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

By Zenneia McLendon

Zenneia McLendon is ACC’s Director of Social Media and is responsible for developing and overseeing the association’s Social Media Strategy across all internal brands, audiences and platforms. Including: Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, the In-house ACCess blog, Member-to-Member (eGroups) and YouTube.

The sun was shining at Angel Stadium of Anaheim. The sky was blue, and the thermometer read about 75 degrees. It was a perfect day for a great game of baseball — if only it wasn’t late January and the middle of the offseason. On this day, Angel Stadium and the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim played host to a different group of players — in-house counsel.

Last week, the ACC’s Southern California chapter (ACC-SoCal) held their 8^th Annual In-house Counsel Conference. This year marked the first time that the event spanned two days, and as a result, attendance doubled last year’s and reached more than 400 people. Day one was held on Jan. 11, at the Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills, I joined attendees on the conference’s second day at Angel Stadium.   

From a social media perspective, and as ACC’s director of social media, this event provided a great opportunity for ACC to use one of our growing social media channels. Through Twitter we were able to highlight a chapter event, share information with our followers, increase our audience and expand our reach by live-tweeting from the event. Not only did each session provide great sound bites perfect for tweeting out, but the SoCal chapter also did an excellent job of planning and strategizing their Twitter activities ahead of time, in preparation of the event. And, of course, I was happy to join those activities as @ACCinhouse.

The conference began promptly at 8 AM PST with “Welcome Remarks” from our Angel Stadium and conference host, David Cohen, director of legal affairs and risk management for Angels Baseball LP. After the remarks, it was all up-hill. Panel topics ranged from privacy of consumer information to intellectual property to social media in the workplace. Attendees were encouraged to follow along with the conference via the conference hashtag, #IHCC12, by either logging onto Twitter or simply viewing the hashtag’s stream as it scrolled along on a screen at the front of the room. As a result of great planning and execution, with a combination of live tweeting, re-tweeting and interactive messages, the Twitter Reach for #IHCC12 was over 11,000. Participants tweeted from 14 states and four countries. If these numbers haven’t convinced you of what an amazing conference this was, visit the SoCal chapter page on the ACC website to check out all of the presentation slides and program materials. Then, come back to this post, and tell us what you think.

Along with the fact that Angel Stadium is absolutely beautiful both inside and out, as one of very few non-lawyers in attendance at the conference, there were several key takeaways that I will put into practice as I continue to progress in my career. My top three include:

• Beware of digital breadcrumbs!
• If you are responsible for social media for your company, remember that your in-house counsel are your greatest ally. Consult with them regularly.
• Who’s on first? A lawyer’s response would most likely be, “According to section 22A of Who’s contract, he will no longer be … No you cannot tweet this, and yes, we deleted his Facebook page this morning.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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.

On the Importance of Mentoring

Short of educational preparedness, having a mentor is probably the single most important factor separating those who succeed versus those who stumble or fail. That, or a rich parent! 

While so many successful people like to tell stories of how they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, going from rags to riches, the truth is that everyone has help along the way. There are no truly “self made” successful people. And at various junctures in our professional lives, we will be in the position of seeking a mentor or serving as a mentor to others.

So, where does one find a mentor to help guide and develop her career path? Potential mentors are all around you –– they are members of professional associations or alumni networks to which you belong, they are in your workplace, they are family members, friends or friends of friends. The possibilities are as endless as the many avenues you have to meet and connect with others. However, finding the right mentor first requires a little self-analysis: What are you looking for in the relationship? What types of advice are you seeking?

Once you have clear objectives, it will become easier to identify people who have the knowledge and perspectives that you are seeking. Your next step is putting yourself in the right place to initiate an opening conversation with your potential mentor. Once you have that opportunity, be honest and genuine about your desire for their help, which should not include asking them to help you find a job. That’s not the best way to start a relationship with a mentor. A better approach would be to ask for advice about how to best present yourself, learn more about a topic of interest, or identify the knowledge and skills gaps between where you are and where you want to go.

On the flip side, being a good mentor to others will teach you a lot about how to best utilize and develop your relationship with your own mentor. You will grow by seeing the world through another’s experience, and hone your problem solving skills as you listen to their challenges and offer advice.

In this first year as ACC president, I am experiencing mentorship first hand through my relationship with Fred Krebs, ACC's former president. Even when I was executive director of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA), Fred was an experienced bar association leader to whom I turned for advice as I navigated unfamiliar situations. These days, I feel especially lucky to have him as a resource. He understands the nuances of ACC’s governance framework, and shares the history that underlies how things are now done and the lessons he learned over 20 successful years in this role. We get together pretty regularly, and Fred remains a trusted advisor. 

In this role, I am also sought out by others who are mid-career or just getting started. Last month, I met a wonderful group of law students at the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) Annual Meeting, which took place in Atlanta. Law students from all over the country, the vast majority of whom were of Asian heritage, were invited to participate in a program called “8 Minute Mentoring,” hosted by my former colleagues at MCCA. Although I am not Asian American, the group made me feel fully included and welcomed. If you aren't involved with NAPABA, you should really check them out. The students asked some tough questions about how to navigate their way through a very difficult time when job opportunities are scarce. I did my very best to offer them good advice. But imagine how gratifying it was to return to my office and receive a number of handwritten notes and emails to let me know that my time with them was valuable and appreciated.  

So, I am a big believer in the power of mentoring and invite you to experience it first-hand with the support of ACC, whether you are seeking a mentor or wish to offer to be a mentor to someone else. 

Fortunately, ACC is able to help with both needs –– the opportunity to be a mentor as well as to connect with a mentor.  ACC’s new mentoring program –– a peer-to-peer initiative designed to help you grow your career, while helping others advance theirs –– is has no formal requirements for participation. We only ask that mentors and mentees who are located in the same city meet for lunch three times a year, and that mentors be available to provide advice via phone when needed. Beyond this, mentors and mentees are free to contact each other as often as they like.

It’s easy to get started: Just login to the community platform and select the “Enroll as a Mentee” or “Enroll as a Mentor” tab to the left. Once you enroll, you can find mentors or mentees based on geographic location, industry or discipline!

To learn more about this program, visit http://community.acc.com/mentoring. Still have questions? Email membership@acc.com.

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

By Maggy Baccinelli

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. The voice, views and stories expressed in this series are of the author and are not ACC's.

Last week, as I walked into Acadiana restaurant for an event celebrating the newly published Courageous Counsel, I felt a twinge of nervousness. The book, written by Allstate Insurance’s GC Michele Coleman Mayes and SNR Denton Partner Kara Baysinger, documents in-depth, candid interviews with 50 current and former women general counsel at Fortune 500 companies. Some of them would be inside. But before I could think too hard, I was escorted straight to Michele and her group of colleagues. They welcomed me warmly into their discussion about dietary habits as we each passed on different samples of New Orleans-inspired hors d’oeuvres: Who eats fish but not meat; who eats meat but not dairy; and what’s this gluten-free thing all about anyway? I felt included. It was effortless.

It wasn’t until after the event that I realized how my brief experience showcased these women walking their talk. The event’s panel was similar to the lunch program at ACC’s Annual Meeting, featuring Kara as the moderator and Michele, but also included AIG General Counsel Stasia Kelly, who is the most quoted general counsel in the book. The women talked about Courageous Counsel, but they also touched on their own experiences. Many focused on using human interaction and inclusion to build business partner and colleague trust.

The women recalled interactions they learned most from. Michele drove home the importance of honesty and admitting when you don’t know it all. When she was hired from the outside for a former position over a non-lawyer who had been at the company for 15 years, Michele said: “I bee-lined it to her office. I said ‘I understand you should have gotten this job, but that wasn’t my decision, and I need your help to do this right’… We’ve been the best of friends for 25 years.”

