In-house ACCess : In-house ACCess: Association of Corporate Counsel : ACC : The In-house Counsel Bar Association

Do you remember the end of the iconic movie, Revenge of the Nerds, when Lewis takes the mic from Gilbert and suggests that more of us are nerds than jocks? The pretty cheerleader exclaims she’s a nerd too; most of the crowd joins Lewis, Gilbert and his nerd fraternity brothers in an effort to end nerd persecution, and the familiar strains of “We are the Champions” begin to play. Well, that cinematic moment was one of the formative experiences of my youth (I didn’t get out much) and it came to mind when I was thinking about ACC’s new Value Champions program, our new initiative to identify and celebrate law department and law firm leaders who incorporate value practices into their legal projects. 

I've paid my dues/Time after time

I've done my sentence/But committed no crime

And bad mistakes/I've made a few/I've had my share of sand kicked in my face -

But I've come through

Three years ago, ACC challenged the legal community to embrace value practices that are commonplace in every service industry, save one. While we heard some folks sing their hosannas, there were, and still are, folks who believe that the legal services industry can remain the same and still meet client expectations. Like the dinosaurs that were unaware of the meteor, the firms and law departments that continue with the old business model will not find the future climate hospitable. Wait a sec. Wrong analogy. Like the jocks who thought that they would continue to rule the campus on their terms. Sorry about that.

But, like Lewis and his new self-proclaimed nerd supporters, those of us implementing change are in a growing group. In fact, outside and inside counsel who focus on value practices, such as effective project management, value-driven fee arrangements and continuous improvement, are fast becoming the norm, not the exception. And, that’s what the Value Champions program is all about. We’d like to shine a spotlight on them, so that the world can see their accomplishments and learn from them.

I've taken my bows/And my curtain calls/You brought me fame and fortune and everything that goes with it/I thank you all

But it's been no bed of roses/No pleasure cruise

I consider it a challenge before the whole human race/And I ain't gonna lose

Of course, some value practices are easier than others. Some of them require the simple application of business principles from other industries. And, we want to identify and celebrate individuals who have employed those practices, because we believe their accomplishments can be replicated by our members and the rest of the legal community. But, of course, some projects are harder, more complex and more frustrating at times, because the ideas animating them are so novel. Think of the nerds' effort to beat the jocks in the fraternity competition. So, we’d like to celebrate innovative strategies as well. If you’ve tried something novel or something more garden-variety, please let us know about it. Our only requirement is that the submitted project has reduced legal spend, increased predictability and/or reduced the unwelcome types of legal issues confronted by the company over time.

We are the champions – my friends/And we’ll keep on fighting – ‘til the end

We are the champions/We are the champions

No time for losers

'Cause we are the champions – of the world 

Our deadline for submission is March 15, 2012. If you’re in the legal community and you’ve ever cared about value enough to incorporate it into your day-to-day practice, turn up the volume on Freddie Mercury’s classic and join us and submit a nomination form. The legal services industry just won’t meet client expectations until value persecution ends. We look forward to hearing from you.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 By Maggy Baccinelli

Last Thursday, ACC Editorial Coordinator Maggy Baccinelli attended The Supreme Court Law Day, sponsored by ACC, Just the Beginning Foundation and Reed Smith. Maggy is the editorial coordinator of the ACC Docket and is responsible for editing the publication, writing monthly articles and creating corresponding multimedia pieces highlighting ACC members' legal expertise and unique personal interests. Follow along as Maggy, shares her insights into last week's event.The voice, views and stories expressed in this series are of the author and are not ACC's.

More than 40 local high school seniors stood up with eager attention when Associate Justice Elena Kagan entered the Supreme Court conference room. The Supreme Court Law Day, sponsored by ACC, Just the Beginning Foundation and Reed Smith, was packed with valuable programs for minority students considering pursuing legal degrees. The session with Kagan, though, was a highlight for everyone in the room — including, it seemed, the Justice herself.

With most of the students coming from Thurgood Marshall Academy in Southeast Washington DC, Kagan was visibly excited to tell them about her experience clerking for their school’s namesake. “Do they teach you about Thurgood Marshall?” she asked. She explained how at 27, when she was “just starting to think about the world, the legal system and what I could do to make a difference,” she had the privilege of being exposed to the “wit and wisdom of who I believe was the greatest lawyer of the 20^th century.”

The excitement that comes with influencing a community or issue you care about was at the heart of Kagan’s discussion. “I used to be the Dean of a law school, so I would talk to young people about what they wanted their career to look like. And everyone wants to feel like they’re making a difference.” Whether it is the law or not, she urged students to pursue what moves them to make a difference, because that will be most rewarding.

But reward does not come without hard work and responsibility, and sometimes even rejection. Kagan told her personal rejection story when a student asked her how she felt when she got the job. “Pretty darn happy,” she said, and explained that it was not the first time she had sought the nomination. In 2009, President Obama selected Associate Justice Sotomayor for the nomination. “He was lovely, lovely. It was the nicest rejection call I ever received,” said Kagan of her phone conversation with the President. Justice Kagan received the nomination in 2010. “It was a lesson to keep working hard. You don’t always get what you want the first time.”

In addition to her lesson in rejection, Kagan shared her experience with staying confident, even when she wasn’t always liked. When a student asked how it felt to have to prove to the Senate Judiciary Committee and herself that she was fit to be Justice, she said: “I didn’t have to prove it to myself. I knew I was fit to be Justice. But during the hearing I reminded myself that you can’t go through a process like this without people saying tough stuff. You can’t take it personally. A lot of times it has nothing to do with you and who you are.”

Kagan joked that when she clerked for then Justice Thurgood Marshall he referred to her as “Shorty.” Although short in stature, her effect on the 40 high school seniors will last for some time. “There are times when you will sharply disagree with someone,” she commented “but you can learn a lot from the same person.”

Pursuing what you love, working hard through rejection, believing in yourself when times get tough, and learning from people who think differently than you, are lessons we can all apply to our personal and professional lives. On Thursday, 40 high school seniors got to take these lessons home with them because of this inspiring event that ACC had the privilege of co-sponsoring.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Follow along as our new ACC President and CEO, Veta T. Richardson, chronicles her first year at ACC, with this monthly blog series. The voice, views and stories expressed in this series are of the author and are not ACC’s. To read the first installment of this series, click here.

Networking the Room While Avoiding Rich Food and Wine

“Inside me lives a skinny woman crying to get out. But I can usually shut her up with cookies.”

– Helen Hayes, internationally celebrated actress whose career spanned silent films to Broadway

Being president of an association like ACC requires being comfortable representing it all over the world, to a diverse group of constituencies. With more than 15 years in association management, I cannot count the number of times I have had to navigate my way through a crowded venue where I knew few attendees. Fortunately, a long time ago, I taught myself to network in a variety of settings and circumstances so that the skills I possess now kick in like auto-pilot.

This was definitely helpful over the past month as my attention shifted externally to focus on outreach. My most eventful week found me meeting with members, interviewing with reporters, and greeting ACC sponsors in Toronto, Montreal, London and Paris –– all in a five-day span! The past month entailed attending an awards gala, networking receptions, two chapter board meetings and another bar association’s conference where I participated as faculty.

Law is a profession in which building trusted relationships is just as important as developing one’s substantive abilities. In recent weeks, I began building the relationships that will continue to serve ACC well.  In addition, because I believe that networking is so important, I led a networking skills workshop for ACC staff. For junior members, many of whom are not lawyers, the workshop offered an opportunity to practice with one another and gain greater confidence navigating a room filled with lawyers. As we prepare for the ACC Annual Meeting –– where ACC will host almost 2,000 in-house counsel –– it will be important for all staff to feel comfortable interacting with our members, as there will be lots of them there in Denver!

At the Annual Meeting, in addition to great networking and CLE sessions, ACC will hold a number of member focus groups as part of our strategic planning process. We’re intent on making sure that as we build for the future, it will be with our members’ needs foremost in priority. Invitations will be mailed shortly and participation will be on a first response basis, offering an opportunity to provide direct feedback and input regarding future ACC programs, services and resources. However, if you are unable to join us in Denver in October, do not to worry: A brief strategic planning questionnaire will be sent out later this week via email to all ACC members, thus allowing every member an opportunity to offer feedback in strictest confidence, as all results will be compiled by an independent consultant and reported only in the aggregate. Please look for this very important email and be sure to share what you think.

My first four months on the job have definitely been eventful and busy. I am feeling more confident in this role although there is still quite a bit to learn. One lesson I am learning is that, despite being more comfortable navigating the relationship side of the job, navigating all the good food and good wine that also comes with the position is a more daunting challenge. To avoid my waistline expanding at the same rate as my growing network of contacts, I have to become a lot more disciplined. I recently joined the Weight Watchers at Work program and am now counting my Points Plus. Many of you also have to navigate scores of business dinners and hors d'oeuvres-laden receptions. Aside from the obvious but impractical advice to keep my mouth shut, I am wondering if anyone has a few tips or approaches to share for someone who is often on the go? Surely, I am not alone in this fight and with the holidays fast approaching, many of us face similar challenges.

Your suggestions are welcome!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My family spent two weeks this summer in Italy without mobile phones. That’s right, people — a whole 14 days not answering text messages, phone calls or looking at our calendars. No Twitter or Facebook either. That almost killed me.

When we were out, there were many times when my instinct was to reach for the phone I did not have. Cool picture? Had to use the old-fashioned digital camera. Thoughts on what I saw? That would have to wait until I could take notes at the end of the day. Pinpoint our exact location in Rome? Um, yeah: Use the map from the hotel and read the street signs. Find out more about the sites we visited? Rely on the tour guide or find a description written in English. Driving between Rome and the Almalfi Coast? Well, we did have a map — of which I was the keeper — but let’s just say that I will never be a co-pilot.

How do in-house counsel, travelling the often-windy road of in-house practice, keep up with the technology and intellectual property issues that affect them? Do you turn to websites, eGroups, or the printed or digital ACC Docket? We hope that you count among your “go to” resources ACC’s annual Technology and IP issue. September’s ACC Docket offers eight feature articles on the topic, from “Back to the Drawing Board: Contract, Copyright and Trademark Law,” to “Implementing an Effective and Defensible Legal Hold Workflow.”

There are also features for the less techy among you. For example, “Due Diligence and Your M&A Success Story,” “IP in Joint Ventures with Universities or Nonprofits,” “Importer Loopholes: Avoiding the Customs Audit,” “Document Productivity and the Second Wave of Legal Cost Containment,” “Overcriminalization: When In-house Counsel Is the Defendant, ” or “Recent Criminal Actions Involving Wastewater Treatment Facilities” might find their way on to your reading list.

Whether you want your information delivered in a print, digital or mobile format, the ACC Docket is an easily accessible resource. Just don’t take us on vacation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Daniel Harper is Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary
at Océ North America, Inc. He also serves as president of the ACC Chicago chapter.

Mentor: a wise and trusted counselor or teacher; an influential senior sponsor or supporter.

The definition of mentor certainly lends itself to my perception of what a good lawyer should be — wise (of course), a counselor and certainly influential. So then, as lawyers in positions of influence, should we not devote some amount of our precious time to mentoring young people who express an interest in the law? How do we create a pipeline of good, honest, ethical, smart and intelligent lawyers to take our place when our time is done? We take advantage of our position today to ensure a future for our profession tomorrow. We teach. We mold students. We take advantage of opportunities to show them what lawyering is all about and guide them as they make decisions about their futures. According to Socrates, “The right way to begin is to pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible.”   

Lawyers from ACC’s Chicago Chapter participated in a mentoring opportunity this summer with the ACC Chicago Chapter Minority Law Student Summer Internship Program. The program, just completing its eighth year, serves the legal community in several ways: For one, the program places rising 2Ls in internship positions at top notch legal departments in the Chicago metro area, providing students with an invaluable, unique perspective into in-house practice that typically takes years to develop before one enters the coveted offices of the in-house world. Further, the program presents intense personal mentoring to each student regarding all aspects of what it means to be a professional — from interview skills, resume writing, proper attire and interpersonal skills (eye to eye contact, firm handshake, etc.). The students receive feedback and advice worth many years of real-world trial and error, because it comes from experienced people who have already made the mistakes. It also opens the eyes of many people to some of the challenges faced by minority students — challenges that they would not understand but for the relationship with the students. So, in that vein, the mentors may actually become more enlightened than the students as a result of their interactions. Lastly, it creates deep, lasting and meaningful relationships between mentors and mentees, and enhances the reputation of ACC and its members in the legal community.

I think we can all agree that mentoring young people is good for the legal community and the community at large, but what personal benefit will you receive as the result of your mentoring efforts?

First and foremost, you will be making the legal profession better, one person at a time. Mentoring provides you the opportunity to share your values with those entering the profession. We all have a responsibility to ensure our profession continues to maintain the highest ethical standards. Answers to questions the legal professional faces are often not clearly black or white — there is much more gray. Therefore, guidance based on one’s personal experience will help the uninitiated navigate the unknown, avoid mistakes that have been made by the mentor, and answer those questions with a much higher degree of confidence.

