one firm at the same time in respect of the same matter and the same client.
  • Like expert witnesses or QCs, once we are appointed by a firm, we consider ourselves 'conflicted out' on that matter.
  • We accept the first firm that instructs us and is agreeable to our terms of engagement but we give a first option to firms that have us on a retainer arrangement.
  • We do not provide geographical or any other exclusivity.
  • We do not provide exclusivity in relation to any of our services except as outlined in this policy.
  • We strongly believe that a more informed marketplace is a more efficient marketplace and therefore we embrace opportunities to educate. Occasionally, we may write or present publicly for other organisations or at their events eg buy-side procurement specialists and GCs, but we do so as a voice of the private practice legal profession..



You have successfully signed up to our Newsletter

There was an error and you were not signed up to the Newsletter

Latest Articles and Events

Planning for the RFP Storm...

Last week, in our 2nd instalment in our blog series ‘Planning for the RFP storm’, we talked about the types of questions firms should be asking themselves and the pre-work that can be done prior to RFP issue. In this, our final article, I’m going to talk about bid triage – deciding whether or not to respond to an RFP. It’s an unexpectedly sensitive topic.

February 20, 2019

Planning for the RFP Storm...

In part 2 of this 3-part weekly series, I will get into more detail on what that checklist looks like and why. Last week, we began this 3-part series with what we see as a major, systemic and permanent rise in the use of RFPs which many firms are struggling to adequately resource yet still achieve acceptable win rates and margins.

February 12, 2019

Planning for the RFP Storm...

This is Part 1 in a series of articles on managing client RFPs. I read the BTI Consulting’s ‘mad clientist’ blog with interest this morning, about the predicted rise of RFPs in 2019 among the largest law firm clients.

February 06, 2019