What are the IP industry disrupters?

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

What are the IP industry disrupters?

What working practices and new services could disrupt the way that businesses seek legal advice on IP, or IP prosecution services?

Last week we began a new series of articles and interviews in our Women in IP Network focused on different ways of working in the profession. We began with an interview with Louisa Fielding, a trade mark attorney who works as a freelance consultant.

Fielding used to work at a large London-based firm before she launched her own business. But as well as working under her own name, Louisa also works with a number of new networks that have been set up to match businesses in need of an attorney with freelance professionals in search of short-term assignments.

One of the networks she works with is K2, created by lawyers at Keltie. It gives her access to a back office and records system, assistance with marketing, and a network of patent and trade mark attorneys she can check in with, put together pitches with, and share know-how with.

The obvious upside for Fielding is flexibility: she can choose when to work and what work she wants to do. She may not be as accessible to her clients as a team of attorneys working at a large firm, but using a freelance consultant offers them other advantages. Without the need to service a smart city-centre office her rates are invariably cheaper than those of her salaried peers. She can also work in-house on temporary assignments without the client feeling like the joint is being cased by a seconded lawyer looking to win more work for his or her employers.

The interview made me think about whether these types of working relationships represent the future for the IP legal profession. A number of law firm partners have told me that fewer lawyers are willing to work the kind of hours or make the kinds of commitments they did just 20 years ago. Following the financial crisis, when many firms shrank and lawyers were let go, IP professionals realised that loyalty didn’t always run both ways. As Fielding told me, more of them want to set up on their own and take more control over the way they work. Factor in the potential cost savings for clients, and this could change the market for IP professionals.

But what other working practices and new services could disrupt the way that businesses seek legal advice on IP, or IP prosecution services? At Managing IP we want to find some of the cutting-edge developments that are shaping the future of the profession. Do let us know if you think the way you or your business works fits that description.

You can find out more about Managing IP’s Women in IP Network here.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Leaders at US law firms explain what attorneys can learn from AI cases involving Meta and Anthropic, and why the outcomes could guide litigation strategies
Attorneys reveal the trademark and copyright trends they’ve noticed within the first half of 2025
Senior leaders at TE Connectivity and Clarivate explain how they see the future of innovation
A new action filed by Nokia against Asus and a landmark ruling on counterfeits by South Africa’s Supreme Court were also among the top talking points
Counsel explain how they’re navigating patent prosecution matters and highlight key takeaways from Federal Circuit cases
A partner who joined Fenwick alongside two others explains what drew her to the firm and her hopes for growth in Boston
The England and Wales High Court has granted Kirkland & Ellis client Samsung interim declaratory relief in its ongoing FRAND dispute with ZTE
A UDRP decision that found in favour of a small business in a domain name dispute could encourage more businesses to take a stand in ‘David v Goliath’ cases
In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
Gift this article