Mentoring is a wonderful way to build your own personal network while creating a lasting legacy that will exist beyond your professional life and that of your mentee’s. Part of mentoring is imbuing the mentee with a sense of responsibility to give back to the community. So, as your values are passed to your mentee, she too will pass those values on to her mentee, and so on down the line. Today’s mentees are tomorrow’s leaders, so not only will you have a higher degree of exposure to an emerging talent pool, but you will also be helping people who may one day be hiring people like you!

Mentoring enables you to practice your leadership skills and to receive honest feedback. The mentoring process should include the mentee providing feedback to you. Is she receiving your advice loud and clear? Are there any miscues in the way that you approach the process? How does your style fit with a younger generation of professional? How can you tailor your message or methodology to better communicate core values that are not generationally limited? 

In addition to generational differences, you may also benefit from exposure to a young professional that may have a richly diverse background from your own (e.g., a different race, religion, personality style, economic background, national origin, citizenship, etc.). They are also excellent teachers in new media and technology trends, and they can help you improve your skill set.

“Mentoring brings us together — across generation, class, and often race — in a manner that forces us to acknowledge our interdependence, to appreciate, in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words, that ‘we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny.’ In this way, mentoring enables us to participate in the essential but unfinished drama of reinventing community, while reaffirming that there is an important role for each of us in it.” 

Marc Freedman, author of The Kindness of Strangers: Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Voluntarism

Let’s be honest, you will also feel good about yourself because you are helping someone else be successful. With relatively little investment on your part, you will have imparted a great deal of wisdom (presumably) and experience to a less sophisticated, but equally passionate, new or soon-to-be lawyer.  

If you have an intern or mentee, legal or otherwise, take advantage of the opportunity to enhance the intern’s experience by giving her meaningful face time, and truly serving as a trusted guide and counselor. If you do not mentor someone, then start now. You will provide that person with knowledge drawn from valuable real-world experience that simply cannot be obtained in the classroom.

Finally, as in-house counsel, it is important that our communities know we are hard working, ethical, caring, responsible, enlightened and decent people. Tell your friends and neighbors about your mentoring activities. Let people know that lawyers continue to work hard to make the world a better place to live. You have another fine tangible example of good work to cite in the ACC Program, of how the legal profession reaches out to the community to improve it. It is a demonstrable example of the value system that we in-house lawyers hold true — opportunity, professionalism, ethics and mentoring.   Through this program, ACC Chicago is helping to make great lawyers who will be noticed. The community deserves to know that we are doing our part!

“The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life.” -Plato

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Follow along as our new ACC President and CEO, Veta T. Richardson, chronicles her first year at ACC, with this monthly blog series. The voice, views and stories expressed in this series are of the author and are not ACC’s. To read the first installment of this series, click here.

Two Ears and One Mouth So We Can Listen Twice as Much as we Talk

“We’ve all heard the criticism ‘he talks too much.’ When was the last time you heard someone criticized for listening too much?” – Norm Augustine, Former Chairman, Lockheed Martin

I recently celebrated one month on the job at ACC. My game plan this past month was to concentrate most of my time and attention internally on the ACC staff. The top priority has been getting to know the more than 60 employees and hear about the many responsibilities they shoulder.

My meetings with staff have no formal agenda other than wanting to hear about projects they are working on and to experience the organization from a perspective other than my own. I also approach these meetings as a chance to be curious about the range of backgrounds and abilities reflected in the staff.

Early on, I advised everyone on staff not to be surprised when I ask them about the skills or talents they possess and have not yet had the opportunity to contribute in their current role at ACC. The responses are exciting: ACC staff has a wide range of abilities and talents, and great potential yet to be tapped. For example, I learned that several people on staff have foreign language skills, others have video production backgrounds, and some are really good writers. My experience has been that these untapped abilities, once called upon, will allow us to grow and develop in new ways and better serve our members.

During my second month I will focus on my working relationship with the ACC Board of Directors. I plan to speak one-on-one with each of our 30 directors in the next 30 days. In the following 30 days I will focus on additional outreach to ACC chapter and committee leaders.

My onboarding plan is somewhat like building a pyramid: The earlier priorities remain essential as the foundation, and new layers are added monthly as I build understanding and awareness.

This pyramid process will help me contribute valuable input in the development of ACC’s new strategic plan. For an association like ACC, members are our lifeblood and the strategic planning for ACC’s next chapter of leadership, growth and member service is already underway. ACC retained Axiom Consulting Partners to assist us with our next strategic plan. Right now, several members of the Axiom Consulting Partners team are spending their time much as I am — listening and taking in lots of information in order to get smarter about who ACC is, who we serve, and how well we do it. As they become increasingly well grounded, they will likewise look externally to various sectors of the ACC membership for feedback and insight regarding ACC’s value drivers, future growth and service opportunities.

By all accounts, ACC is having a phenomenal year — membership levels, sponsorship sales, advertising revenue and conference registrations are all achieving record-high levels. As a new leader, it has been vitally important for me to listen and learn first, to avoid acting on mistaken beliefs or making decisions that are ill-informed and potentially counter-productive. One month in, I am just starting to feel comfortable with my knowledge of ACC’s staff and internal operations, recognizing there is a lot left to learn. And I am really enjoying my new job, which for me is the ultimate personal measure of success!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Part IV. Follow along in this four-part blog series featuring a timely and provocative look inside Hewlett-Packard Company’s innovative new legal talent development program. This blog takes a look at the training program from the perspective of a participant, HP new hire, Gail Su. Gail is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is currently Counsel on the Intellectual Property Transactions Team. Prior to joining HP, Gail attended Harvard Law where she served as the President of the Harvard Asia Law Society, as Conference Chair for both the Asia and Pacific American Law Students Association and the Journal of Law & Technology. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To read the first installment of this series, click here.

Part IV: Who Says Attorneys Can’t Be Trained In-house?

When I first started at HP, I was excited but nervous. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but much to my relief, HP had it all sorted out.

My training has come primarily from two sources: a set curriculum that all new attorneys are asked to complete and my on-the-job experiences. The set curriculum is composed of classes (that I attend both online and in person) and practical experiences. The training was designed to give me broad exposure to the workings of a large company and to help me develop certain skills. It has given me the opportunity to attend classes on core legal topics such as antitrust and contract law; I have had the chance to present a legal recommendation to a company executive; and later this year, I will spend a week at a legal outsourcing site negotiating sales agreements. In addition, I’ve attended a customer meeting with an HP executive as well as a negotiation workshop, and participated in a business simulation where I helped a fictitious company evaluate business options.          

In my day-to-day training, I am fortunate to be under the instruction of managers who are committed to my development as an attorney. I am also fortunate that the entire IP Transactions team has joined together to mentor me. I have been exposed to a wide range of matters and have learned from lawyers with different styles of practice. Sometimes I work on projects by myself. Other times, I work on projects with other attorneys. In all cases, I am encouraged to take on as much responsibility as I believe I am ready for. There are no rules as to what I am capable of, and there are no rules as to which projects are too complicated for me. 

Additionally, my manager encourages me to take ownership of my career, including choosing experiences that will benefit me professionally. One of my professional aspirations is to work on cross-border transactions, especially in Asia. Upon hearing that I would be interested in spending time in HP’s Shanghai office, my manager’s words to me were, “Let’s try to make that happen.” I am pleased that it worked out and I will leave for Shanghai in October.  

Finally, I am encouraged to participate in pro bono activities. In fact, each HP attorney is asked to complete 20 hours of pro bono service a year. In the short time that I have been at HP, I have worked on a VAWA immigration self-petition, advised non-English speaking clients at a legal clinic for small businesses, and instructed middle school students on the law.  

Ten months ago, I couldn’t have imagined that my career would be off to such a fast-paced and exciting start. Thank you, HP, and I look forward to experiencing all that you have to offer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jay R. Grant is Vice President, Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary for Univision Communications Inc., a Spanish language media company. Grant also serves as the legal department representative to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer in New York.

TREND 1: Platforms that best track and monetize content engagement and target users with advertising, while generating quantifiable return on investment (ROI) and consumer usage data, will thrive.

Technology increases the expected return on engagement. Dominating platforms quantify the ROI of advertising dollars based on purchases and length of consumer engagement with client-products (e.g., Facebook, Google and addressable, interactive advertising). The ability to mine usage data and determine purchase patterns is expected. Further, entities transforming data into knowledge are market leaders because their work-product is actionable media currency. Platforms evolving from recommendation-engines to serendipity-engines, which analyze data patterns and deliver anticipatory consumer experiences, reign supreme.

Platforms Lesson: Accordingly, advisors applying ROI, data-driven metrics will be best positioned to service leading clients. Advisors that use electronic billing to reduce inefficient patterns and to analyze the most frequent client-need-patterns will also be favored. These advisors should also turn raw mined-data into enhanced client experiences and provide anticipatory advice (as the serendipity-engines of counsel).

TREND 2: Companies offering marketing and branding solutions rule if consumer engagement is a premium.

Leading the pack are advertisers and marketers that pierce the clutter to target consumers. Broadcast and cable giants can also get ahead by achieving brand category solutions for advertising clients, not relying solely on agency solutions. Accordingly, televised, organic product integration and dynamic advertising in sponsored content — from novelas (Univision’s General Motors plot integration in #1 ranked Eva Luna) to American idol (ubiquitous Coca Cola presence) — are continuously expanding.

Solutions Lesson: Similarly, solution-oriented advisors will flourish as preferred partner-advisors. Solutions are not theoretical strategies, but are actionable insights that clients can implement into their businesses immediately. For example, legal advice without actionable insight is arcane. Instead, legal advisors must demonstrate how the law will create solutions and quantify the probability of successful outcome. Give actionable recommendations in solutions, as opposed to merely conveying general wisdom. 

TREND 3: Companies that curate access to consumers command a premium in a crowded media-field.

Information is ubiquitous and can be overwhelming: RSS-feeds, Flipboard and electronic homepages curate content into functional and digestible infotainment. Media entities that best curate content will own the market. Steven Rosenbaum explores this in Curation Nation.

Curate Lesson: Clients are busy, and clutter drowns everyone. The best advisors alleviate the strain of clutter by building consensus and analyzing only what is essential. Concise advice from relevant input is increasingly critical. 

Advisors must continually filter and shape consensus from the myriad of research possibilities into best-in-class advice and analysis — not legal/financial hypothetical surveys.

Bullet points are fundamental tools for curators and executive counselors alike in conveying:

• conviction in advice,
• clarity in thought,
• respect for the client’s limited time-resource,
• respect for the client’s intellectual capacity, and
• discipline.

TREND 4: Companies verifying engagement and use define the new media currency.

The proof is not in the pudding. The proof actually exists when the pudding is purchased because it was advertised or associated with your media solution. Proof is no longer merely verification that the advertisement for pudding was seen. The reality is that click-through rates, instant viewer measurement and proof-of-purchasing ratings points make irrelevant sample rates: The sample size is 100 percent. Exact engagement measurement from entities — not only like Nielsen and Arbitron, but also nimble entrants like TRAnalytics and Simulmedia, and processors of set-top box data — increasingly determine who will lead in media as the units of measurement become smaller and desired results more exacting.

Verification Lesson: Is your advice and counsel implemented? If clients pay lip service to your advice and continue to shop around, or simply choose not to integrate your advice, you have neither engaged nor been of use. At this point, the currency of your counsel is nil. Following up and getting feedback to determine if your advice is effective will separate the successful advisors from the laggards. Did your advice bring to market a better, more efficient solution? Did it enhance top-line revenue or reduce quantifiable risk or loss? Verification of the value of advice, and confirmation that the advice achieved the client’s metrics and goals (not your own), is critical.

As media trends continue to morph, these best practices are predictable.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Follow along as our new ACC President and CEO, Veta T. Richardson, chronicles her first year at ACC, with this monthly blog series. The voice, views and stories expressed in this series are of the author and are not ACC’s.

"Week 1: Like trying to sip water from a fire hose."

As I was preparing to move to ACC from MCCA, where I worked for more than a decade, several trusted advisors had warned me that the early days would be pretty intense. There will be so many new things to learn; people to meet and demands on my time. And they were right. It’s exciting, exhausting and exasperating all at the same time!

It has also been a little emotional, perhaps more so than I expected. I cannot help but miss the great people I used to work with and the sense of security you feel in a job that you had mastered. There are also the practical aspects of being somewhere new — like figuring out the best route to work, where to grab a good sandwich and how to navigate an unfamiliar setting.

Starting over makes you humble as you admit again and again that you need help to figure things out. It also makes you especially appreciative of the little things that colleagues do to help you feel a bit more comfortable and welcome. So, thank you for introducing me to the deli around the corner and for the tip that the ice tastes fresher from the machine in the back kitchen than from the trays in the freezer. For you, these suggestions were no big deal, but for me, they are first steps toward feeling acclimated.