Stasia said she’s built relationships by figuring out what people need, helping them get it, and then giving them all the credit. “It’s often unspoken; just understood,” she said. She learned the value of human interactions from her dad, a Boston cop. “He was a wise man and had the best people skills of anyone I’ve ever known. He’d talk and talk and talk about his day, and I’d sit there and listen. … I didn’t realize how much had rubbed off until later.”

Listening is the key to learning, but it’s not always easy. In fact, when asked to offer the more than 50 audience members one piece of advice each, Stasia said: “Keep your ears open, because you never know what you’re going to miss. Listen and be receptive.”

“Right,” Michele added. “You know when someone is telling you something, but instead of listening you’re playing that record in your head, like, ‘When is this person going to be quiet and let me tell them what’s right?’ Well there’s a quote I like that says, ‘We pretend to be listening when what we’re really doing is rearranging our prejudices.’”

Michele’s one piece of advice was that growth and comfort are incompatible. It’s a central theme of Courageous Counsel, because the only thing all the interviewed women have in common is their willingness to take risks, said Kara. “The other major lesson we learned is that there is no one path. We wondered if we would find a secret sauce, or a recipe for success, and there isn’t one.”

Before leaving Michele and Kara gave me a gracious goodbye, remembering my name and thanking me for coming while signing my book. They wrote: “Maggy, make your own path.” 

Click here to take home the lessons learned from some of the top women general counsel at this year's ACC annual meeting program. This program was moderated by Courageous Counsel co-author and partner at SNR Denton, Kara Sophia Baysinger.

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

Howie Wong is general counsel and corporate secretary at Toronto Community Housing, the largest landlord in Canada. Prior to joining Toronto Community Housing in 2005, Howie was a M&A lawyer for 19 years with Gowlings, a national Canadian law firm.

I paused at the hanging goblins and smiling jack-o’-lanterns in the lobby. Did I get off on the wrong floor and end up in a daycare? I looked at the lobby door again—“Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General”. Hmmm…this is the place, Malliha Wilson’s office.

Malliha Wilson is the chief litigator for the Province of Ontario. Her title is Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Legal Services Division, which means she oversees the Province’s internal law firm of over 900 staff. I recently sat down with her for a brief discussion on the topic of diversity.

Malliha comes from a family of public servants and lawyers. She has been a government lawyer for over 24 years. She rose swiftly through the ranks with stints as Legal Director, Ministry of Labour and Director of Crown Law Office Civil before her appointment 3 years ago to her current position. She loves being a litigator, and still logs a third of her time duking it out in court.   

When she first started with the Ontario public service in 1987, there were few diverse lawyers (and obviously no diversity programs!). Malliha attributes her success to hard work and a collegial environment second to none. “I was by far the youngest lawyer in my group. I worked hard, but was also treated so well. It was a nurturing culture where senior lawyers mentored and trained young lawyers. I spoke my mind, but, that never deterred my bosses from giving me the best legal work available anywhere.”

She continues, “Due to our size now, we have to be much more structured in our mentoring and training. A manager is designated to oversee diversity—although, we don’t keep diversity stats.” When seeking new lawyers, the Province casts its net wide advertising in all diverse communities and the law schools.

“The key touch stone in our hiring is equal opportunity and access” Malliha is crystal clear about affirmative action and hiring quotas. “I don’t believe in them. Applicants should get in solely on merit and ability.” In particular, she doesn’t think diversity should be a consideration in hiring. 

To which I responded with my two cents on the sticky subject, by saying, it’s not fair to say diversity shouldn’t be a hiring factor. Barrier free hiring isn’t good enough. It’s a jungle out there and we need diversity to level the playing field.

Silence. 

The Province’s chief litigator sat for a moment before taking a deep breath and replying,

"Government lawyers are governed by the same business principles as the private sector. There is a direct correlation between value added quality legal services and getting paid. Candidates should be evaluated on their merits. Diversity can't be the only factor; otherwise it isn't sustainable for either the lawyer or government.” 

Whoa! I quickly change the subject to hanging goblins and elicited a smile from Malliha.

• 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.

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

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

Part II. 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 an HP staff member, Susan Goodhue. Susan is Vice President and Associate General Counsel, IP Transactions in HP’s IP and IP Licensing Group. She leads a team of thirty IP transactional attorneys in the US, Europe and Asia. 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 II: Integrating into the HP Legal Team

Rewind to September 1, 2010. Two weeks earlier I joined Hewlett-Packard to lead a team of Intellectual Property transactional attorneys who provide IP counsel to HP’s businesses. My team is one of the practice groups in the larger IP Group at HP. Joining my team in HP’s inaugural New Attorney Graduate Program was Gail Su, a newly minted attorney right out of Harvard Law School. 

I had, in the past, mentored and developed many new attorneys in both private practice and in-house. With Gail, I had been entrusted with both a tremendous responsibility to nurture an obviously smart and nascent talent, as well as an opportunity to develop an attorney who could learn to appreciate the critical nexus of law and business, while providing practical, solution focused legal counsel.

At HP, Gail benefitted from what previous companies had not afforded me—the framework and support of a new attorney program. New attorneys receive training about the company, including: what Investor Relations does; how HP analyzes its competition; the structure of the legal department (who does what); and about substantive legal areas, such as antitrust and privacy. In addition, the program includes training in contract drafting; negotiation, speaking and presentation skills; and solution-focused counseling.

Because the new attorney program took care of much of Gail’s foundational training in her early days at HP, it enabled her to hit the ground running; it also freed me and my team to focus on integrating her into our group. Included in the annual goals of each attorney on my team was a requirement to work with Gail on at least one project. This served two purposes. First, Gail became acquainted with the team members. Second, she observed the practice and negotiation styles of different attorneys––developing a personal legal style consistent with his or her personality is critical for any new attorney. Therefore, observing other attorneys and “trying on” different approaches helps. 

The program also requires that new attorneys receive practical experience in research and writing, contract drafting, M&A due diligence and executive presentation. Within the first six months of joining our practice group Gail had completed all requirements. In addition, because Gail expressed an early interest in patent prosecution and is a member of the patent bar, she was able to spend a portion of her time learning to write patent applications.     

Fast forward to June 2011: Gail is now a fully integrated, key contributor on my team and a member of a sub team that provides IP counsel to the Personal Systems Group (PSG). PSG develops and markets business and consumer computers and mobile computing devices, including Palm® products. Supporting PSG provides Gail direct contact with business clients and their real world issues where she can, with the ongoing support of my team and I, continue to develop as a pragmatic, business-oriented attorney. Gail is off to a great start to what we hope will be a long career with the HP Legal department. 

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

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.

• 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

May 1 offers lawyers an opportunity to reflect on what the law “means” to each of us, those we serve, and the larger interests of society.  Law Day in the US often includes ceremonial celebrations, recommitment to the highest values of our profession and public service (and yes, even bar association missives on the importance of what we do).  

But really, do you care?  You’re very busy, and nothing that happens on Law Day really changes anything about the way you work or the challenges you face or the likelihood that you’ll make it home in time for dinner.  But I predict that what happened in the last several months and what is coming in the next year will impact all of these concerns and more. Are you ready?

At ACC, we can see seismic and fundamental change penetrating the “business model” governing the relationship between in-house and outside counsel. Perhaps the impact of these changes are still simmering below the surface in your office, and you may feel confident that after a tumultuous 2009, things may be heading back to “normal” in 2010 (and we can all revert to business as usual) or perhaps the pot that holds your workload and concerns is boiling over and you’re seeing that something, indeed, many things, are likely to give in the next year.   I predict that regardless of which group you fall into, by May 1, 2011, the way we practice law in-house, and the way our firms serve their clients will have transformed in significant ways, changing from a focus on law firm profit-per-partner, to a focus on value and client satisfaction.  While the shift — like any change — will be hard and will subject us all to risks and discomforts many would prefer to avoid, the result could drastically improve our client’s outcomes and lawyer career paths, job satisfaction, and productivity.  

