Emotional Intelligence and the In-House Lawyer

Posted on March 28, 2011 by Maria Votsch

I recently attended a workshop at my son’s preschool where we learned some of the principles of Conscious Discipline®. This multifaceted approach to managing conflicts is followed in numerous schools and by many parents, and I won’t attempt to do it justice by summarizing it here.

But there were three key takeaways I gleaned from the workshop: 

(1) establish a loving bond with your child;

(2) empower your child to make his or her own decisions by offering reasonable choices; and

(3) use an assertive but respectful voice in communicating limits.

I was quickly struck by the parallels between managing conflicts with children and serving as what I consider to be a “business-focused” in-house lawyer. Mind you, I’m not suggesting that my clients act like 3-year-olds. (Although it is tempting to make a joke about that.) At a basic level, however, both situations draw on principles of emotional intelligence such as understanding and relating to your audience and tailoring the message accordingly.

1. Establish Meaningful Relationships with Clients

Meet with your business contacts in person or phone them if you are not close by. Meeting or talking in person remains the gold standard for professional networking. Even if you don’t work in the same physical office as your internal client contacts, there are still plenty of opportunities to build relationships. When you travel to corporate headquarters, make plans to meet key clients. When you encounter a new contact on the phone, introduce yourself and give a brief overview of your role within the company before diving into substance. If your business contacts are active on social media, get to know the platforms they’re using and seek out opportunities to link, “friend” or follow them. It’s about relating to clients outside the context of providing advice on a particular legal issue, and building a rapport that can be drawn upon when a specific communications need or conflict arises.

Because the in-house lawyer’s true client is the company rather than the individuals acting on its behalf, the importance of relationship building also extends to the company itself. What is the company’s position within its industry? What are its unique competitive differentiators and goals? What does it hope to accomplish in the near and long-term? Understanding the company-wide perspective and the individual goals and needs of particular contacts can help in-house counsel tailor legal advice more effectively.

2. Offer Reasonable Alternative Choices Instead of Just Saying “No”

No one likes the lawyer who just says “no.” In fact, it’s rare that a legal problem is truly black and white. You can get creative, suggesting alternative courses of action that will still accomplish key objectives with a lower level of legal risk. You can help business contacts problem-solve by presenting two or more options that would address the legal issues you’ve identified; communicating the anticipated benefits and risks of each option; and then allowing the client to choose between them.

3. Be Aware of Unspoken Messages Your Tone May Convey

At the workshop I attended, we were advised to use a respectful but assertive tone, rather than implicitly asking the child’s permission to impose limits (“do you want to sit down for dinner now?”) or being overly bossy (“Get yourself to the dinner table “RIGHT NOW!”).

Language also is critical for the in-house lawyer. Take a few extra minutes to explain the rationale behind your legal advice, and be sensitive to the tone of your written and spoken communications. Using an affirmative, clear and constructive tone (“I recommend doing XYZ to address the risk of ABC”) inspires confidence and invites cooperation. Using tentative language, on the other hand (“maybe you should do XYZ?”) suggests that you’re not sure about the advice you’re giving. Conversely, using an overly aggressive or condescending tone that cuts off further discussion (“you need to do XYZ or you’ll risk ABC”) is often counter-productive.

I’ve found these principles and techniques to be very helpful in conveying to my in-house clients that I’m a part of the team, one who is in a unique position to provide legal advice on a proposed course of action and who also shares the goal to accomplish the company’s objectives while also ensuring there is no unacceptable level of legal risk.

As for successfully navigating conflicts with my preschooler — well, that’s a work in progress.

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

This is Value Billing

Posted on August 19, 2009 by Larry Salibra

Enormous effort has gone into attempts to construct billing arrangements that reflect a law firm’s contribution to a case because of the belief that hours spent was not necessarily a relevant indicator of that contribution and may actually create an incentive to distort billings. In-house lawyers have often had to argue about the value of their contribution to a company’s business objectives, often hiring firms like Altman-Weil and others to create some measureable criteria to support the value of their contribution.

Recently, I vicariously experienced that real way value billing should be done, and perhaps was done when the legal community was more closely connected to their clients. Yes, constructs of value billing it appears are necessary when the value of a lawyer’s contribution is not obvious to his or her clients. Hourly billing is a necessary construct when the need to support the law firm predominates over the objective of providing valuable services.

These facts became clear to me when a former colleague, now out on her own, called with a great deal of excitement to tell me about a recent experience with her client. Her client called to say he had not received a bill. She responded that she had just sent one out billing at a certain hourly rate. His response is that it was his intention to pay a larger amount, not based on the hours spent, but on the value she contributed to the business transaction. Both pleased and surprised, she called to share this experience with me.

I am sharing it with you because that is the objective to which we should all strive. Our contribution should be obvious to our clients as our outside counsel’s contribution should be obvious to us. When there is a sense of disparity with our in-house expenses or the bill from our outside counsel and the payers’ sense of the value that it represents, we have to think about why my colleague was able to obtain higher fees without even asking for them. What was she doing that we are not doing or our outside counsel is not doing?

Tags: , , ,