I also feel like starting over this time comes with really high expectations — much of them my own, many others from the ACC Board and my new staff.  My own expectations stem from the fact that I am not totally new to ACC. I started my legal career as member of the association and worked on the ACC staff for almost four years before leaving to become executive director of MCCA. As a result, I feel intent on hitting the ground running even though I have to stop to remind myself that the most important thing is charting the roadmap for the course. The best way to do that is to take time to listen and learn from others. I’ve done a whole lot of that these first few days; in fact, my new office should have a revolving door, as several days the appointments were back to back to back. I haven’t been this popular in quite some time, and it has been great!

For me, the planning and strategizing has always been the fun part, the part that I so relish and enjoy. So I am excited that ACC is embarking on the development of a new strategic plan to guide the association’s next phase of leadership and growth. Right now, we have selected a consultant to work with us, and a small task force of ACC members will be assembled to serve as sounding boards and advisors. The effort will involve every member of the ACC staff and entail collection of lots of data and feedback from our membership to determine how to best serve their needs, now and in the future.

Stay tuned for more details as I intend to use this blog to let you know how my transition is going and keep you informed as we begin this next chapter at ACC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Corporate Pro Bono  

ACC has long championed the fight against onerous in-house counsel registration requirements. As a result, many jurisdictions now permit non-locally barred in-house attorneys to practice law for their employer-client as long as they are in good standing in another state. Unfortunately, this exception does not always extend to providing pro bono services to those most in need, and, when it does, it typically comes with difficult and unnecessary restrictions.

These restrictions are unacceptable. The need for pro bono legal services is immense and growing. Since 1994, studies have found that 80 percent of the legal needs of low-income individuals go unmet. Many in-house attorneys are interested in helping, but those who are not locally barred are handcuffed by state rules that unjustifiably limit their ability to contribute. The result is not that the pro bono work is getting done by other lawyers; it is simply not getting done. The rules must change.

Unnecessary restrictions

Restrictions vary by jurisdiction. The most common requirement is that non-locally admitted in-house attorneys work with an approved legal aid organization. Requiring already overworked legal aid lawyers to supervise only increases the burden legal aid organizations face. In addition, many legal aid organizations specialize in only a segment of unmet legal needs. To best meet the needs of low-income communities, in-house counsel should have the ability to work with all potential pro bono sources, including community groups and law firms, to assist in the greater effort to address the unmet need for legal services.

A related restriction found in a number of jurisdictions requires non-locally admitted in-house attorneys be supervised by an active member of the bar. Mandated supervision unduly limits the number of hours that supervisors and supervisees can provide pro bono services. This is particularly insulting and frustrating when the in-house attorneys are already practicing in the state for their employers. Large companies get the benefit of their in-house attorneys’ skills, knowledge, and experience, but the clients with the most need do not. 

Exceptions to the rule

Fortunately, there are two exceptions: Colorado and Virginia. Since 2006, in-house attorneys in Colorado who are not admitted in the state, but who are registered to provide legal services to their employer, may also provide legal services to indigent persons and the organizations that serve them. More recently, Virginia changed its rules so that certified in-house attorneys in the Commonwealth may provide pro bono services, subject to the same conditions that apply to the services they provide their employer, per  the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct. This change enables and empowers the more than 800 certified in-house attorneys in Virginia to provide desperately needed pro bono assistance.

Follow Colorado and Virginia! 

We hope that many states will follow these visionaries.While pro bono assistance alone cannot fill the widening gap between the legal needs of the poor and disenfranchised, there is great potential to improve and expand pro bono legal services. 

In-house attorneys interested in learning more about this issue or joining the effort to change the rules in other jurisdictions, should contact Eve Runyon, director of Corporate Pro Bono (CPBO). CPBO is a partnership project of Pro Bono Institute and the Association of Corporate Counsel.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I approach my final days with the Association of Corporate Counsel, I have been going through old files, reviewing notes from past speeches and remembering the hundreds of legal industry events I have attended around the world. While much has changed over the past 20 years, there exists an undeniable continuity in the manner in which in-house counsel have contributed to the success of their employers over the years.

Much has been written about what makes a “great in-house lawyer,” and in the midst of packing up my files, I was struck by the advice ACC’s predecessor provided nearly 30 years ago. In 1983, what was then the “American Corporate Counsel Association” presented a program entitled, “Introduction to Inside Practice,” a precursor to today’s Corporate Counsel University (CCU). During one of the sessions, the speaker shared his insights based on responses to the question “What is the one piece of advice you would give an attorney new to in-house practice?” The advice given in 1983 still resonates clearly today:

“Think before you speak.”

“Learn the business and try to be as practical as possible in your advice.”

“[You] must make that initial effort to understand the client’s business, its customers, products, sales and competitors.”

“You need to be visible — go to sales meetings, staff meetings, lunches and anything else you can manage.”

“Keep your eyes and ears open — be patient; it takes time to learn your client, but you have to do it.”

“Where there is change, there is opportunity.” And my personal favorite,

“Don’t be an ***hole.”

As I reviewed the course materials, it became clear that the program sought to develop the very skills and traits that remain vital for outstanding corporate counsel today (many of which I referenced during a brief video discussion on Leadership). These include:

• solid legal knowledge and appreciation for educational training;
• sound judgment;
• impeccable integrity;
• strategic vision;
• leadership — specifically, recognizing good people and bringing out the best in them;
• recognition of our obligation to help those less fortunate through pro bono and community service;
• sense of humor;
• staying on top of technological advancements;
• intent focus on helping their companies to save time, money and effort; and
• ability to adapt to change.

While the advice provided — and the desirable skill sets identified — remain valid today, over the years, in-house counsel have honed and perfected their skills to adapt to changing environments and economic conditions. In-house legal departments have grown dramatically in the past 20 years, and the changing regulatory environments, increased attention on risk management and corporate compliance scrutiny have placed heavy demands on in-house counsel. The changes that have occurred have also propelled in-house counsel to move into a more strategic role within their organizations. 

As Winston Churchill once stated, “To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” As in-house continue to excel and succeed, I am confident that they will adapt to overcome the new, as well as the old, legal and business challenges they face every day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By John DeGroote and Alan Dabdoub 

John DeGroote is the President and Chief Legal Officer at BearingPoint, Inc. and member of the ACC Dallas-Fort Worth chapter. Alan Dabdoub is Special Counsel at Lynn Tillotson Pinker and Cox, LLP in Dallas, Texas and former Chief Litigation Counsel of a large subsidiary of a Fortune 100 Company. 

As we all know, high-stakes litigation can be time consuming and disruptive, and one of outside counsel’s jobs is to make the process as predictable as possible. It’s easy to assume outside counsel will provide excellent service in every case, but it’s safer to articulate what you want from them early on so you can avoid surprises and communication breakdowns. While a great process can’t guarantee the desired result, it will make managing your stakeholders’ expectations much easier. The following five tips are sure to get you off to a great start.

1.     Avoid Fire Drills

Let outside counsel know as soon as possible how to minimize disruptions to the business. This may vary case by case, but in all scenarios, communicating a plan will enhance responsiveness and service. Tell your outside counsel:

• How often you’re required to update internal stakeholders during the litigation, the type of information you need, and the format in which you need it;
• The expected dates to report probabilities of a loss so the company can accrue for contingent liabilities in a timely manner;
• Protocol for contacting company witnesses and the times during the fiscal year to avoid scheduling important company depositions or undertaking large discovery projects that will consume company resources;
• The minimum amount of time needed (i.e., one month, two weeks, etc.) to respond to document requests, begin preparing for a deposition, or to review drafts of briefs.

Knowing these details allows outside counsel to better understand how to minimize business disruptions, while reducing internal stress and creating a tailored, professional service that surpasses clients’ expectations.

2. Get Rid of Bad Problems Quickly

Great problem solvers use early case assessments and alternative dispute resolution techniques, and motivate their adversaries to resolve the case. Exploring various alternative dispute resolution strategies demonstrates sophistication, not weakness. If possible, lead rather than manage the process. Suggest a call to opposing counsel to objectively present weaknesses in your adversary’s case, suggest that outside counsel send an offer of judgment early in a case to shift the risk, suggest a summary trial immediately after discovery, or suggest a non-binding arbitration.

The benefit of exploring creative dispute mechanisms is twofold: Earlier resolution allows you to focus on preventing litigation, and if the case isn’t resolved, you’ll be in a much stronger position to marshal support for a trial from your internal stakeholders. Exhausting creative problem-solving techniques will help prevent second-guessing in the event of an adverse verdict.

3.     Help Me Do More with Less

You’re charged with enabling the business in a legal and ethical way. The less time spent on outside counsel tasks, the more time spent on enabling the business. Outside counsel will increase productivity and value by doing the following: 

• Return all emails and calls within a few hours after they are received if possible.
• Conduct an early case assessment before filing suit if the company will be the plaintiff, and within 90 days of being served if the company is a defendant. This early case assessment will serve as the playbook during the litigation;

Outside counsel should also provide you with several things including:

• Electronic or hard copies of all substantive pleadings, emails and correspondence;
• Short and practical litigation reports;
• Briefs ready for filing.
• A liability and damages analysis every quarter;
• A scheduling order of the case allowing you to inform internal stakeholders of important events happening in the case; and
• A robust decision tree analysis of the value of the case, updated as appropriate, so you can recommend to stakeholders the best final resolution for the company.

This type of service will ensure that you’re updated often on the substantive, strategic and budgetary aspects of the case. You’ll be able to answer tough questions about the case anytime and will be free to take on other challenges within the company.

4. Help Me Pitch Your Value

The most overlooked attorney work product is the invoice. Outside counsel should not send invoices containing charges for an administrative service, associate training, or duplicate time entries. Each time entry should reflect an effort to drive the case toward a resolution. Ask outside counsel to set forth in their invoices: 1) what the fees are to date over the life of the case, and 2) a general description of how the activities on that invoice have moved the case closer to a resolution. This will help you better judge the value received in the case and allow you to communicate that value to internal stakeholders.

5. Explain the Settlement Value

A decision tree can help in-house counsel quantify the settlement value of a case depending on the likelihood of certain outcomes at different stages in the litigation (i.e., whether summary judgment will be granted, whether important evidence will be excluded, whether punitive damages will be awarded, etc.). You’ll then be able to better determine optimal settlement, pre-trial, trial and appeal strategies.

To create a decision tree,  ask outside counsel for the odds of winning a summary judgment, winning at trial, and of obtaining a low, medium and high verdict. Then, ask what the low, medium and high range of a verdict can be. You can then create the decision tree based on these percentages. While a decision tree is based to a certain extent on subjective data, your internal stakeholders will understand the settlement value much better as you walk them through it. This reduces the chances of the company overpaying on a case or foregoing a propitious settlement opportunity. And your stakeholders will be grateful for that analysis.       

For in-house counsel with many internal stakeholders, the litigation process should be just as important as the case result. Create a list of service expectations in every case and communicate that to outside counsel. This will maximize the value of the legal services received, strengthen your working relationship with outside counsel and enable you to most effectively manage internal expectations from start to finish.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Kwarma Vanderpuye, senior vice president and general counsel of the India-based legal outsourcing company, SDD Global Solutions. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Greater New York Chapter of the ACC, and is chairperson of the general counsel/chief legal officer practice group. 

With the possible exception of people who’ve spent the last few years under a rock, everyone now knows that outsourcing of document review to legal process outsourcing (LPO) companies in low-cost jurisdictions like India and the Philippines can save corporate legal departments millions of dollars. For example, The Sunday Times reported that mining giant Rio Tinto “saved more than $1 million” in legal fees in the first two months alone, after shipping document work to an Indian LPO provider. Rio Tinto says it expects to reduce its legal spend by $20 million per year this way.

But there is another related trend and it could be even more momentous. Legal experts are saying that with the use of offshore legal outsourcing for tasks such as legal research and the drafting of successful motions, companies are beginning to realize that when it comes to frivolous lawsuits and/or exaggerated damage claims, there is a new, alternative response that could change the legal landscape. Traditionally, the choice has been either (a) an all-too-often pyrrhic litigation battle, in which legal fees end up costing more than a settlement, or (b) an onerously expensive capitulation. Reportedly, there is now a third choice, which sounds like an oxymoron to most in-house lawyers: a cost-effective legal defense.

In a 59-page law review article, “A Collaborative Model of Offshore Legal Outsourcing,” Professor Cassandra Burke Robertson of Case Western Reserve University School of Law discusses how offshore assistance in the resolution of frivolous lawsuits in particular “is reshaping the practice of law.” Professor Robertson uses an actual, high profile litigation in Los Angeles federal court to demonstrate how a major corporation recently employed an Indian LPO, to turn the tables on a libel plaintiff and inexpensively win a case that otherwise would have been settled:

Offshoring the defense in that case did not merely replace domestic legal services with a lower-cost alternative elsewhere; instead, it changed the nature of the defense entirely. It took a case that would likely have been handled outside the court system through a nuisance settlement and brought it within the formal adjudicatory system. As a result, the case was decided on the merits and the decision is publicly available, potentially discouraging further meritless claims.