So here’s the question I ask you to join me in answering on Law Day 2010:

What needs to happen in the next 12 months, either in-house or in outside firm practice (or both), for your practice, your client’s legal outcomes, or your ability to serve your client to improve?

I urge you to use the “Comment” button at the bottom of this post to answer the above question. Your thoughts and answers are valuable to ACC and you can also read your fellow members’ responses to benchmark your own thoughts. And after you’ve answered, please take a moment to reflect on what your answer suggests you need to do to help make change happen.  Will you make the path by walking?  Your decision to drive the future of our profession is one of the most worthy pursuits you can undertake today.

Remember: The best way you honor our profession is by being an active participant in it – it’s up to you: DRIVE CHANGE. DRIVE IMPROVEMENT. DRIVE VALUE.

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

The recent volcano that brought air travel to a standstill erupted just as I was finishing a European General Counsel Roundtable in London that focused on “Managing the Global Legal Function in the Midst of Change.” If you are on Twitter, you can see some of my insights here.  From the Roundtable, it became very clear that in-house counsel face the same issues around the world – they just develop different solutions or approaches depending on their particular circumstances.

In the midst of change, the world seemed to come to a halt. As the air travel stoppage continued, it became all about making lemonade from lemons. On the one hand, it was very inconvenient to be here in London for an unplanned six days. Yet, I am reminded that this is one of the great cities in the world and that there are much worse places to be stuck.  
 
Everyone I have encountered during this extraordinary situation has had a great attitude.  As the week wore on, you could sense growing frustration. And, great relief when they opened the airports.  Everywhere you go there are people with their disruptive volcano stories – most of the news here in London is filled with stories about travelers trying to return to UK – remarkable efforts such as hiring taxis or cars and driving from Milan, Prague or even Norway to the channel ports. Gordon Brown (UK PM) who is in a tough reelection fight here sent some ships from the Royal Navy to pick up some folks in Spain.  During this period, it has been interesting to watch the news about the UK election campaign and to compare it to the U.S.  They had their first debate ever among the 3 candidates; they have 2 more planned. There is substantial publicity about the rise of the Liberal Democrat candidate at the expense of the Tories and Labor.
 
The time in London gave us the opportunity to meet with members, including Cheryl Solomon, a UK country rep and Dan Fitz, the former ACC chair. We also had the chance to meet with people at ILO, who graciously provided us with computers and office space that made our time here more productive. We also met with vendors and consultants based in London.

I also took some time to enjoy London. On Sunday, I went to the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace – nobody does pageantry like the British. There was a brief concert as part of the ceremony and the band played a medley from Chicago and “For Once in My Life,” the Stevie Wonder hit, which seemed a bit out of place!
 
Finally, this volcano time-out afforded me the time to reflect on the importance of members and volunteer leaders who contribute to ACC.  In the U.S., it is National Volunteer Week and I am reminded so often that the strength of our association comes from the commitment and contributions our ACC board, committee and chapter leaders and ACC Docket authors make.  

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

Last week, I moderated a General Counsel Roundtable at Georgetown University’s Corporate Counsel Institute, an annual gathering attended by both in-house counsel and outside counsel from around the country.  During our panel, top General Counsel from different industries addressed both the challenges they face and elaborated on some of their success stories.  The underlying theme of the roundtable focused on doing more with less, more efficiently, and with a more business-oriented focus.  I was joined at the event by four General Counsel, each managing their own unique law department: 1) Walter Bardenwerper, Vice President & General Counsel at Watson Wyatt Worldwide 2) Robert Bostrom, Executive Vice President & General Counsel at Freddie Mac 3) Manik Rath, Vice President & General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, Logistics Management Institute and 4) Louis Briskman, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of CBS Corporation.    

Contrary to traditional perceptions, attorneys are not just involved to thwart risk and say “no” to every new idea but rather are fully engaged in the business objectives and can objectively assess potential obstacles.  Manik Rath, GC at Logistics Management Institute reiterated this notion, as he made the case that in-house counsel are uniquely situated to provide strategic insights to help business units prevent problems and add value to their projects.  He has his in-house counsel sit on many committees at the company, not just for legal activities but also for business purposes.  He wants his attorneys to understand the core business and to bring their legal tool kit to these activities to share their thinking and perspectives with other units.

All of the participants acknowledged an ongoing emphasis on cost-savings, as their law department budgets continue to shrink.  To address this reality, Robert Bostrom at Freddie Mac has responded by bringing more work in-house and by reallocating budget to hire contract attorneys in certain instances.  In leveraging its relationship with its outside counsel, one of Freddie Mac’s law firm’s has seconded three attorneys, on salary from the firm, to work on-site at Freddie Mac at no charge to the client as a way of remaining experts in the client’s business even during a downturn.  This farsighted approach provides Freddie Mac with a cost saving service while the outside counsel gains knowledge and understanding of the clients business that should bring future benefits to the firm as well as the client should the economy and client’s budget improve.

Walter Bardenwerper, like many GCs, has taken a fresh approach to Watson Wyatt’s relationship with outside counsel. His law department has started to look to mid-tier and smaller markets for counsel instead of going to the traditionally more expensive firms located in big cities.  Often partners in smaller offices can perform the work needed at almost half the price, with just as much expertise. In addition to the search for quality less expensive legal services, the panel agreed that alternative billing is a consideration but as Lou Briskman (from CBS) said, there is no one-size-fits all for outside legal work.

To search for outside counsel, ACC’s Value Index, a tool for in-house counsel to review law firms and share evaluations, was mentioned as one method.  Other methods mentioned to find a good outside firm are at conferences, where speakers demonstrate their expertise and through referrals and word-of-mouth.

Finally, one of the most effective tools these GCs found in terms of law department success was educating others in their own company about the metrics of success coming from the legal department.  While in the past, preventing legal action has been a challenging benefit to quantify, GCs are now taking the time to collect data to promote their department in terms of proactive business contributions. When Robert Bostrom was asked by a key executive, “What are all of these lawyers doing?,” he instigated a quarterly report presenting specific data on his legal staff’s results – such as number of loans completed, number of board meetings attended, number of documents produced – all of which helped his executives see in hard metrics what they had accomplished. This type of proactive reporting out was embraced by all four participants.

My own takeaway from this discussion is that in-house counsel, now more than ever need to adopt a business approach to their legal work. They must proactively represent themselves -- their business as well as legal acumen -- within their own companies.  In this way, even under the constraints of increasing workload with a reduced budget, they will become true strategic partners with their in-house colleagues and outside firms and will be well-positioned to succeed regardless of when the global economy rebounds. 

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

The ACC Value Index (AVI) is a tool meant to inform in-house counsel decisions as part of a larger process of selecting and retaining a law firm. The AVI is a searchable database for in-house counsel to share subjective evaluations of the firms they engage.  It is key to note that this is a process that already takes place naturally among in-house counsel who often seek their colleagues opinions on firms that offer good value.  The Value Index builds upon this tradition by encouraging in-house counsel to contact or “ping” other evaluators to discuss the firm’s work in greater detail.

As we begin the process of rolling out law firm access to certain information in the Value Index this week, I want to take a moment to outline the who/what/when/where/how and why underlying this process.

Who – Access is being offered to law firms evaluated in the ACC Value Index since its October 2009 launch.

What – Each evaluated law firm will be able to access aggregated results pertaining to that firm.  This includes average scores for that firm by criterion, office location and matter type.  The firms will also receive overall Value Index averages for benchmarking purposes. Here’s an example of what a law firm would see:

When -- Starting today, February 3, 2010, through the foreseeable future.

