Postcard from Germany

 

By J. Alberto Gonzalez-Pita the Executive Vice-President & General Counsel of HCP, Inc., headquartered in Long Beach, CA. Mr. Gonzalez-Pita is the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Association of Corporate Counsel. 

I recently had the great pleasure of attending the ACC Europe Annual Conference in Berlin. For three days, I attended practical and timely sessions that spoke to the increasing responsibilities of in-house counsel and the effective management of this role. The 300+ delegates came from some 29 countries.

The opening session featured Richard Susskind, author of “The End of Lawyers?” who talked about the future of the legal profession, which was quite entertaining. Thomas Werlen, general counsel, Novartis, joined him and focused on building the forward-thinking legal department. They reminded me of how far our profession has come and highlighted the challenges that remain, including those facing us now and those we will face in the foreseeable future:

  • Pressure on head count and external spend;
  • More legal work as a result of increasing regulation worldwide; and
  • The delivery of more legal service at less cost — "more for less."  

Susskind envisages a future of fast-paced technological change that will continue to have a profound impact on how lawyers work, and on those choosing to pursue a career in law. As knowledge systems and greater computer processing power reduce the need for pure legal experts — placing the emphasis firmly on legal process, project management and the standardization of legal products — law firms and legal departments need to work hard to keep up. This will ensure the survival of the role of the trusted advisor, running strategy, tactics and advocacy.

Sessions ran the gamut for the diverse attendees; they covered data privacy, anti-corruption, managing a small legal department, policies for dealing with social media, cloud computing and the effective use of technology. The main solution offered to the problem of not enough counsel to go around was to make better use of technology.

And throughout the conference was the thread of value: how the law department adds value, how to do more with less, and the complicated but important need for in-house lawyers and outside counsel to find ways to better work together.

Brandenburg GateThe closing session featured a stellar cast of corporate counsel including Michael Wu, general counsel, Rossetta Stone; Leanne Geale, global legal services, Royal Dutch Shell; Bertrand Alexis, senior director, Qtel International; and Andrea Goodrich, associate general counsel, Tyco International. The esteemed counsel shared their best practices in managing their legal department and outside counsel relationships. And representing Norton Rose was Andrew Fleming, who inspired a frank and welcome discussion on how best to achieve a value-based relationship with your outside counsel.

Aside from the substantive sessions, highlights of the conference included the cocktail reception and gala dinner at the beautiful Orangerie at Schloss Charlottenburg. Standing on the terrace in the early evening –– glass in hand –– will live long in my memory.

It was great to meet our very engaged European members and to have the opportunity to restate ACC’s commitment to in-house counsel across Europe and beyond. I’m looking forward to the next opportunity to cross the pond.

See you next year in Amsterdam!

 

Guten Tag! Greetings from Berlin--ACC Europe's 18th Annual Conference

 by Sabine Brumme

ACC Europe, Vice President

Chair of the Advisory Board to the Annual Conference

The theme for this year's ACC Europe 18th 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 BenefitsLegal 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!

Strategic Risk Management: Art or Science?

 

I just returned from Vienna and the annual conference of our European chapter--ACC Europe.   Strategic Risk Management: Art or Science? engaged our more than 250 participants with outstanding speakers from across Europe. The discussions in the sessions and during the breaks were lively and informative. The topics were especially relevant given the recent international financial meltdown and, of course, the Deepwater Horizon environmental tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The panelists of our opening plenary session, Gouverner c’est prévoir or the Art of Strategic Management: How Does Management See Our Role?  encouraged us to take our eyes away from our in-boxes and the possibly low risk daily legal service demands we are bombarded with, and spend more time identifying and mitigating the larger risks facing our companies. Moderated by David Bernick, Senior VP and General Counsel of Philip Morris International, the panel also examined the role of in-house counsel in strategic risk management.

Other panels discussed the nuts and bolts of risk management, the counsel’s role in company ethics programs, and specific legal and business issues facing companies that do business in Europe.   I found each session to be valuable and educational, and I greatly appreciate all our members who served on panels and added so much to the conference.

While at the conference, I read a column by David Brooks of The New York Times on risk and society’s response. His words were both timely and disconcerting. His sobering comments have particular relevance for in-house attorneys and others responsible for risk management in their organizations.

Brooks discussed risk assessment and the intersection of complex technology and human psychology. Technology allows us to live well but much of it and the financial and other systems it enables have become too complex for any single person to comprehend. Yet at the same time, it is individuals who must monitor and make decisions about risk. As Brooks notes, “humans are not great at measuring and responding to risk in situations too complicated to understand.”

He goes on to make five key points:

1.           We do not understand how little failures combine to create catastrophes (citing Three Mile Island).

2.           We acclimate to risk and think if something worked the last time it will work again (the Challenger disaster).

3.           We have too much faith in safety and back up systems (more people are killed in cross walks than jaywalking because they fail to look both ways).

4.          We combine complicated tech systems with complicated governance structures and tangled and confusing lines of authority and responsibility (Deepwater Horizon).

5.           We tell good news and hide bad news (just about everyone).

These are challenging times. Brooks concludes that we must go beyond making technology safer and develop better ways to assess risk and make choices that guard against risk creep, false security and good news bias.

The Brooks column certainly came at an opportune moment for the ACCE delegates as we thought about identifying and mitigating risk. ACC staff asked a number of delegates to identify the risks facing their companies and how they approach it.

Thirty-five conference participants responded to our survey and identified the top five risks their companies face. Most commonly cited were: Contractual (66%); Data protection/Privacy (58%); Anti-trust (54%); Regulatory (54%); Fraud (52%) and Ethics (46%).

Most compelling, companies have developed policies to address these risks and to measure their results. The areas for which companies most commonly have policies are: Data protection (72%); Contractual (69%); Ethics (58%); Corporate governance (52%); Anti-trust (49%); Financial (46%) and Fraud (46%). An impressive 64% of respondents said their organizations assess the effectiveness of their compliance programs. And, 90% of those that do such assessments use similar methods – audits, either random or regular, of specific business functions; general data keeping about the nature and incidence of compliance problems; and qualitative reporting (for example, debrief after an investigation).

As we discussed in Vienna and the data clearly shows, in-house counsel understand the risks facing their companies; and, the in-house bar is actively seeking solutions and putting together sophisticated programs to mitigate these risks and to measure the results.