 [I]nternational outsourcing can transform individual lawsuits, [and] it also demonstrates how outsourcing is quickly becoming a part of mainstream legal practice. Clients who experiment with outsourcing tend to continue their contracts and institutionalize the practice.

A legal blog, The Complete Lawyer, provides another example, this one involving a major US law firm that didn’t wait for its corporate clients to insist on using an offshore legal outsourcing provider to lower the costs of sophisticated litigation work:

Although many law firms are still not eager to publicize the practice, at least one national firm in Boston has been using an LPO for three years to do first drafts of briefs. When the managing partner of the office presents the idea to her corporate clients, they are very supportive.

Given that the majority of litigation costs involve drafting of paperwork and related legal research, and because legal work done offshore can be about one-seventh as expensive, the implications of this development could be huge. The average large corporation spends $19.4 million per year on outside counsel fees, much of it for litigation. It’s typical for major multinational companies to reserve billions each year for expected legal fees and settlements.

One answer to capital funding of litigation?

The availability of offshore legal outsourcing to dramatically cut litigation costs might be especially welcome now, given the recent rise of third-party funding of plaintiffs' litigation, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, provided by large banks and other atypical, wealthy lawsuit investors. The New York Times reports as follows:

Total investments in lawsuits at any given time now exceed $1 billion, several industry participants estimated. Although no figures are available on the number of lawsuits supported by lenders, public records from one state, New York, show that over the last decade, more than 250 law firms borrowed on pending cases, often repeatedly.

One solution to this growing trend could be the use of litigation support services from offshore providers in partnering with an onshore legal team to perform any work involved in litigation, other than appearing in court, signing court papers and offering legal advice. Apart from dramatically reducing costs, offshore providers have demonstrated, as Professor Robertson points out, that they can help defendants actually win. 

For more information about legal outsourcing, please check out Ken Cutshaw’s Outsource Resource column, featured regularly in the ACC Docket.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 by Sabine Brumme

ACC Europe, Vice President

Chair of the Advisory Board to the Annual Conference

The theme for this year's ACC Europe 18^th Annual Conference was How the in-house lawyer can drive the changing legal landscape. Over the past three days, in-house counsel from across Europe came together and participated in sessions and realistic solutions to help navigate the challenges and opportunities faced by corporate legal departments around the world.

During the Opening Plenary, given by Richard Susskind, author of "The End of Lawyers?", participants discussed the fundamental transformation process of the legal services industry.  Together with Dr. Thomas Werlen, general counsel and member of the executive committee for Novartis International AG, and D. Mark Poag, general counsel and senior vice president for Datacert Inc., Susskind presented best practice examples and provided insight on how their legal departments are preparing for the evolution of the legal service industry during his talk entitled, “Are you ready to change? Designing a forward looking legal department."

Every day, in-house counsel face the expanding number of challenges due to limited time and resources. The conference covered ways to deliver key solutions to a myriad of obsticales – global mobility, financial, anti-corruption, data protection and privacy, privilege (to name a few) – that corporations face today. This year’s sessions are informative and thought provoking, and also provided members an opportunity to reconnect with old friends and meet new ones.

Sessions at this year’s ACCE Conference provided corporate counsel with tools to manage their time and legal departments. Attendees took the opportunity to learn more about resources to help ease the daily workload during Using Free Legal Resources - Risks and Benefits. Legal Matter Management and Monitoring Performance delved into organizational aspects and new technologies for in-house counsel to effectively run any size in-house legal department.

Tuesday’s session entitled Social Media - Where is Your Comfort Zone?, worked with in-house counsel to discover their comfort zone and also discuss the legal challenges of Social Media.

This year’s conference will end Tuesday evening with our Closing Plenary where panelists will share their creative approaches and take an innovative look at the future of Legal Services in the 21st Century.

Thanks so much for joining us; I look forward to seeing you in Amsterdam next year, June 3-5, 2012 where we will continue to prepare for these future changes and challenges. Geniesst and Guten Abend!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, the House Financial Services Committee heard testimony regarding its draft legislation rejecting the SEC and CFTC’s proposals to bypass internal compliance and reporting systems when rewarding prospective whistleblowers. 

ACC filed a letter with the Committee, approving of the draft legislation (read the letter here).  In-house counsel who supervise internal compliance and reporting systems need whistleblower tips to make those systems work.  As we note in our letter, the SEC and CFTC deny such tips to internal systems, even when those systems are robust and effective.  The obvious result will be an overwhelmed enforcement staff at the agencies and underinformed compliance staff at the companies.  Not a good outcome for any stakeholder.

The wonderful Marcia Narine (formerly in charge of compliance issues at Ryder, but not testifying on its behalf) decried the lack of information that will be available to compliance officials, because whistleblowers will likely go directly to the SEC and CFTC with their useful tips.  Compliance officials, in charge of effective and robust compliance systems, won’t be able to address underlying misconduct while it festers.  As Marcia asked, “Is that in the best interest of the shareholder?  I’m not sure.” Marcia, we’re not either.

Marcia then distinguished between companies with functioning compliance systems, as envisioned by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and those with no compliance systems or otherwise completely infected with corruption from top to bottom.  The former situation should be encouraged, the latter punished harshly. Companies with good systems should be permitted to have a first crack at investigating the allegations.  Employees at companies with nonexistent systems should be free to go straight to the SEC.  However, both types of companies should not be treated the same.  Incredibly, the SEC and CFTC are proposing to do just that.  

We expect the SEC to finalize its whistleblower regulations by the end of the month.  If the SEC does not modify its proposed approach to internal compliance and reporting systems, Congress looks interested in corrective legislation.  Watch this space for further developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Michael Chang is senior counsel at Warner Bros. Studios, and serves on the ACC SoCal board of directors. He can be contacted at michael.chang@warnerbros.com. The voice, views and stories expressed by the author below are their own and not ACC’s nor their companies.

An old Chinese folktale, attributable to writer Lin Yutang, is told in my family:

 An Old Man was living with his son at an abandoned house on the top of a hill. One day, they lost their horse. The neighbors came to express their sympathy for this misfortune, and the Old Man asked, "How do you know this is bad luck?"

 A few days afterwards, the horse returned with a number of wild horses, and his neighbors came again to congratulate him on this stroke of fortune, and the Old Man replied, "How do you know this is good luck?"

 With so many horses around, his son began to take to riding, and one day he broke his leg. Again the neighbors came around to express their sympathy, and the Old Man replied, "How do you know this is bad luck?"

 The next year, there was a war, and because the Old Man's son was crippled, he did not have to go to the front.

The lesson I took away from this parable? In life, there are no such things as luck or adversity; success or failure. It all depends on how you look at it.

I grew up as an immigrant in America. I was in grade school and spoke no English when we moved to Northern California. When I found out about the overseas move, I was horrified. My immediate reaction was dread; I dreaded leaving my friends.

 As a teenager, I often was teased by the kids at school about my non-native, heavily accented English. My sympathetic English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher tried to comfort me with assurances like, “You know, you don't really learn the language unless you learn it in ESL.” I began to absorb bits and pieces of my new culture by watching cartoons like Bugs Bunny — a character produced by the same motion picture studio I now work at. And through learning English as a second language, I discovered that I was good at languages.

I graduated in mid-1990 when the economy was just recovering from a downturn. In those days, when you applied to law school and then graduated, “you get what you get, and you don’t get upset,” to quote a nursery school mantra. Nowadays, the bar has been raised and there is an even greater number of qualified law school graduates competing for fewer positions. This makes it important to distinguish oneself not only with traditional indicia of success but also with something personally unique.

As a law student, I followed the “usual” path — I got accepted to the law review editorial board, published articles, clerked for a federal judge, worked at a large firm, published more articles and, my annual billable-hour quota permitting, volunteered at pro bono projects.

But, from there, I took a risk, and my path diverged from that of the “typical” associate. I not only went in-house at a relatively early stage of my career, but I moved to a rural area in a country relatively foreign to me. On top of that, I joined an emerging, foreign IT company consisting of, by and large, non-English speaking engineers. I was one of a handful of English-speaking employees — all the others were English teachers or interns. I realized that, by making this move so early on in my career, I could be sacrificing a lucrative position as a ‘big firm’ lawyer, possibly partner. However, being young and somewhat myopic, I didn’t want to (and couldn’t) wait to find out if the big law firm was the path for me.

I was going after my dream: to do something that didn't come naturally, and to become knowledgeable in a long-held passion: Japanese culture. I did learn as much as I could about my chosen field — the consumer electronics and consumer products business in Asia — by working closely with and absorbing knowledge from people who have more than 20 years of experience in that field.

 At first, not speaking the language — yet physically resembling a Japanese national — I was teased about my “foreignness.” This brought back memories of grade school. As bad as the experience seemed at the time, however, being immersed in the Japanese culture turned out to be fortuitous. At some point during my seven-plus year stay in Japan, I realized that I had achieved a fairly high level of fluency in three languages: Mandarin Chinese, English and Japanese. I also found that that being multilingual gives a lawyer, particularly an in-house lawyer who is part of a global team of professionals, a competitive advantage.

Whether in Asia or in the States, I now feel at home in any negotiating environment. I regularly review, in multiple languages, Batman branding style guides, Tom and Jerry trademark filings, Big Bang Theory marketing materials, and Looney Tunes licensing contracts — providing significant cost-savings to my employer. From both a personal and a career perspective, being the non-native English speaker has allowed me to make a figurative “return trip” in bringing American entertainment to Asia.

Looking back, my ‘foreign’ background not only became a career advantage, but it also enriched my life. Luck really depends on how you look at it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Post 7

Making Time for Value

Week 7. Each week via the In-house ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. This blog pairing explores how to improve the value returned using a different approach to managing litigation work.  As General Counsel of Kayak, Karen Klein provides legal counsel to senior management and oversight of all legal matters. Karen’s co-blogger is Nicole Nehama Auerbach, a co-founder the Valorem Law Group, The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

The firm view

From Patrick Lamb:

Nicole has a day job, and unfortunately (for this column, at least) it is going gangbusters at the moment. Since I am no stranger to writing blog posts and have been following Nicole and Karen’s posts very closely, I volunteered to guest post this column. I apologize for the interruption and hope I can measure up to the high standards Nicole has set in her earlier posts.

I have been a huge proponent of pricing using non-hourly arrangements for a long time. Even as a younger lawyer, I was always bothered when I saw that my opposing counsel was getting paid the same or, many times, more than my firm was without regard to outcome. That struck me as fundamentally unfair. I also saw from close proximity how some lawyers took advantage of deep pocket clients to do (and bill for) all sorts of crazy stuff that was never, under any plausible set of circumstances, going to make a difference to the outcome of the case. The rationale used was at times candid (“we make money this way”) and at other times questionable (“we need to do all this work so the client knows we are being thorough”).   The point is that, to me, the flaws in the hourly model and the abuses of that system in the name of “defensive lawyering” (think, defensive medicine for lawyers) made the system unacceptable. I still have to confess to being somewhat surprised when clients, the victims of the system, are not as fed up with it as I was before we started Valorem.

In our three plus years of operating Valorem, we’ve learned that there are far more in-house lawyers like Karen than there are ones who are fully committed to non-hourly arrangements. This series of blog posts has been enlightening as Karen explained the development of her thinking on alternative fees, including how using alternative fees required her reallocate how and when she spent time on matters, particularly at the outset. As some have said, when you are putting out fires every minute, it’s not easy to set aside time to plan the handling of a matter, even if you know in your heart it is the right thing to do and ultimately a better way of handling problems. Time for in-house lawyers is the rarest treasure, and it must be safeguarded.

One of the results of thinking about this widespread problem—the I-think-I’d-like-to-try-alternative-fees-but-I-don’t-know-where-to-begin-and-how-do-it problem—is that I think it is incumbent on lawyers who want to provide service on this basis to make it easier and more convenient for in-house lawyers to do so. We need to provide detailed planning maps that show what will be accomplished over a given segment of time, when settlement discussions will be suggested, when the trial is likely to occur, and when expenses will have to be accrued. These benchmarks allow a basis for evaluating performance along the way toward final resolution. I think these kinds of tools will prove themselves useful to in-house lawyers and ease the pain of trying alternative fees.

It goes without saying that even the best battle plan never survives contact with the enemy, so both client and lawyer will need to see these plans for what they are, a starting point. But the ability to abide by the plan and force events to move as desired can be an important way of judging performance, both in the quality of the planning to start with and the execution of the plan strategy.

I’d welcome reaction from the in-house world. Are there things we as proponents of AFAs could do that would make it easier for you to implement non-hourly fee arrangements?

Kayak pick of the week: Chicago to Ireland. Erin-Go-bragh!

The client view

From Karen:

I know that Nicole is under the gun (for one of my cases) and a bit under the weather, so I appreciate Pat stepping in to write this post for Nicole. 