Where – Access to the information will be available to law firms through an online portal on ACC’s Web site using the protocols below. 

How – Here are the key steps for law firms to gain access to the AVI information:
1.    Firm management decides who in the firm will manage the AVI access to the firm’s results.
2.    The firm representative who will serve as the “administrator” on behalf of the firm goes to the AVI Law Firm Access Portal at: http://www.acc.com/valuechallenge/valueindex/lawfirms to obtain administrator access.
3.    The administrator can then view the firm’s AVI results anytime and share them within the firm.

Why – As I wrote on this blog last October during the ACC Value Index launch, coinciding with the overarching goal of the ACC Value Challenge – information gleaned from the AVI will help to foster a greater dialog between clients and their outside counsel.

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.
 

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

In Susan Hackett’s blog on the Textron case she states that the privilege is under attack. Let me suggest, at the risk of inspiring disagreement from Steve Bokat, that what is really under attack is the notion that in-house counsel is really practicing law. Susan says as much:

Can anyone out there honestly believe that this case would have been so decided or made it to the US Supreme Court as an ongoing debate if the lawyer providing the advice was an outside lawyer and not an in-house lawyer?

(emphasis added)

You see, if we win we will not have won the debate and the debate will continue because the very brief ACC filed in the Supreme Court undercuts our position. Did I read the brief? No. How can I make such a claim then— because I read what counted— the signature line— and looked at who was Counsel of Record and it was not in-house counsel. And even though Susan was key to the preparation of the brief at the Supreme Court, no one will believe it. If Textron’s in-house counsel was Counsel of Record, Susan’s role would be perceived differently.

The First Circuit opinion is worth a read because it is clear that they did not believe that there was serious anticipation of litigation—the unwritten reason because if you had you had brought in your real trial lawyers—in their mind just routine stuff was going on. Not only is Susan right the result would have been different if it was outside counsel; it would, I suggest, also have been different if Textron in-house lawyers had argued the case.

The other reason we cannot win in court is because this debate has been going on for as long as I have been in the practice of law; I have heard it in my company when business people make comments about who are the real lawyers. And it is a debate that has been going on in ACC since the very beginning—do we do it ourselves or do we let outside counsel do it—those lawyers out there who are always willing to lend a helping hand, but at a cost whether you want to admit it or not. When they co-author an article in the Docket, no one really believes the in-house lawyer really had anything to do with it whether she did or not.

We have a serious image problem and the first step to fixing it is not a favorable decision by the Supreme Court, it is to admit it is there. The second step—is to go on the wagon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ACC filed an amicus with the US Supreme Court on January 27, 2010 in the Textron case. This is the third brief we've filed in this matter as it's cut a tortuous path through the appeals and circuit courts; the press release we issued recounts it all for those inclined to read it.

The case is about whether the attorney work product doctrine extends to the protections of an in-house lawyers' internal analysis and notes regarding a proposed tax position the company was considering and that the IRS eventually challenged. This case, and I've done many of them for ACC, makes me so hoppin' mad that I decided I needed to share my pain with all of you. (You're welcome.)

Let's remember that attorney-client privilege protects the client's right to confidentiality of  communications with their lawyers. It protects the conversation, the request for advice, and the delivery of the advice by the lawyer. Work product doctrine is an offshoot of privilege, but not the same thing: it protects the attorney's mental impressions and analysis, and is limited to protecting that which the attorney works on that was prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Way back in the dark ages when the US Supreme Court defined the concept of work product protections in Hickman, the concept of "in anticipation of litigation" was perhaps narrower. Most companies didn't have in-house legal staffs and not much work was done in the field of preventive law or compliance practice by firms or departments, in part because there wasn't so much regulation to comply with, and in part because companies didn't need to call a lawyer until someone sued them. But courts from the Supremes on down have broadened the parameters of work product protection as the complexity of corporate legal practice has expanded: recognizing the important role that lawyers play in helping their clients navigate regulation and a litigious world, and knowing that companies should make decisions on a daily basis with litigation and risk avoidance in mind, courts in every circuit have issued opinions recognizing that lawyers not only do, but should be working 24/7 in anticipation of litigation, even if the case has not yet or hopefully may never be filed.

In today's world, pretty much everything an in-house counsel does is in preparation for real or potential litigation.

So for the First Circuit opinion to suggest that an in-house lawyer analyzing the risk and best practices his client must consider when adopting this or that tax position isn't acting in anticipation of litigation but rather is just some kind of business-not-legal number-cruncher is just silly. It ignores reality. And the public policy implications for lawyers and clients (as well as the stakeholders who rely on the company's legal health) are dire. Read the brief if you don't understand why. And for those of you who already get it: time to get mad.

Can anyone out there honestly believe that this case would have been so decided or would have made it to the US Supreme Court as an ongoing debate if the lawyer providing that analysis was an outside counsel and not the in-house lawyer? Do you think that the IRS would have subpoenaed the XYZ AmLaw 50 New York firm partner to produce his files containing his legal and risk analysis of the tax position being considered by his client at Textron? Of course not. The IRS issued document requests for the company, and the in-house lawyers files were examined as part of that process: that which could be produced was, and that which was lawyer-client privileged or attorney work product protected was not. The court's decision to discount any protection for the in-house lawyer's work product shows that they are laboring under the misguided belief that in-house lawyers somehow aren't really lawyers, but some kind of non-objective, non-professional, quasi-business functionaries who don't quite qualify for the same status and protection we would afford to outside counsel at firms.

While I recognize that many in-house counsel are extremely business savvy and have provided increased value to their clients by approaching their legal practice with an institutional and deep knowledge of the company and business which is their client, and that indeed, some in-house lawyers carry responsibilities in their job that aren't legal, that’s not what’s relevant here when discussing these attorneys' legal work papers and analysis. The fact that they deeply understand their client doesn't mean that in-house counsel are not lawyers or that their work product isn't just as clearly worth protecting as the work product of lawyers in outside firms. Most outside counsel I know spend a lot of time and energy trying to assure everyone who will listen that they are business savvy and able to help their clients fulfill business needs as an "institutional" member of the client company team. This is simply a surreal conversation to be having if you're an in-house lawyer in the 21st century.

Many of you have (been unfortunate enough to have) heard me deliver my "privilege is under attack" speech or have read my previous diatribes; maybe you've followed and recognized ACC's highly focused and very successful efforts at pushing back abuses by prosecutors and regulators of corporate rights to assert the privilege when under investigation; perhaps you recently joined us in demanding protections for the risk analysis that lawyers provide to their finance folks in setting litigation reserves, which is under attack by the FASB folks looking to revise FAS 5: all of those efforts, crucial as they are, pale next to the implications of this case. This is an attack on the most fundamental premises of a lawyer's value and work product: the ability of a lawyer to analyze the facts and the law to develop the guidance that clients need to do the right thing. And if this doesn't get fixed, your work product is about to become Exhibit A in your adversary's brief. Get on board, corporate legal community, and get involved! Your rights as a lawyer, your client's rights to confidential counsel, and the very underpinnings of value in your client relationships are at stake.

Contact me at hackett@acc.com

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

As we enter 2010, many law departments and law firms are still reeling from the tumultuous paradigm shifts of 2009, and working to bring order to the budget and staffing chaos of the last several months.  If 2009 was the year we all scrambled just to get it done for less and with fewer hands on deck, 2010 will either be the year that we all go back to doing things the way we did before, or we decide we’re going to implement practical changes in the way we work together that that will improve the management of our relationships and the predictability of our costs going forward.  

While it’s easy to sink back into familiar habits, I don’t know anyone on the client side who is eager to tell their management they’d like to re-institute higher fees typical of the “Golden Age of Law Firm Profitability,” forego new opportunities that were successful in lowering or better managing costs for a number of departments and firms, and return to the unpredictable budget and soaring costs we all abhorred.  As you gird yourself for the work of re-inventing and then cementing new ways to work going forward, here are 5 ideas for relationship managers in both firms and departments to consider.