Recognizing the demands on in-house counsel time is very important. If we had the ability to leisurely consider how to achieve the results we need to produce for our companies in the most cost-effective manner, our jobs would be so much easier. But so often, we simply need to delegate a problem to a trusted advisor and focus on the next problem. So the more an outside lawyer can do to show how things will work smoothly, the easier it will be to at least try an alternative fee arrangement. That doesn’t mean it will be easy, but at least easier.

I want to comment on the planning aspects of managing an alternative fee arrangement. My background is not as a litigator, and while I understand the process, I am not in the same position to evaluate things as someone who has spent their career in a courtroom. For that reason, being given a roadmap, with attendant explanations of why certain non-obvious things need to, or are likely to happen, what the strategic points are, what options might reasonably be available and other executive level information that will help me evaluate the contemplated strategy, including how it meshes with our business plans, is really important. One of the reasons I value working with Nicole is her ability to explain the strategic and tactical options available and the pros and cons of each in a way I can use to explain to my business colleagues. 

Kayak’s foray into alternative fees has been eye-opening, and despite what we have said about time, I look forward to the passage of some time so I can look back at our alternative fee approach with some distance and compare what we have experienced with what we would have under the more traditional approach. I appreciate the ACC giving us this forum to write about our experiences, and I also am looking forward to speaking with my in-house colleagues about whether my concerns, experiments, experiences and results with AFAs match theirs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

About two dozen in-house counsel from Ottawa-area corporations, Crown corporation and associations gathered at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt’s offices March 2 for the Ontario Chapter’s first program and social in the national capital.

The topic was corporate whistleblowers – who don’t pose a potential threat to just the company, but also present potential pitfalls for in-house lawyers.

In-house lawyers from Export Development Canada, Nav Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, IBM Canada, Accenture, General Dynamics Canada, the University of Ottawa and the Canadian Payments Association were among those on hand to discuss how best to handle employees who step forward with allegations of corporate wrongdoing.

Yvonne Estimé, ACC’s Director of Large Law Programs and Associate General Counsel, led the session with panelists Paula Rietta, Vice-President Legal at Ford Canada Credit; Cheryl Foy, General Counsel at Carleton University; and myself.

The interactive presentation quickly turned into an informal roundtable involving everyone in the room as the in-house lawyers spoke candidly about the challenges they face. There were some important takeaways. For example, as in-house counsel we need to remember at all times we’re acting for the organization. Be wary of unwittingly developing a solicitor-client relationship with an employee who comes to blow the whistle, and may want advice on how proceed.

In the U.S., in-house counsel are required to tell whistleblowers right up front that they are the corporation’s lawyer and advise them about getting their own counsel. That’s not required in Ontario but the group agreed we always want to be careful to listen while remaining very clear about who we represent and not overstepping that line.

The question of how counsel should respond to an employee who says he or she intends to expose alleged wrongdoing to the government also provoked a lively discussion. The consensus was don’t panic, but investigate immediately.

You need to corroborate what the employee is saying; explain to them you need to get facts to determine what the company needs to do. Be honest with them, tell them that they must do what they feel is right, but you are going to start looking into the situation immediately. And then do it. It can’t be a tactic to stall, this could come back to bite your company hard.

Another item that came up was the need for companies to have formal written policies preventing their lawyers from representing employees or executives in their personal capacity, even on seemingly very minor matters. That can lead to a potential conflict later on down the road – not to mention you may be engaging in private practice of law. We’re not signed up for that and we’re not insured for it either! Be careful.

After the formal part of the presentation ended, it was on to the networking session as people stuck around and had drinks and nibbles and swapped stories from the trenches. The event was welcomed by local in-house lawyers who said it had a truly in-house voice. In fact, there was such positive feedback that we’ve already told people we’re going to start working on planning our next Ottawa event right away!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

(ACC Docket — January/February)

Recent news headlines indicate that our society seems to be at its worst when accepting responsibility for our actions. Politicians like Sen. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Walters (D-IL) and former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex) cry “politics” when they are charged with ethics violations or criminal behavior. Sports figures like Washington Redskins Albert Haynesworth don’t think they have to fulfill their part of the bargain or answer to anyone, including those who sign their paycheck. People blame their spouses or family when they make poor life choices. And let’s not even open the corporate can of unethical and illegal worms. We might as well throw up our hands and shout as if we were at an old-time revival, “The devil made me do it.” Unfortunately, this kind of behavior infiltrates the workplace as well. Ergo, the need for companies to create compliance and ethics policies.

You tell us often that compliance and ethics are crucial areas for your legal department to manage. So, this annual issue of the ACC Docket is all about the topics that keep many of you gainfully employed.

Whether you want to learn about how Dodd-Frank will affect your company in “Stay Afloat During the Tidal Wave of FCPA Cases;” or, you need to understand how transnational corporations are impacted by FCPA in “Guilty by Association: Transnational Joint Ventures and the FCPA;” or, you want to know about possible MJP reform in “Multijurisdictional Practice: Know Your Roaming Charges,” this month’s issue of the magazine has something for you.

For those of you who take on the corporate trainer role, read “Keep it Classy: Methods for Teaching Compliance.” And, if you need to know how the usually neutral country Switzerland and its corporations handle their compliance management? Take a look at “Taking Compliance Management Seriously.”

If we still haven’t offered you enough on compliance and ethics, visit ACC’s new compliance portal resource www.acc.com/compliance. If you can’t find it with us, then you can’t find it anywhere.  As for the dreadful and sad headlines: I won’t stop reading the news. And, for implementing and managing compliance and ethics programs, that necessity isn’t going away either.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Throughout 2010, ACC continued to take the pulse of the legal industry through its annual surveys. From the changing role of the CLO, to the evolving relationship with outside counsel, including the increased use of alternative billing arrangements, our surveys provided data to our members so they could have reliable benchmarks for their own law department management practices and insights into new legal and business trends.  Our surveys shared some themes in terms of takeaways for 2011 – a desire for an increase in value and efficiency in legal work predominated and practical methods for achieving such efficiencies emerged.

With fickle consumer confidence and a sluggish economic recovery this past year, CLOs actually showed signs of optimism indicating increased job satisfaction and plans to hire internally, according to the 10th Annual Chief Legal Officers Survey released in March. Results showed a sharper focus on reducing costs, increasing value and responding to regulatory scrutiny. Specifically:

·91% of CLOs reported that despite expanding duties, they were still satisfied with their chosen career. This is a positive data point indicating that external economic conditions did not heavily impact job satisfaction. One could surmise that internal structures, processes and rapport with management strengthened relationships and solidified job satisfaction and will play a key role in continued career fulfillment in the year ahead.

·29% (more than a quarter) of the respondents planned to hire staff for their in-house legal departments in 2010.  Despite the recession, this was up from the 23% with hiring plans in the previous year’s survey. The uptick in staffing and augmented workload will require an increased focus on efficiency in the coming year as CLOs manage their law departments, budgets and C-suite relations.

·79% of CLO respondents want to increase the percentage of outside counsel spending based on alternative fee arrangements. As CLOs face a myriad of intricate and new challenges, they are turning to business-oriented solutions. Initiatives such as the ACC Value Challenge will play an integral role in 2011 as in-house counsel seek more creative, value-based billing arrangements with outside counsel.

Another important set of benchmarks emerged in October with the release of the 10^th Annual ACC/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey. For a decade, this survey has assessed key elements of the in-house counsel/outside counsel relationship. This year’s results revealed that in-house counsel are seeking more business-oriented management techniques and more value-based fees from their firms to drive efficiency in legal costs and reduce overall legal spend.

·65% of respondents now require project budgets; 60% require risks/potential resolution strategies. Compared to a decade ago, in-house counsel now require measurable data, metrics, targets, project management tools and rigorous cost-controls to implement getting maximum value from their outside firms. This will continue to be a priority in the year ahead.

·Company resistance to alternative fees has declined by 16%; firms’ resistance to alternative fees has declined 69%. Over the past ten years, results show that law firms are “getting it,” as they are offering alternative fees more often (up 6%). In light of these results – and those from other surveys – we believe the move to alternative billing will continue to increase in 2011, even if the economy strengthens.

·28% sought input from their law firms when evaluating technologies for collaboration. The most common technologies for which law firms provided input were matter management and e-billing systems. Law firms should heed these results and offer clients useful business solutions in 2011.

A third survey in November, the ACC/The American Lawyer Alternative Billing Survey, also showed an increase in the use of alternative fee arrangements in 2010. While still a small percentage of total outside counsel spend, the increase in the number of “value-based” fees demonstrated the determination of law department managers to continue to increase the use of alternative pricing and valuation methods, even as the economy recovers.

·29% of in-house counsel reported an increase in the use of alternative fees in 2010 and 53% of General Counsel said they used flat fee billing for an entire matter. We were interested to see if in-house counsel would continue to experiment with new fee structures once the markets began to rebound and budgets were not under the same level of stress in 2010.  The fact that billing practices did not revert back demonstrated that in-house counsel were continuing the march to drive costs and value away from measuring hours alone. The needle will likely continue to lean toward alternative fees in 2011. 

·52% of GCs indicated that their value-based or alternative fee arrangements were initiated primarily by the law department, not by law firms. With increased pressure to demonstrate value and stand out from competitors, law firms will need to be more proactive, become trusted business advisors to their clients and focus on value in their relationships with outside counsel in 2011. 

·24% of survey respondents not using alternative fee arrangements in 2010, plan to try to implement them in 2011. These results show that the push for value-based fee arrangements is not a fad that will go away. These practices are now not only more acceptable, but becoming more firmly ingrained as an offering at major firms. As value-based billing options become institutionalized, we predict they will increase steadily not just this year, but year over year.

For both law departments and law firms, there is a lot to chew on in these trends and benchmarks as we ready ourselves for a new year with new challenges and we hope, new solutions. We will continue to tap into ACC’s in-house counsel community for feedback and insight to help us prepare for what is yet to come. As Albert Einstein proffered, “Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As a publishing professional, I am always interested in what is happening in the industry. There has been significant change since I started my career almost 20 years ago. That makes me sound middle-aged, doesn’t it? Whether Amazon launches the Kindle or Apple launches the iPad, everyone in and around the industry offers their opinion: Surely, this will be the death of traditional publishing, as we know it. Or will it?

Sir Richard Branson’s recent foray into publishing magazines for the iPad only made me wonder if a non-print edition was the way the ACC Docket would eventually want to go. We have already launched a digital edition and mobile edition. But will we ever go strictly digital? When asked to choose, 81 percent of ACC members prefer the printed product above the digital one. Despite this feedback, ACC still must remain open to ideas based on our members’ changing needs.

As I perused the first issue of Branson’s new publication, Project, I am reminded that whatever platform you choose to display your message, there are still fundamentals that never change: readership, relevant content and good design. Project is a monthly style and culture magazine, offered thus far in US, UK and Canadian versions.

As I got deeper into Branson’s digital content, the following observations occurred to me:

1.    Web 2.0 has changed the way we all communicate. Project’s decision to put the magazine’s blog button on the navigation bar was brilliant. It allows readers to see what others are saying about the articles and post a message, too. I so loved this idea that I implemented it immediately for future issues of the ACC Docket Digital Docket and Mobile Docket.

2.    Reading is about customer experience and focus. If I am reading a digital publication, I prefer emails and websites to be hyperlinked so I can access them with a simple click. Project’s websites were hidden beneath a plus sign on the right side of the page. When you clicked on it, the links from the page were listed. And a second click would open up the website. While this tab option is, well, cute, it causes the reader extra time and effort. A basic tenant of good customer service is to make the experience as easy as possible. In-house counsel strive for this with their clients and expect it from outside counsel, too. Clearly, publishers cannot forget this either. The goal in both industries is to make sure your client reads and understands the material.

3.    Good design includes good typography. A publication is not cutting-edge simply because the designer picked space-age computer type. That’s expected, boring and hard to read. And to top it off, it makes the publication look dated. Good typography choices are never easy to make with so many options on the market. Quite frankly, good typography can be in the eye of the beholder. But editors and creative directors need to choose wisely — one tenant of good typography is to enhance the layout, not distract from it.

4.    There is no doubt that multimedia is cool and can enhance the reader experience; however, just because I go back to the table of contents that houses a video clip, does not mean I want the video clip to play again and again, without the ability to stop it. Please give your reader this option because it’s already available in traditional print: Turn the page.

5.    Never be afraid to try something new. Yes, this is coming from the woman who likes routine, and my previous blog posts prove it. I understand that lawyers, generally, are risk adverse. How do you manage your risk? Did you plan? Did you budget? Did you look at all the negative outcomes? What is the worst possible scenario if the plan fails? What is the best possible scenario if the plan succeeds? If the idea should fail, you go back and analyze why. You don’t simply stop. Sure, we don’t have access to Sir Richard’s coffers, but he still has to manage all of the same things we do. The only two differences: His budget is bigger and he is not afraid to be first.