1. Assess the State of Your Union and Meet.Talk.Act:  Outside the heat of any particular retention or matter and with your best firms (you shouldn’t try this with everyone before you try it with 3 or so strong relationships and get better at the process):  sit down and Meet.Talk.Act.   Talk openly and without reproach about how your relationship can improve in terms of budgeting practices; metrics, goals or targets you’d like to set and targets to process efficiencies you’d like to examine; knowledge management systems you might adopt; performance feedback mechanisms you could adopt to drive continuous improvement and team engagement; new ideas for staffing and fee structures; in short, better ways to institutionalize the relationship to create sustainable profitability for the firm and seamless value-based service at a predictable cost for the client.   

While there will likely be unique ideas or concerns to address with separate clients, matters or firms, the point is to begin a process that’s not just based on evaluating the relationship one experience at a time, but looks instead at universal “truths” affecting the entire relationship and every matter.  And I strongly encourage you to make lists of things you’ll attack immediately and things to work on over time: it’s often too hard to do it all at once, so adopt a realistic and ongoing process to make sure you get it right and folks see how they can succeed; there’ little merit in doing it stupider faster.  

Just choose some things to do now and get started before the window of acceptable experimentation closes.

2. For both new and existing matter types, do the hard work up front:  Do your “relationship” work in defining scope, expectations, staffing and fee structures and such before the legal work begins:  don’t begin work without an mutual understanding of what is and what is not acceptable and “valued” in a matter.   It’s too easy for busy people to look at the pile-up on their desk and simply “throw it over the wall” to whomever is going to work on it, without making sure that everyone agrees to and understands the client’s fee expectations and ultimate goals and expectations.  (And since the client itself usually doesn’t know what its specific goals/expectations should be for any matter, that’s something you’re going to need to help define, too.)  

Scoping work early on is necessary to avoid the problem of spending large amounts of unproductive and even relationship-damaging time managing the bill after the work begins.  While you can always amend your budgets or work plans as the project unfolds, be as specific and detailed as possible at the start, and then save your time and money by unleashing the team members to do their work within the defined parameters – it’s now their responsibility to do so or to propose needed amendments.  

For folks at firms, try to define what is not covered by the retention’s terms and safety valves for unanticipated (but not unimaginable) exigencies since the goal of up-front scoping is to get in-house counsel out of micromanaging and you best positioned to succeed in delivering what you’ve promised.  

Both firms and departments may wish to invest in creating standardized decision trees, process maps, or project management plans for different kinds of work that their clients repeatedly experience, and then reap the benefits of simply adapting or customizing these “form” documents to the specific needs of every new matter that lands in front of you.   You will now clearly see which work is operational and which is the “norm” that falls within understood processes and parameters (that’s not to say all such cases are not important, just not unusual), and you will be able to focus on cases that truly are different or present new strategic challenges.  

Final note:  Make sure you talk about more than fees and timing when setting up your scopes: discuss staffing options, what kind of expertise is needed, what knowledge can be recycled from other work, what new processes might improve the workflow, where non-lawyers can help, etc., since the savings from good advance planning in those areas may be greater than that realized in any other cost-related discussion.

3. Change management is all about the people, not just the process: The most important role you play as a relationship manager is understanding that you can manage processes, but you don’t “manage” people:  you lead them.  EVERY member of the team – inside the department and inside the firm – must understand what the relationship managers agreed the work is worth, how it should be done, and how it is that the value of the product the team produces will be judged since you can’t lead them and they can’t follow you unless the direction is shared.  Change is the hardest part of the process as we look to move toward more efficient or alternative models from those we know.  

Remember: people don’t like to change (especially lawyers) … it’s hard work to change (and easier to do the same things, even failed things, over and over) … there’s always risk in new or untried methods … it may be unclear if those who change will be rewarded, and there’s usually evidence that those who simply keep their head down are “safer.”  So make the path clear and unambiguous; communicate about what you’re doing with everyone who touches the work, and make change requirements applicable to everyone; enforce the consequences of non-compliance evenly (or apply the rewards of success visibly).  To succeed in changing practices, an agreement between two relationship managers to go a new route will not suffice; it must be the first step in a conversation that each team leader takes to every member of their staff and then leads them to succeed in implementing.

4. Define goals and set measurable targets and timelines:  Related to this, set targets and goals for matters and people involved in the process (both in the firm and department). Then, measure performance and tie compensation/fees and evaluation to performance-to-goals.  If goals and targets are institutionalized, if they include both long-term and short-term measurements and steps, and if they are discussed in advance and frequently reviewed, then the evaluation of performance-to-goals is not as personal or mysterious (but rather, is simply institutional), it’s more approachable and manageable, and will not be as easily excused by a never-ending list of special circumstances to explain away this or that failure or deviation.  

No one likes to do performance evaluations – but making them the norm for everyone and a part of the process of working on every matter actually makes them easier and better (as well as more “impactful”).  And you shouldn’t be the only one responsible for them; spread the accountability throughout your ranks.  Finally, both inside and outside counsel should be subject to the same evaluation processes, even if their goals and targets are different.  The ACC Value Index is also a tool you can use to see how other clients evaluate the overall performance of their outside firms to compare how your firms stack up or look for firms that have excelled where your may not.

5. Support the development of (and experimentation with) new skill sets and flexible toolkits:  Every firm and department needs a flexible tool kit that allows them to consider a variety of options for how any particular matter or group of matters is accomplished.  Some tools may focus on speed of delivery, some on process and improved efficiency, some on cost effectiveness (both in terms of predictability or lowering costs).  There should be no presumed “default” mode for doing work unless that is a decision for a kind of work that the department has made and wishes to implement going forward.  Once a decision is made that allows the firm and department to select the best method by which to handle a matter (fee structure, alternative staffing, etc.) that creates an alignment and balancing of interests, then clients need to allow firms to profit if they do well (and not ask them to return a windfall when they’ve assumed a risk and “won”), and firms need to get comfortable with the risk that sometimes they’ll swallow the occasional matter that does not return their costs in pursuit of long-term profitability from the relationship.  

You will not find value in any relationship founded on a one-off mentality, or by seeking to own one-sided leverage in every matter.  If your philosophy is “heads I win, tails you lose,” you are not a partner in a relationship, and you will not enjoy the benefits of a long-term commitment.  Indeed, think of your relationship as a marriage, wherein occasional losses or failures are offset by the benefits of an institutionalized, trusted and alignment with people you like to work with who share not only your daily work, but your goals.  In such a marriage, the firm can plan to be profitable, train its younger lawyers and derive a satisfying portfolio of work; the client has the confidence of trusted counsel that returns predictable, cost-effective results and doesn’t need to be micromanaged.  Value relationships require clients to incent and reward firms to profit by making it their business imperative to maximize efficiency, focus on results through great staffing decisions, institute transparent and meaningful knowledge management techniques, and improve internal process management.  This is the essence of client/firm alignment.
 
Bonus Fundamental:  Transparency and accountability are requirements for the personal integrity of relationship managers.   The in-house manager must learn to tell his trusted relationship partner what the matter is worth to the company without games, and the firm relationship manager must be willing to stake her reputation not just on the advice she gives and the results she delivers, but the accountability of the firm to do the best it can for the most reasonable price.  Firms that get really good at process management and staffing decisions (it’s presumed that they’ll practice great law!) will have totally transparent costs that they will happily and openly shared with trusted clients; clients must not “punish” them for that transparency (especially since there are still so many firms that don’t make the commitment to improved efficiency are nonetheless rewarded with less scrutinized business practices and heftier profit margins).   

There are still some lawyers in some firms who do not yet realize that when the bubble burst in 2009, it burst in part because law firm profitability expectations in many big firms were far too often unsustainable, if not ridiculous.  Likewise, corporate counsel must respect that fact that the firm needs the incentive of profiting in return for its improved efficiency and value.  The “new” aligned relationship is not a zero sum game -- all boats will rise when the focus is on delivering great value and results for the end-client.

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

Leadership, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Sure there are plenty of definitions and many a book has been written and speech given on the subject, but when you ask people, what leadership means to them, you’ll get an assortment of responses.  A recent quick poll of lawyers and others in the legal industry via email and Twitter resulted in the following (140 character) thoughts:

Leadership is …

“Providing direction, setting priorities and creating an atmosphere where people want to follow,” Fred Krebs, President of the Association of Corporate Counsel

“Anticipating, listening, deciding, communicating,” Patricia R. Hatler, ACC Board Chair and Executive Vice President, Chief Legal and Governance Officer at Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

“A vision of the future, persuading key players to share your view, making sure every decision furthers that view,” Patrick Lamb, partner with Chicago litigation firm Valorem Law Group.

“Doing the right thing even when it's unpopular or unconventional. Especially when.”  Jay Shepherd, attorney with the Shepherd Law Group

"Vision, creativity and perseverance. Trend-setting is NOT the same.” Glenn Manishin, partner with the international law firm of Duane Morris LLP

“Assessing priorities to set a vision, then inspiring others to achieve that shared vision through their own creativity and skills,” Timothy Corcoran, Senior Consultant with Altman Weil.

While similar traits are repeated, it’s often the actions that define a true leader and not the words. Like other subjective categories that lack clearly defined parameters, when speaking of great leadership we can cull from a famous phrase in Supreme Court history and say “I’ll know it when I see it.”

The pressure to “lead” has never been so strong and as everyone tries to keep up with the changes taking place, strong leadership will be the catalyst for long-term growth, stability and success.  Lawyers (both in-house and at law firms), too, are faced with these same pressures - to “do more with less” and to make their practices more efficient while still growing the bottom line.  Overcoming the obstacles and being able to lead so that, as Krebs pointed out, “people want to follow,” will be key to their survival.

But what’s a lawyer to do to stand out from the pack? How will the drive toward being a great leader engender buy-in and lead to success?  Have you assessed your own leadership skills lately?  Are you prepared for the challenges ahead? 

Several sessions during ACC’s Annual Meeting in Boston addressed the issue of leadership, and what struck me was the interesting parallel between effective leadership today versus examples from the past.  Ivan Fong, General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, shared his thoughts in relation to modern-day leadership, while Pulitzer Prize winning author, Doris Kearns Goodwin, offered an historical view of leadership as illuminated in her latest book, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.” The common thread with both was their emphasis on the importance of personal relationships – of caring and listening and a commitment to character - that set true leaders apart. 

At the heart of “Team of Rivals,” was Lincoln’s ability to “bring people together” and his success, as Goodwin explained, was “the result of a character that had been forged by experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals.”  Those around him would be hard-pressed to be mad at Lincoln, because inevitably, his power, his charm and his intelligence would bring people around, to be an ally. In some instances, this means taking charge, by letting go.

If you are, or have been, in a leadership role, then chances are you have had to deal with people who might not agree with your decisions.  Great leaders don’t lead by trying to make everyone happy. Instead, they bring them into the process.  As Harvard’s president, Drew Gilpin Faust, aptly pointed out in a recent New York Times interview, “if people feel they were listened to, that their views were taken into account, that they had a chance to show you the world from their point of view, they’re going to be much more likely to go along with a decision.” 

The ability to engender trust, Fong explained, was at the core of being not only a good lawyer, but also an effective leader.  Specifically, “The hallmarks of being a good lawyer – the foundations on which everything is based – are the quality of the legal analysis, integrity, responsiveness, sound judgment and the ability to be a trusted advisor, all of which translate well into the public sector.”

In discussing “leadership imperatives,” Fong emphasized the importance of “beginning with the end in mind” and articulating a clear vision and compelling purpose for the organization.  A team, to be effective, needs to have a common understanding of “Why do we exist?  Where are we going?  And how are we going to get there?”  The shared mission, vision, and strategy, Fong explained, helps to inspire trust and engagement.  Regaling the possibly apocryphal story of a General’s encounter with a janitor in the halls of NASA during the 60’s, Fong explained that when the General asked the janitor what he was doing, the janitor replied, “I’m helping to send a man to the moon.”  A leader’s ability to communicate a compelling purpose – a shared vision – can inspire the entire organization to be right there with you.

Fong, like Lincoln, embraced the notion of “meeting people where they are,” of putting himself in the place of others and listening to those around him. By meeting regularly with his staff, learning about the processes already in place and gleaning insight from his direct reports, he has been able to set an agenda and establish clearly defined goals. “It’s not about working harder, longer hours,” Fong explained, “it’s also about stepping back and looking at how we do what we do and how can we stop doing things that no longer provide value.”

Using the example of a marathon, where the early runners cross the finish line before others even begin, Fong illustrated the importance of going back and putting yourself in the position of someone at the beginning of the race. Communication, another leadership imperative, can’t be emphasized enough in this regard. It’s vital for successful execution; and every organization needs it.

Goodwin, in describing Lincoln, believed one of the best indicators of a good leader was, “being able to motivate during frustration,” and in harmony with this sentiment, Fong noted, "You can tell the health of an organization by the quality of its arguments.”  These traits - overcoming obstacles and being able to lead in the midst of conflict - are vital for today’s leaders. The ability to ride out the economic waves of uncertainty, while maintaining control and respect, will propel the great leaders ahead.

Challenges, as Fong described, are where “what you do know and what you don’t know intersect.”  As a leader, you are tasked with uncovering the known and unknown and then tapping into the wisdom of those around you to help get the job done. Fong recalled his “A-Ha” moment when he realized that, while he couldn’t personally manage and lead all 1700 lawyers in his department, he could lead those lawyers within the top one or two layers, and influence their own leadership abilities.

Whether it’s gleaning insight from Fong or relishing Goodwin’s historical retrospective on Lincoln, much can be gleaned from the great leaders of today and those of the past.  Each of you will have your own style and approach, but ultimately, it will be your ability to connect with those around you - to engender trust and respect - that will be key to your own personal success as a leader. 

As you evaluate your own leadership traits, ask yourself if you are applying successful principles from the past for effective leadership today.  Specifically:

1. Are you fostering an environment of teamwork?

2. Are you addressing those that disagree with you in a way that leads to mutual understanding and buy-in?

3. Are you communicating a plan (your vision) effectively?

4. Are you evaluating processes and identifying opportunities for better alignment and efficiency?

5. Are you putting others’ interests ahead of your own?

6. Are you praising others for their contributions?

7. Are you treating everyone – at all levels – with the same respect?

8. Are you paying attention to suggestions & facilitating implementation?

9. Are you demonstrating trust, honesty and integrity?

10. Are you able to take charge by letting go?

Remember, leadership is in the eye of the beholder, and it will be the feedback and opinions of those around you that really matter. As someone that has had the privilege of getting to know Fong on a personal level, I can attest to his uncanny ability to engender trust and buy-in from those around him. Fong’s remarkable compassion, inherent interest and ability to lead in a collaborative environment are great qualities we can all learn from. And, as I have observed from my own interaction with Fong, when I encountered this great leader, “I knew it when I saw it.”

###

Susan E. Jacobsen, President of LUV2XLPR, Inc., has over 15 years of experience assisting in-house counsel, law firm attorneys and corporate executives with strategic communications initiatives.