Zig Ziglar said, “If we don’t start, it’s certain we can’t arrive.” Adopt this mantra for a while and see if it helps you better manage new ideas. Once the new ideas are implemented, you can help analyze what works and what does not. This is a skill set you are all good at, even if you tend to shy away from risk.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Post 15

The Current State

Week 15. Each week via the In-House ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. ACC Value Challenge steering committee member Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary of Wolverine World Wide, offered to profile his selection and start-up process of launching a trademark portfolio management engagement with law firm Seyfarth Shaw. Ken's co-blogger is Lisa Damon, a member of Seyfarth's Executive Committee and leader of the firm's efforts to incorporate Lean Six Sigma into its business. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

The client side 

From Ken:

So where are we?  We have built a relationship, started the transition of those 3,600 trademarks (and all the baggage they bring), developed a workable plan for the 2011 fee structure, and delved into the world of strategic trademark portfolio management.  For a small legal department with an assortment of other projects on our plate (and, oh yeah, those daily client matters that take up a lot of time and pull us away from these fun diversions), that is a lot of work.  We need to complete the portfolio transition this year, lock down the final numbers on the fee structure, finish some of the strategic planning tools, and keep up with the day-to-day portfolio challenges.  But those are the big tasks.

The real fun comes when we dig into the process improvement stuff.  Please, don’t all groan at the same time.  Who went to law school to become a process wonk?  Well, none of us did.  We went to law school to challenge our minds with interesting problems and come up with novel solutions.  Somewhere between law school and now, we got bogged down in grinding out the million or so things that need to happen.  One of my big goals is to move our team away from those million anchors (lean – take the waste out), leaving us more time to work on the things where we can add value to the business.  Fighting fires has its benefits, but working with the business team creatively is where we can take our skills and knowledge and showcase how in-house lawyers (with the assistance of our strategic outside law partners) drive asset value building not just asset protection.

This project has involved large steps, but getting out of the grind really involves many small steps.  We took our intake form for possible infringements, made it into something you can fill out online, posted it on an internal site with some instructions, and sent the word out.  Our clients are much better about giving us the information we need the first time.  We don’t fill out the form (which meant they took notes somewhere and then transferred them to us and we converted the notes to the form – now they do it once on the form).  This was small, but it saves a lot of time (again, 3,600 trademarks!).  It didn’t take long to do, but when combined with several other similar changes we freed up time for our IP paralegal.

The same small steps work for value fee arrangements.  The first one I did was for a retail store lease.  They were costing my then-client around $3,000 to $5,000 a lease.  We worked out arrangements with the firms handling them to do them on a sliding scale fixed fee arrangement, with incentives for fast turnaround when needed.  It took a couple of hours to work this out, and our fees became predictable and the income flow for the small firms we used also became predictable.

So where are we?  We are about to launch lots of small steps that by the end of next year will add up to (we hope) big gains.

Next: Final thoughts.

The firm view

From Lisa: 

As Ken notes, we -- as outside counsel -- must also move away from the inefficient “fire drill” realities that often characterize our practices. We need to provide a more strategic, streamlined approach to our work which allows our clients to focus more of their efforts on value-added activities. Right for our clients; right for us.

To help us move to a more Lean approach with Wolverine and other clients, we have used three key tools and practices that might prove helpful for others. There are plenty of available methods, tools, techniques, and approaches, (a number of which we have mentioned in prior posts), but these have been especially relevant in our trademark practice:

1. Information Management. In a prior post, Ken described the online matter tracking database. Every trademark project -- whether a new filing, a research project, an opposition, or otherwise -- is tracked in a collaborative online database that is readily accessed by everyone on both teams.  We have already populated the "active matters" database with dozens of entries, and it will grow as more of the portfolio is transitioned. 

The power of this database is hard to overstate. First, it frees up a tremendous amount of mental energy for more strategic thinking. (Need more of that.)  Gone are the days of poring through notes and emails to find the current status of matters. (Need less of that.)  All data on all ongoing matters is in one secure, online location. This let us all see both the forest and the trees. Second, the database keeps the matters moving forward and helps prevent missteps about who was supposed to do what when. Now, every matter and team member accountability is reviewed at least every week by the entire team. Third, it serves as an institutional memory of successes, failures, decisions made, and so forth for future reference. It relieves the burden of memory for those working on the portfolio to recall how a particular matter had been decided in the past, whether the company had encountered this counterfeiter before, etc. The database also provides a continuous, searchable record of "closed matters" to preserve past decisions, settlements, and so forth for future reference.

2. Strategy Tools. Strategy is easy to talk about and sounds great, but can remain amorphous unless you define and track it in writing. We have developed Lean tools that enable us to capture specific global trademark portfolio strategy on an annual basis in various areas, that include trademark clearance risk tolerance, trademark registration gap analysis and trademark enforcement prioritization by mark and country. While the upfront work with our client's business and legal teams takes significant effort, this investment is more than made up in the savings that result from streamlined, consistent, strategic decision-making down the road. By advancing specific, well-defined objectives in the trademark area, we add greater value to our client's business.

3. Process, process, process.  As Ken noted in a prior post, we are huge fans of process mapping. (Join us at the ACC Annual Meeting and, you, too, will be waving the process flag.) In the trademark area alone, we have now mapped many discrete tasks to attempt to find the optimal combination of quality, efficiency and cost containment. Process mapping also takes significant investment. Even the simplest processes (we have one for “Incoming Mail Flow”) take several hours to complete properly, as every single task and person within the process is identified and analyzed. No matter how familiar people are with a process, we find time and again that process mapping reveals areas for improvement in accountability, sequence of activity, elimination of re-work, and time savings.

Ken mentions launching lots of small steps in an effort to achieve big gain, and in working with a dynamic team at Wolverine, we are starting to see how our initial steps can take us to the next great level.

Next: Wrapping it all up.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Post 13

Compensation, Conversation and Collaboration

Week 13. Each week via the In-House ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. ACC Value Challenge steering committee member Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary of Wolverine World Wide, offered to profile his selection and start-up process of launching a trademark portfolio management engagement with law firm Seyfarth Shaw. Ken's co-blogger is Lisa Damon, a member of Seyfarth's Executive Committee and leader of the firm's efforts to incorporate Lean Six Sigma into its business. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

The client side

From Ken:

We structured the value fee for 2011 by borrowing from a common executive compensation arrangement. First, we established the base fee for 2011 (think base salary). Seyfarth used raw data that Wolverine supplied (hours, number and type of matters) to calculate estimates assuming the work was done by (1) a traditional large firm (higher rates), (2) the current firm, and (3) Seyfarth. I also calculated an estimate. My calculation and Seyfarth’s calculation of the Seyfarth fee agreed within about 7%, and we decided to use my number (I had the edge given my insider knowledge).

Next, we set up a bonus structure. The bonus recognizes savings based on systemic changes. This is a key point. We want repeatable changes that reduce the time to do portfolio work. That means we need process improvements, not one time cost avoidance. Reducing the time it takes to process a trademark application is a process improvement, whereas deciding to file a trademark application in fewer countries is a one-time savings. Process improvements give Wolverine savings each time we do an application.

The bonus builds on two opportunities: (1) reducing Seyfarth’s work, and (2) reducing foreign agent work. Between Wolverine and Seyfarth, Seyfarth has almost total control over the foreign agent work. So, for each $1 of systemic foreign agent savings, Seyfarth will be paid a $1 bonus. Seyfarth’s work is more closely tied to Wolverine. Since we must work together to reduce Seyfarth’s costs, we split each $1 of systemic Seyfarth savings $.75 to Seyfarth and $.25 to Wolverine. Put differently, for each $1 systemic savings on Seyfarth’s work, Wolverine will pay Seyfarth a $.75 bonus.

To measure Seyfarth’s systemic improvements, we will use two metrics: time to process an application, and time to receive a useable specimen (we have to file specimens in certain countries to show we are still using the mark). We need one score across both metrics to determine Seyfarth’s bonus, so we will combine the results on the two metrics by weighting them 80% on trademark applications and 20% of specimen gathering. We calculate the trademark application improvement metric, multiply it by .8, calculate the process improvement on specimens metric, multiply it by .2, and add the results. For every X% of weighted process improvement, Seyfarth will earn $.75.

Let’s compare this to a common executive compensation bonus system. I earn a base salary (base fee). My long-term bonus depends on the company’s performance on two metrics, earnings per share (think trademark applications) and value added (think specimen gathering). EPS counts for 65% of the final score, and value added counts for 35%. We get the final score by taking the weighted score (.65 times EPS score plus .35 times value added score), and apply that weighted score to the sliding bonus scale. For each X% improvement in the EPS/Value Added score I get a bonus of $Y.

I’m going to emphasize one point – this structure depends on process improvements not one-time savings. That means we need a system (we are using, of course, SeyfarthLean) to document existing processes, improve those processes (reduce work), and ensure that they are repeatable. Since many have successfully used lean process improvement for services where you could claim there is great variability (for example, medical treatment in hospitals), using it for legal services does not present any unique challenges.

Next: Explaining the power of this approach in driving shareholder value for Wolverine, and margin improvement for Seyfarth.

The firm view

From Lisa:

As the provider, we were delighted by Ken’s approach. We believe that it is fair, aligns us with Wolverine and properly reflects our joint expectations for the further development of the trademark service platform. 

More than that, it provides a compelling strategy for recognizing both the “industrial” and “artisanal” components of our work that Ken has described in the past. We receive a fair base fee and the opportunity to do better if we can help to build out the service platform.  We are absolutely committed to working with Ken’s team to identify process efficiencies and other systemic changes, believe we can do it by harnessing the capabilities of SeyfarthLean and agree with Ken that his approach fairly reflects that commitment.

So, what did we need to do from our end to get comfortable with the approach from a business perspective? We clearly wanted an approach that worked off a different calculus than seeking to compare the projected results of Ken’s pricing strategy against a traditional hours times rates model. That approach might have been ok but was clearly inconsistent with the core theme of the Wolverine trademark relationship 

Like Ken, we worked first to develop a scoping model that projected fees under several different scenarios. Working with Ken, we determined that his numbers and our numbers on scope were close and elected to work with Ken’s numbers (that company knowledge thing). From there, we looked at our costs to deliver the scope, ran through a scenario analysis that Ken developed and looked at margins. With that analysis, we concluded that Ken’s strategy should bring us together with Wolverine in a joint mission to handle the daily core services and further develop the trademark platform.

This exercise was similar to our more traditional pricing analysis only in the goal of seeking to understand the financial results of various scenarios. The economic incentives associated with rewarding strategic value (as the client understands it), however, was very different from the more traditional approach to pricing trademark portfolio services and very cool from our perspective.

Next: Working as partners; next steps.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Process Mapping Primer 

Week 12. Each week via the In-House ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. ACC Value Challenge steering committee member Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary of Wolverine World Wide, offered to profile his selection and start-up process of launching a trademark portfolio management engagement with law firm Seyfarth Shaw. Ken's co-blogger is Lisa Damon, a member of Seyfarth's Executive Committee and leader of the firm's efforts to incorporate Lean Six Sigma into its business. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

The client side

From Ken:

Lawyers are idiosyncratic workers. We do things differently when you compare one lawyer to another, and we do things differently when you compare how we do the same thing from time to time, such as preparing contracts. We justify much of this idiosyncratic behavior by claiming we do bespoke work – each time we do a case, contract or other matter, it is unique. Our idiosyncrasies, however, make us very inefficient.

We have designed the Wolverine/Seyfarth partnership to reduce process variability, using the SeyfarthLean techniques, so that we each become more efficient in providing legal services to our client. To know what Wolverine does today, we will make process maps. A group of two to eight individuals, drawn from both entities, will brainstorm and capture each step in a current process. In the old days, we did this by taping a long piece of butcher paper on the wall and noting each step in the process sequentially along the length of the paper. With all the mistakes, corrections and additions, it was busy when we finished. Today, Seyfarth does the same thing using computer tools that make the result much cleaner. Using the process map, we then (1) simplify steps, (2) weed out unnecessary steps, (3) re-sequence steps, (4) standardize steps and (5) create tools for steps. Each time we change the process, we update the map. We pull from a variety of metrics to measure our improvement – e.g., overall time to complete the process or number of steps in the process.

An obvious place to start with a trademark portfolio is the application process. The client sends an e-mail asking about the availability of MARK for use with a product. The in-house paralegal does a quick screening search and e-mails back saying that it looks like it is available, and asks whether she should do a full search and how the client will use the MARK. The client emails back saying yes to the full search, and gives a partial answer on use. The paralegal e-mails the outside paralegal requesting a full search. The outside paralegal requests the search and sends the outside IP attorney the results. The outside IP attorney has some follow up questions and sends them to the in-house paralegal, who in turn sends them to the client, who in turn responds to the in-house paralegal, who in turn responds to the attorney. Draw a line on your yellow pad and put each of these steps in sequence. Congratulations, you drew your first process map and already see several ways to improve the process. After each iteration, we want to achieve a steady state. That is, we want a defined process that we will repeat each time we do an application keeping variability to a minimum. One benefit of this technique is that you can apply it endlessly to any given process, always finding room for improvement,

We still can be brilliant lawyers. We just exercise our brilliance at the right time in a defined process that eliminates the unnecessary steps that cost our clients more, but don’t add value.

Next: So what is the status of those fee discussions?

The firm view

From Lisa: 

Ken has delved into the world of process mapping in his post this week. Okay, we love process mapping. We use this Lean tool often at Seyfarth -- we use it in very complex matters and those that are more repetitive. We may do it electronically, on a white board or even in our heads -- the trick is that it is a way to think about a problem.

When we first started working on process mapping, there was some resistance among our lawyers (and from me, as well). "Every matter is different," I kept saying. "This is complex litigation. How can we know what will happen?" We also heard: "My M&A work is highly specialized; a process map won't work." However, as we began to refine what we thought what a map could be and how we put it together, our lawyers began to see the magic of the tool. We think of our maps as "guides." We know that every legal matter is different, but we use maps to think through strategy, to organize our resources, to spot inefficiencies and to refine our strategy. They have become for many of our lawyers a true strategic tool as they think through complex issues for our clients. A quick plug: If you want to see how this works in real life, Ken and I will be doing a session at the ACC Conference, where we will have the audience on its feet, using a number of Lean tools, process mapping included. If you are coming to San Antonio, join us for some fun.

Another tool that we love to use to think through an issue is a "root cause analysis" tool. This can really force you to think beyond immediate problem-solving by requiring you to stop, think and ask tough questions. One of the tools, in fact, is called the "5 Whys" because it essentially demands that you probe for the root cause, using a series of "why" questions.

We also use other tools to guide our thinking. We find that other tools -- fishbone diagrams, for instance -- can be useful in working through client and internal issues to help identify the right solutions. I used one in a complex internal investigation last week, and it enabled me to get to an efficient solution that worked at the heart of the matter, not the periphery.

As we have said before, Lean gives us a way to think, a different approach to the practice of law. The tools support the thinking; they allow us to analyze and solve problems more efficiently and effectively. We would love to hear what kinds of tools and disciplines you are using. Let us know.

Next: A fee update and Ken teaches Seyfarth

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 The grocery-strategy connection

 Week 11. Each week, via the In-house ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. ACC Value Challenge steering committee member Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary of Wolverine World Wide, offered to profile his selection and start-up process of launching a trademark portfolio management engagement with law firm Seyfarth Shaw. Ken's co-blogger is Lisa Damon, a member of Seyfarth's Executive Committee and leader of the firm's efforts to incorporate Lean Six Sigma into its business. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

 The client side

 From Ken:

Nutritionists have told us for years that we should develop a strategy before we go grocery shopping. We should plan our meals for the week, deciding what we will have at each meal, and how to do things like sequence the meals to use leftovers. From that plan, we should develop our grocery-shopping list. If you are efficient, you group items on your grocery list according to where the store places those items. When you go shopping, you move efficiently through the store, without backtracking, and you buy only what you need. You don't go shopping when you are hungry, and you don't give in to the temptation to buy those goodies in the checkout aisle.

Lawyers love tasks and checking things off lists, but as much as we advertise our strategy skills to our clients, we often neglect that step ourselves. We don't develop our strategy before we dive into the tasks. Of course, we do use strategies from time-to-time, usually for lawsuits, acquisitions and other transaction events. However, typically, we don't develop strategies for routine work.

For the Wolverine trademark portfolio, Wolverine and Seyfarth are working to develop many strategy tools. These tools will guide our decisions on issues relating to each mark, streamlining pieces of the decision process that today are ad hoc.

We want to make decisions up front about what to do in various situations and know where marks fit into our portfolio before we are confronted with the question. For example, we want to know the relative importance of a mark, and which countries are more important for that mark -- based on factors such as sales levels, related marks and counterfeiting risk. We want to have a strategy for customs surveillance, and a strategy that ties the mark to our domain name strategy. Using these and other strategy tools, we can make decisions quickly. If something pops up on a watch list, we know whether that country is important for that mark, and that guides the decision about what effort to put into a response. We avoid ad hoc decisions that result in our buying things we don't need.

Doesn't it take time to develop these strategy tools? Yes, but not a lot. Once we have the template, the time is in filling out the templates with the assistance of our client. The savings potential is enormous. It can cost thousands of dollars to oppose a proposed registration of a competing mark in one country. If we decided that our mark in that country is not strategically important and we avoid spending the thousands of dollars, then we probably covered the cost of the strategy process for the mark. We avoided the temptation to buy something in the checkout aisle and stuck to our original strategic shopping plan.

Next: Developing a map to the future.

The firm view

 From Lisa:

Ken's entry this week talks about developing a strategy before you act. For us, Lean Six Sigma helps provide the discipline for that step.

When I look at how Lean has changed my life as a lawyer, one of the keys for me has been to develop the discipline to stop and think before returning to business as usual. Ken talks about this step in the trademark area; for us, it is a step we try to use in every matter across the spectrum.

A key feature of Lean is DMAIC, a structured way to look at a matter and plan an approach, a strategy. This discipline asks you to:

·       Define the problem first -- what are you trying to accomplish? What problem are you solving? It mandates talking to your client, standing in his/her shoes and understanding the issue.

·       Next, you Measure. Look at the information/data that you have available (not relying on your "gut" or on the way you have always done something).

·       You then Analyze and Improve -- or implement -- the strategy or the solution.

·       The “C” stands for Control, which is the discipline of not going back to the way you have always done something, not returning to "business as usual."

Using DMAIC as a framework for the way you think about a legal problem can be no more than a quick mental ‘stop and check’ before you begin a project or a longer more involved discussion. The important thing for me is the pause to think, to consider and to plan -- the strategy that Ken talks about.

Lean provides other tools that I find useful in the world of lawyers -- for instance, the concept of looking at the root cause of problems and the tools designed to help you get there are ones that I use frequently -- not just in law, but in my like life as a manager of people. Too often, instead of stopping and analyzing, we jump to a solution -- lawyers are trained to solve problems. Again, Lean gives us the discipline to stop and consider: Are we really solving the root cause, or are we simply putting a bandage on something that won't last or won’t truly solve the issue?

Like effective project management and process design tools, taking time to plan strategy on the front end almost always saves time on the back end. I believe that strategic planning is not a luxury or an option to use only when time permits, but instead, it is a step that should always be integrated in my thinking -- whether I'm planning the trip to the grocery store or planning a much more complex project for one of my clients. I guess that all of those law school professors were right in the first place: Keep your pencil down in an exam until you have planned the answer!

Next: Working with Ken to map out strategy

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

“Past performance does not guarantee future results.” I thought about this warning commonly seen on mutual fund prospectuses when reading an excellent column by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post on the dangers of success, “Oil Spill Reveals the Dangers of Success.”  Samuelson’s piece provides an excellent corollary to a David Brooks column and risk management that I wrote about last week, “Risk Management: Art or Science? ”

Samuelson opens with the apparent triumph of technology and the success of deepwater drilling and its excellent safety record.  However, he believes this led to overconfidence that possibly caused the failure and remarks on “the stark contrast between the disaster’s magnitude and the previous safety record…Continuing achievements obscured the dangers.”

Samuelson also sees this pattern in other setbacks:

1. The financial crisis:  (Subprime mortgages did not cause the crisis but rather the decision by sophisticated investors to buy these products.)  He asserts that this was reasonable behavior at the time as the economy seemed less risky and there was less volatility in the market.
2. Toyota scandal: Toyota was a model company with an enviable reputation.  Its very success explains the slow response by both the government and the company—the problems were out of character.

As Samuelson notes, the current assumption is that the disaster at Deepwater Horizon could have been prevented because it was caused by human error.  He suggests that the post-crisis investigations will complete the story and we will learn what happened.  

However, for in-house counsel (and those charged with responsibility for compliance and risk management for their employers), he goes on to ask the more important question, not “what happened?” but “why?”

He concludes with the theme that there is “a cycle to our calamities, or, at any rate, some of them. Success tends to breed carelessness and complacency.  People take more risks because they don’t think they’re taking risks.”

Of course, after each crisis or catastrophe we analyze and study and in many cases the “risk” becomes more obvious because we have the benefit of looking back at what happened; we suffer from ”hindsight bias.”

In short, we celebrate success by relaxing; then unknowingly take on more risk.  For lawyers, risk managers and society, Samuelson succinctly describes the challenge. How do we “acknowledge this urge without being duped by it?”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

(ACC Docket — June)

I admit it: my global travel experience is limited. I have only traveled out of the United States to Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. You guessed it: two out of the three trips were for vacation. I am not the candidate of choice for anything international. And, to top it off, I only speak one language: English. When I was in school, we were not required to take a language. Hindsight tells me that this was a grave mistake in the American school system and I went right along with it.

That said, I am proud to say that my circle of friends, acquaintances and business associates are more varied than my global travel. I do not hesitate to ask them questions about their culture or country. We sometimes even discuss the dreaded no-no’s of social circles: politics and religion. But, I ask questions in such a way as not to offend or condescend, but to learn. After all, unless I travel to their countries and live within their cultures, how am I supposed to find out what it’s like? Luckily, the people I know are generous and provide me with details that I bank for further exploration. My global experiences are only just beginning and I seek as much information as possible to be prepared for future travel.

The global business relationship may not be the situation you want to walk into as a novice, as the environment can be nuanced and fraught with cultural and legal differences. This is where ACC can help. We provide not just resources, but people: other legal professionals who serve as in-house counsel in other countries. ACC’s International Legal Affairs Committee is comprised of an active group of members from various companies and stages of career development. They can show you the tools you’ll need to navigate your global journey. They offer insights you may not be able to find elsewhere. Some of their experiences are shared in this month’s ACC Docket. Six feature articles focus on some aspect of practicing law in a global setting. And, the June issue is also one of the issues in which we publish one of our three international-focused newsletters, European Briefings. Finally, if you truly can’t get enough global insight, our monthly “Going Global” and “Outsource Resource” columns are regular reminders that global business is literally a phone call or an email away. Technology has made it so that we can communicate at a much quicker pace, much to the delight of some and the chagrin of others. You never know when you might be called upon to expand your knowledge base to include global matters.

Whether your passport is covered with stamps or waiting to be filled, ACC offers you insight into international legal issues, customs and cultures. From Finland to Mexico, from Bulgaria to Quebec, from Nigeria to Hong Kong, in-house counsel must be ready to address the complexity that international business operations entail. ACC’s worldwide reach and resources provide your law department with best practices that capture a global perspective. And, this global issue of the ACC Docket will help you and your company navigate the globe — it’s a small world, after all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Street Law, a nonprofit organization that provides education programs about law, democracy, and human rights and a partner with ACC on the corporate legal diversity pipeline initiative held their annual dinner last week in Washington, D.C. What an evening it turned out to be! The ballroom was packed and charged with energy. The award winners inspired us with their stories and commitment to the practice of law.  

Our former board member, colleague, and friend Tom Sager and his legal team at DuPont were honored with the 2010 Legal Diversity Pipeline Award. With Tom’s support and leadership, DuPont created a banner program that brings their legal team into a Wilmington, DE, high school. At the dinner, it was great to see that DuPont had two tables of employees enjoying the special evening and the kudos for their efforts. Legal counsel Ernest Tuckett was recognized several times for his work. And Pat Quann, the executive director of the Delaware Law Related Education Center, was honored for her role and her partnership with DuPont.

I’ll give you an aside about Tom and why we are especially proud. Tom arranged to fund development and distribution of a pipeline kit and partnered with ACC to develop a program that introduces high school students to corporate legal departments. Many students have never met an attorney and certainly never considered going to law school. Class by class, that is now changing, as our colleagues teach, lead and mentor their local students. Take a minute and watch the Street Law video about this partnership and see why we are excited by this initiative and the results we see.

Also receiving kudos during the evening was a Kentucky teacher who received the 2010 Educator of the Year Award. Joseph Gutmann teaches at the Law and Government Magnet at Central High School in Louisville, KY. He usesthe Street Law curriculum in the second year of the magnet’s three-year program. Mr. Gutmann brings in local law students to teach about practical aspects of the law. A former prosecutor who became a teacher after 9/11, he is an inspiring teacher. With his leadership, the magnet now receives twice as many applications than they can accept.

Finally, the 2010 Advocate of the Year was awarded to Tetiana Remekh, a program coordinator at Teachers for Democracy and Partnership, a Ukrainian civic education NGO, which trains thousands of Ukrainian teachers in civics and law. Working with Street Law, she developed a Ukrainian version of the Street Law textbook, which was approved by the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science and is a mandatory part of the nationwide curricula.

We were all honored by the presence of our nation’s top lawyer, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. After a standing ovation, the attorney general received the Chesterfield Smith Award. An icon of the bar, Chesterfield Smith was one of the earliest crusaders for diversity in the profession. Attorney General Holder is committed to the concept of diversity and believes strongly that the profession depends on those who follow us.  

And, a special thank you to our own SVP and General Counsel Susan Hackett, who served on the host committee for this wonderful event and who has worked tirelessly on the Corporate Legal Diversity Pipeline.