• 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

 Each year, as ACC’s Annual Meeting concludes, I’m always struck by the interesting and substantive new information I discover.  Inevitably, people say things - or I observe or participate in events - that leave me with much to think about.  This was my 18^th annual meeting and it was no different. Throughout our time in Boston, I continually encountered such instances among our 2400⁺ attendees that, I believe, contributed to the success of this gathering of in-house counsel from around the world.  

Leadership, education, collaboration, support, relationships and value, all contributed to a successful conference, which I tried to capture in these Random Observations…

·        As she shared her lifetime of studying and writing about great leaders, Pulitzer Prize winning author, Doris Kearns Goodwin, presented a captivating tale of personal observations and what we could learn from the great leaders she had studied. I, like everyone in the room, hung onto her every word and was drawn into her uncanny ability to “tell a story” and describe the research that went into her book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.  So much of what she discussed about the politicians and historical figures translated seamlessly to the legal community.

“Lincoln’s success was the result of a character that had been forged by life experiences that raised him above his more privileged and accomplished rivals.”

“The best indicators of a good leader – being able to motivate during frustration.”

~ Doris Kearns Goodwin, Pulitzer Prize Author

 ACC’s 2009 Annual Meeting Keynote Speaker

I say without hesitation—read this or any other book she has written!

·        Ivan Fong, former ACC Board Chair, who recently became General Counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, provided a captivating account of his transition to the public sector, with particular emphasis on the qualities of effective leadership.  His candor and honesty were both insightful, as well as refreshing to hear, in light of his high-profile role with the third largest government agency.

“The hallmarks of being a good lawyer – the foundations on which everything is based – are the quality of the legal analysis, responsiveness, sound judgment and the ability to be a trusted advisor, all of which translate well into the public sector.”

"You can tell the health of an organization by the quality of its arguments.”

~ Ivan Fong, General Counsel of U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Chair’s Choice: A View from the Frontlines

·        Earlier this year, we were saddened to learn of the passing of Robert Banks, Sr., an extraordinary in house counsel for Xerox and the leading founder of ACC. He gave us a great gift and he gave us all an organization that permits us to change and improve our profession and ourselves.  

“For his beliefs and advocacy, we all owe Bob an immense debt of gratitude.”

~ Carl D. Liggio

Founder and 1984 ACC Board Chair

Because of his unyielding support of ACC, it is only fitting that we honor Bob with the ACC Robert Banks Memorial Scholarship Fund, starting in 2010. This scholarship will help support those members who are in transition or need additional support to attend future Annual Meetings.

·       During an engaging discussion of CLOs, opinions were exchanged and suggestions were offered, and I was intrigued by the frankness and insight offered.  Much of the discussion related to the changes occurring among in-house counsel and their relationships with their outside lawyers and the billable hour.  Unlike similar discussions of the past, where everyone just cited problems, here, the CLOs offered tangible solutions and discussed what they have begun to implement to help affect change.

“Meet. Talk. Act. – from the ACC Value Challenge – gives us all a good framework to use … we need to get together with our outside counsel, open the dialog and start doing things.”

~ John Page, Vice President, GC & Corp. Secretary, Golden State Foods Corp.

Chief Legal Officer Roundtable Discussion

“What we’re learning is how to use alternative fee arrangements – when do they work and make sense? More and more there will be categories of matters where alternative and flat fee arrangements are more accepted – it’s the law of supply and demand – some are cyclical and some are secular.”

~ Marc Gary, General Counsel, Fidelity Investments

Chief Legal Officer Roundtable Discussion

·        As I made my way though the Exhibit Hall, and observed the interaction among the over 100 exhibitors and the attendees, I understood what many in-house counsel had told me, that they liked the positive, controlled environment.  Members feel this provides them with a “one-stop shop” to speak with legal industry providers and hear about the new resources and services available to them.  The exhibitors, too, were engaged and I was happy to hear a number of positive comments.

“We were very happy with the event. We met a lot of attendees and got to speak to them about their needs and how we can help.”

 ~ Ian Nelson, Vice President of Business Development & Marketing, PLC

ACC Alliance Partner/2009 Annual Meeting Exhibitor

“Everyone has been really engaged and interested …this has been really helpful for our attorneys, to see the number of in-house counsel in attendance and to interact with our clients that are here.”

~ Felice Wagner, Chief Client Service Officer, Sutherland

First Time 2009 Annual Meeting Exhibitor

·       Efficiency, value and cost containment were repeated throughout the conference, both in sessions and during one-on-one conversations, as everyone shared and gleaned insight on streamlining processes without cutting quality. During the session, “The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management,” law department leaders and law firm management discussed the ACC Value Challenge and how the initiative could help to support their efforts.

“Value Day - August 24 - the day the Wall Street Journal covered alternative billing on its front page."

~ Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, GC & Secretary, FMC Technologies, Inc.

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

“Value means more than price for legal services – what more do we want from our relationships – CLE, top of mind advice, brainstorming….”

~ Bruce Goldberg, Managing Counsel, Allstate Insurance Company

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

“Profit is variable; what is valued is continuing relationships maintained through continuing relationship reviews.”

~ Stuart Pape, Managing Partner, Patton Boggs LLP

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

"Once you decide to go down this path, there's only one question you need to ask law firms, Will you do this? Yes or no. If they say no, they are free to work elsewhere. Draconian? Yes. Effective? Absolutely. But it does take some backbone."

~ Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, GC & Secretary, FMC Technologies, Inc.

The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management

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

The second day of a two and a half day conference can sometimes wane in attendance and engagement, but Day 2 at ACC’s 2009 Annual Meeting in Boston didn’t show any sign of diminishing interest. Attendees dispersed throughout the exhibit hall for their morning coffee and croissants, while chatting with the 100⁺ exhibitors and sponsors on hand to offer insight about their services and in-house counsel offerings. The majority of this year’s sponsors were returning exhibitors, but there were a number of new organizations, as well. Washington, DC-based law firm, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, was one of the new firms exhibiting this year, and Felice Wagner, Chief Client Service Officer, said it was a great experience for the eight attorneys that joined her.

“It was illuminating for some of the attorneys to not only see the number of in-house counsel, but also, the number of Sutherland clients that were here. The high-level of the attendees, along with their genuine interest and engagement, has been great,” Wagner noted.

A long-time supporter of ACC, and recipient of the 2009 President’s Award, Ogilvy Renault, too, believed there was a higher level of engagement with those they spoke to. Senior Partner, Andrew Fleming, commented that this year attendees were not just looking for general information, but had specific questions. “We’ve spoken to attendees that had questions about a particular issue, or to others that weren’t happy with their current outside counsel and interested in learning more about Ogilvy.”

Lise Monette, Ogilvy’s Chief Marketing Officer, was happy with the added feature of being able to qualify leads on the lead tracking device, saying that it will be useful for when they get back to the office and coordinate follow up plans for those they spoke to at the conference.

For others, the Annual Meeting provided a platform for unveiling new products and/or services geared toward the in-house counsel market. Fios Inc., a provider of electronic discovery services, and Ajilon Legal, a worldwide expert in legal staffing and litigation management, unveiled a partnership to help corporations and law firms effectively inject cost control and predictability into the complex e-discovery process.

Brad Gragert, senior vice president of sales at Fios, noted that "By combining the core Fios and Ajilon competencies and expertise, legal teams now have a single resource for processing, review and production services. Additionally, our combined services will provide legal professionals with improved cost predictability and budget management for e-discovery projects."

The ACC/Serengeti Managing Outside Counsel Survey was released during the meeting, and the media and attendee interest kept Rob Thomas, Serengeti’s Vice President of Strategic Development, busy. For the first time in three years, the survey found that controlling spending on outside counsel returned as the top priority for in-house counsel, topping compliance concerns. The need to drive efficiency is leading to more value-based policies to reduce overall legal spend, and clients are looking to negotiate more flexible value-based fee and service models.