Approximately 40 major corporations around the country have Corporate Legal Diversity Pipeline Programs with Street Law, some of the most notable including Coca-Cola, Turner Broadcasting and McDonald's.

[Attorney General Holder’s remarks from the evening are posted here as well.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent launch of the ACC Value Index at ACC's 2009 Annual Meeting generated significant interest and commentary, including both praise and criticism. 

We welcome these comments because they not only further the attention and discussion about value in the delivery of legal services (a primary goal of the ACC Value Challenge), but they will also help us to improve the ACC Value Index (AVI).

            A few additional thoughts on the AVI:

1.           We created the AVI as a member service, so by definition, it is available only to ACC members. Stated simply, it provides two specific benefits to our members: a) the compilation of individual ACC member views on the value received from specific law firms; and b) the ability to find other members who have used a firm in order to communicate with them and engage in a dialog about their experience.  The AVI is a specific tool meant to inform decisions as part of a larger process of selecting and retaining a law firm.

2.           Members may post an evaluation anonymously or with identification at their option. We believe the anonymity option to be important - particularly at the outset of this initiative. Over time, as the AVI gains acceptance among our members, I anticipate that the percentage of anonymous postings may decline.    Evaluations can be posted with attribution - or anonymously - as we seek useful and candid information to build acceptance of the evaluation concept generally.

3.           We will make the evaluation summaries available to the law firms. When and how best to do that remains under consideration by our Advisory Committee. A corollary benefit of the AVI will be the ability to recognize those law firms that provide value in the collective judgment of our members.Coinciding with the overarching goal of the ACC Value Index – information gleaned from the AVI will help to foster a greater dialog between clients and their outside counsel.

4.           The AVI is a work in progress and we are pleased with the interest and input it has generated to date. Nevertheless, it will take time to populate the database with sufficient evaluations to reach a meaningful threshold.  The AVI database has been populated with over 1,500 evaluations, reviewing over 400 firms, and we will continue with our member outreach for additional evaluations.

5.           The AVI is only one part of the ACC Value Challenge, which encompasses a larger effort to reconnect value to the cost of legal services. Other aspects include a) “Meet. Talk. Act.” which encourages clients and law firms to engage in discussions about value and their relationship; b) a law firm economic model; and c) specific resources with examples of value practices and ideas on ‘how to’ implement practices focused on value.  Resources, success stories and updates are continually added to the ACC Value Challenge community pages and we encourage law firms to get involved and help to provide additional information/resources.

6.           One important observation on the evaluations received to date: law firms generally do good legal work, but all too often, do not have costs and matter management under control. Effective cost and project management should be a key objective -- for both clients and firms to effectively work together. By managing legal matters in a business-focused, client-centric way, as opposed to basing solely on “hours worked,” the agreed upon business objectives will drive greater efficiency, and ultimately, value.  Law firms must learn to reduce their costs while improving quality. Our members’ companies operate under this imperative, and their outside law firms should, as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The situation:

•    The economy is in recession
•    Businesses of every size are being impacted
•    Internal staff is being asked to do more with less
•    Layoffs are a matter of fact.

It should be no surprise that this slump is impacting the legal industry. Many blog sites, including the Wall Street Journal and Above the Law, have daily posts on staff cuts and other changes in the marketplace. Numerous surveys indicate a gap between in-house counsel and outside counsel. Where is value and how does it relate to annual spend?

On April 13, 2009, I had an opportunity to attend my second ACC Value Challenge event. Unlike nearly everyone else in the room, I’m not an attorney. My background in the legal industry and understanding of law firms gives me an interesting perspective of the two somewhat differing worlds. In attendance were a number of law firm partners and in-house counsel, including a number of general counsel from local corporations.

My twitter stream (@time2simplify) had a few gems:

One attendee recognized that the ACC Value Challenge event is being held at the Ritz-Carlton... many lols. "best place at best price"

Both law firms and in-house departments share a similar problem: Desire to impact the bottom line is shared by both managing partners & CFOs

Take-away items from the event include:

• One definition of value: Good work – and perhaps value - is not over-lawyering (defined as anything that is not needed and appropriate)
• How are attorneys using technology? Extranets, e-billing, and knowledge management were a few examples.
• If the golden gate bridge can be built on a contract, couldn’t a large legal matter?

So legal community, what’s your point of view?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A short time ago, I blogged about the importance of building a life line before you needed it. In that blog I described the value of the connections you would make with your ACC colleagues as an end in itself. Fred Krebs recently helped me reconnect with Bob Banks, former General Counsel of Zerox, and the father of ACC.

ACC was formed by a number of energetic and farsighted in-house lawyers. But among this group of talented lawyers one stood out.  For those of us who were around at ACC’s beginning, it was clear that Bob was the spark that created this organization.

I came to know Bob through a reference of a lawyer at the Ohio Lawyer’s Disciplinary Commission. I had been referred to the Commission by the then Chief Judge of the Ohio Supreme Court to whom I had written questioning Ohio’s policy of not permitting one to count time spent in Ohio as an in-house lawyer towards reciprocity admission, while the same time could be counted for reciprocity admission in New York. The Judge, apparently unaware of the rule permitting in-house attorneys to practice in Ohio without being formally admitted, concluded that I was practicing in Ohio without a license and referred me the disciplinary commission.

Chief Judge Celebrezze (as distinguished from Anthony Celebrezze of the Sixth Circuit) was widely reported as using the disciplinary commission as a means of dealing with any controversy concerning his role in office, and there was quite a bit. The lawyer at the commission was understanding and disturbed by the misuse of the office and referred me to Bob Banks, who was reported according to him, as beginning an organization that might just address admission issues for in-house counsel and lawyers generally.

After talking with Bob on the phone I met him for the first time, and I have still have a vivid memory of the meeting, at the Corporate Counsel Institute at Northwestern University Law School. ACC, then ACCA, was an idea coming to life.

I renewed my correspondence with Bob a few days ago (thanks to Fred Krebs sending me a current e-mail address) and have begun once again to share ideas on current issues in the profession. It made me recall the hope and spirit of confronting challenges that infused ACC’s creation.

Bob and his colleagues who founded ACC gave us a great gift—an organization that permits us to change and improve ourselves and our profession in way that none of us could do without it. This Holiday Season we need to remember these founders who built an organization whose creation was not without opposition and controversy. And we should remember that we can best honor their effort by using the organization to its potential.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For many in our profession this holiday season is going to be a stressful time. The economy is taking its toll and some of our colleagues have already been laid-off while others are no doubt concerned what the New Year will bring. ACC can be a life line through connections you can develop with your ACC colleagues. However, as valuable as ACC can be; it is not the best time to start building a life line- you should have been doing that already.

Our local chapter had a winter social. NEO ACCA has energetic leadership and typically they have two social events a year. I must admit in the later years before my retirement  I had not attended many of their events, in part because my travel schedule kept my out of town. However, since I began writing this blog,  I have made an effort to attend these events and some of the local programming. It has been a great experience. I have met many people with varied interests beyond the law, and the food has been remarkable as well.

I asked the chapter administrator what percentage of the membership actively participated in the ACC activities. She said about ½. The other ½ she said would only show-up when they were in the job market. I have a couple of observations surrounding that fact. The first is that ACC connections can be a great resource of networking when you are looking for a job, but it can be a lot more effective if you build your relationships before you need to rely upon them. A strong personal acquaintance is a far better network connection than a passing contact. Second, actively participating in your chapter and the national organization is going to develop an invaluable group of acquaintances that will keep you connected to the profession and create opportunities even after you retire—you can take my word on that.

Finally, your ACC activities will help you develop and hone your legal skills, give you to access to abundant expertise and create life-long friendships. I got far more from my ACC activities than I ever gave and you will have created a life-line if you ever need it.

View upcoming ACC Events

Join an ACC Committee

Check out the ACC Jobline
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is a guest post by ACC Board Chair, Ivan Fong. This was originally published in the December issue of the ACC Docket.

As I write my first ACC Chair message, the headlines are grim, relentless and frankly depressing: major companies announcing layoffs, cutting budgets and some even seeking government rescues. The global economy is interconnected and hence unavoidably in distress. We have a new president faced with unprecedented domestic and foreign policy challenges. I have no doubt that you, too, are worried about how the turmoil will affect your organization.

Despite these difficult times, it is important to remember to maintain perspective, pause, and reflect on our priorities. What should our priorities be? Let me offer three: First, we need to continue to provide the highest quality services to our corporate clients in the most efficient way possible. Second, as “gatekeepers,” we must remain vigilant on compliance matters and be pro-active, preventive, and protective of our clients’ reputations. And third, we must continue to build culture and community within our law departments, companies, broader communities, and family and friends.

The good news is that ACC’s resources can help. As part of this global association, you have unlimited access to best practices. Advice and guidance from other in-house counsel is readily available: MemberToMember, local chapter programs, committee
listserves, and webcasts , are here to connect you. Looking to delve in deeper on an
issue? Save time and money with ACC Docket articles and InfoPAKs^SM for substantial information on the issues you face. ACC’s surveys, and subsequent benchmarking data provides meaningful insight.  For those directly affected by the economy, ACC also has excellent job and career resources, ACC Jobline^SM.

With increased scrutiny on budgets also comes an imperative for in-house counsel to review and evaluate outside counsel spend. The ACC Value Challenge, a new initiative to reconnect costs and value for legal services, will help to drive an alignment of interests with a focus on high value. Toolkits are available for in-house counsel and law firms to help drive change in the performance of value-based legal services. You, too, can become engaged with this community, help enhance awareness, and communicate success stories.

I have had numerous conversations with ACC members and many agree that this economic storm will pass, though it may take some time and cause painful dislocations. An ACC Board Member commented recently that, “How you’ll be judged after the economic storm is over is by how you handled the storm itself.” We cannot, therefore, lose sight of the things that really matter: credibility, integrity, courage, and community.

Einstein said it best with his three rules of work: “Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” Take advantage of all that ACC has to offer, and don’t be dissuaded by the added scrutiny; don’t despair in the face of challenges; confront them, and through it all, look for the opportunities. If you have any thoughts or suggestions for how ACC can help you—and its 25,000 members
worldwide—please send me an email to acc.chair@acc.com.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Who says Seattle is rainy? It's a BEAUTIFUL day here- Sunny and 48 degrees. No complaints. I got up early this morning and took a brisk walk to Pikes Place Market to have breakfast with one of my co-workers. If you get the chance, I highly recommend grabbing breakfast at Lowell's in the market. Great fresh food, friendly service, and a killer view. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Leadership Development Institute (LDI)  is held every year at Annual Meeting for the incoming leaders of ACC's Chapters and Committees. Run by our Director of Member Development & Chapters, Tori Payne, and assisted by our  Legal Resources Director, LDI focuses on whatr the new leaders of our chapters and committees need to know to head the most productive and active groups.  Having personally worked arm and arm with two of our 17 committees (one being New to In-house, which was awarded Committee of the Year, thank you very much), I know that the leaders work at LDI pays off! The training focuses on recruiting new chapter board members, motivating staff, increasing programming best practices, and much more.  This year, ACC has invited Peter Stark, a published professional with 15 years of career coaching and strategic planning experience, to speak at LDI. We couldn’t be more excited to have him share his expertise with us.

If you are attending the meeting and are interested in taking a more active role in your committee or chapter, please email Tori Payne or check with one of us at registration for more information. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Well, I’m about to head to Seattle to start the set up process for Annual Meeting. A few of the ACC staff heads to the site to prepare before our attendees join us for a CLE extravaganza. I’m particularly looking forward to our Going Green track of programs. It’s been a hot topic for awhile and it’s going to be great to hear how other in-house counsel are helping their companies comply with appropriate laws as well as be socially conscious.

In the same vein, I encourage you to check out our Green-house Counsel tip of the week. It's a weekly tidbit of environmental information, provided to us by Holland + Knight, to help you help your company and your legal department be more green.  I know, I know, I've been highlighting this product a lot, but it's really something that is of great interest to me, and to us here at ACC. At Annual Meeting '07, we went coursebook-less, by preparing customized emails for attendees which contained all of their course materials. This was our answer to cutting the use of paper and creating less of a footprint on the environment. It was received so well that we decided to do it again this year. And Seattle is a great place to embrace these green initiatives, as it is a city that prides itself on being  clean & green.

I'm looking forward to getting out west. If you're coming to the meeting, let's hear from you! What are you most excited about?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ACC's Green-house Counsel is something we launched on Earth Day of this year. It's a weekly web feature which delivers resources, tips and facts to help your company adopt policies that are environmentally friendly – and often cost-effective, too. If you get the chance, make sure to check it out each week at acc.com/gogreen to learn how you can make your environment a greener one!

I'd be interested to know of anything you readers have implemented in your daily routines to become more 'green'. 

Also, if you are attending this year's Annual Meeting in Seattle, make sure to stop by the ACC Booth (#831) in the exhibit hall, and pick up your green gift- I promise it's a good one, and it won't take up much space in the suitcase. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link