“In-house counsel want a single online system where they can manage all of their legal work directly with all of their outside counsel worldwide, not a maze of different law firm extranets or internal systems that don’t connect with outside counsel,” says Thomas, the author of the survey report.

Several of attendees that stopped by the Serengeti booth asked Thomas about the survey, wanting to know more about this year’s findings and interpretation of the data. Thomas, too, acknowledged that substantive inquiries dominated the questions he addressed with this year’s attendees.   

Practical Law Company, a leading provider of practical know-how for business lawyers and newest ACC Alliance partner, introduced its new “PLC Law Department” service, which will officially launch in 2010.  Designed to help in-house law departments maximize value, practice more efficiently and control legal spend, the new service has been catered specifically for legal departments to make sure they have the practical resources needed to get the job done.

“The interest in hearing about the new service has been terrific,” explained Ian Nelson, PLC’s Vice President of Business Development and Marketing. “We’ve had great interaction with everyone that has stopped by to learn more about the service and many have had questions about substantive issues and how to use practical resources to be more efficient.”

At a time when it is critical to be as efficient as possible and deliver even greater value to clients, it’s no surprise that attendees were interested in hearing more about ways to streamline internal processes. The topic was repeated many times throughout conference and during the session, “The Slow Motion Riot – Revolutionizing Law Department Cost Management,” law department leaders and law firm management discussed how the ACC Value Challenge can help to support this high priority goal of efficient, effective and professional practice.

For Jeff Carr, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary of FMC Technologies, Inc., value means “efficiency, effectiveness and customer satisfaction,” something to which he holds his outside firms accountable to. And, the move away from the billable hour (yes, fodder, for a future – more in-depth Blog post) is forcing law firms to sit up, listen and respond to the wave of change that is forcing alternatives to the traditional business model. While law firms grapple with the increased demands, in-house counsel, too, are wrestling with their own internal processes to ensure greater efficiency and value-based legal services.

The over 100 event sponsors and exhibitors that were on hand  - from international law firms, to top litigation support providers and to leaders in knowledge management – were all afforded with the unique opportunity for one-on-one interaction with in-house counsel to educate them about cost efficient solutions.  As ACC President Fred Krebs noted, “I often hear from in-house counsel that they welcome the opportunity to interact with Annual Meeting sponsors as it provides them with a one-stop way to engage with organizations and learn more about value-based solutions.”

As this year’s Annual Meeting approaches its final sessions, the information gleaned from the sessions, interaction with attendees and conversations with supporters will be taken back to legal departments for implementation. For some, it will provide them with a new way of thinking and acting, for others it will reconfirm processes already in place. And, while the tchotchkes and give-aways were fun and drew interest, it will be the tools, resources, educational information and newly formed relationships that will have long-term value.

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

ACC’s Annual Meeting in Boston might have kicked off on Sunday night, but things really got underway on Monday as thousands of in-house counsel arrived at the Hynes Convention Center to register and begin their immersion into what brought them together: learning, engaging and sharing. Having been involved with past meetings, I was struck today by the upbeat demeanor, levity and humor interspersed throughout the sessions, in the exhibit hall and with members and sponsors chatting amongst themselves. At a time when negative news seems to own the limelight, the positive, good-natured vibe was a much welcomed change.

A real treat of the day of the day (and likely to be one of the highlights of the conference) was Chair’s Choice: A View from the Frontlines, which gave attendees the unique opportunity to hear from Ivan Fong, former ACC Board Chair and currently the General Counsel of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Fong’s first-hand account of transitioning from General Counsel at Cardinal Health to one of the largest government agencies was both captivating and insightful. He shared how managing the many hundreds of lawyers and issues at DHS were similar, as well as different, from managing lawyers and matters in-house at the companies he previously worked for. Most notably, Ivan noted that the “hallmarks of being a good lawyer – the foundations on which everything is based – were the quality of the legal analysis, responsiveness, sound judgment and the ability to be a trusted advisor, all of which translate well into the public sector.”

Fong’s candidness and honesty provided everyone with a snapshot of his day-to-day activities, as well as his long term goals for success. The session was so fascinating that it warrants its own detailed summary (To be posted on In-House ACCess following the meeting.)

The day’s luncheon, sponsored by Lex Mundi, drew a packed room to join ACC President Fred Krebs in welcoming in ACC’s new Board Chair, Pat Hatler, and new Board members, Sabine Chalmers, Chief Legal and Communications Officer at Anheuser-Busch Inbev; John Page, Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary from Golden State Foods; and Norman Wain, Vice President, Corporate Legal Affairs and Assistant General Counsel at the Finish Line. 

Krebs explained that each year in lieu of speaker fees, ACC contributes to a worthwhile charity, and this year a $5,000 donation was given to Camp Letts, a YMCA summer camp that serves youths from the inner cities of Washington, DC and Baltimore. 

Krebs also reminded everyone that, “Last year at this time, we predicted we would be at the 25,000 member milestone and I am happy to say we have reached that threshold. This year has truly exceeded our expectations on many fronts.”

He went on to acknowledge ACC’s two new chapters – the South Carolina Chapter and the North Florida Chapter, bringing the association to 51 chapters in more than 70 countries with members who represent over 10,000 organizations.

On a solemn note, earlier this year ACC was saddened to learn of the passing of Robert Banks, Sr., an extraordinary in house counsel for Xerox for many years and the leading founder of ACC. “Bob Banks gave us a great gift,” Krebs shared, “He gave us all an organization that permits us to change and improve our profession and ourselves. We are here today because of him.”

Krebs announced that ACC would be honoring Banks with the ACC Robert Banks Memorial Scholarship Fund, starting in 2010. This scholarship will help support those members who are in transition or need additional support to attend the Annual Meeting. Co-founding member, Carl Liggio, and Banks’ son, Bill Banks, were both on hand to share their heartfelt, personal memories and appreciation for Banks’ tireless efforts, dedication and historic legacy.

Dan Fitz, formerly Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Company Secretary at Misys and the 2009 ACC Board Chair, presented this year’s winner for Excellence in Corporate Practice to David Allgood, Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Royal Bank of Canada. As General Counsel at one of the largest and most respected legal departments in Canada, Allgood is known as the person who sets the tone and introduces the best practices in law department management and leadership. Fitz noted that, “David's progressive posture on "value" issues, as promoted by the ACC Value Challenge, is setting both the tone and pace for other departments interested in reconnecting the cost of legal services to their actual value in the marketplace.” 

In addition, Fitz recognized Ogilvy Renault LLP as a firm that has gone above and beyond for their support of ACC and presented them with the 2009 President’s Award. “Not only has this firm supported ACC through advertising and sponsorships,” Fitz explained, “But they are also the lead sponsor of ACC’s popular CLO ThinkTank series of programs and they provide ACC with valuable insight on legal issues in Canada.”

The luncheon culminated with Pulitzer Prize winning author, Doris Kearns Goodwin, who shared her lifetime of studying and writing about great leaders with a captivating tale of her own personal observations and what everyone could learn from the great leaders she had studied. Her uncanny ability to bring history to life, to speak in pictures so as to draw everyone in, left everyone speechless. She shared her fascinating first-hand experience, as well as findings from in-depth research, and everyone hung onto her every word.  

The hundreds of people waiting in line to have Goodwin sign her latest book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, following the lunch was a true testament to the respect she garnered and the interest provoked among those in attendance. As Ivan Fong’s session earlier in the day was so enthralling that it warranted its own write up, so, too, does Goodwin’s speech. (To be posted on In-House ACCess following the meeting.)

---

Coverage of ACC’s 2009 Annual Meeting will continue with interviews with ACC’s supporters and sponsors, over 100 of the world’s leading legal industry professionals.

* Susan E. Jacobsen, formerly ACC’s Director of Communications, was retained by ACC to cover this year’s Annual Meeting and will be providing coverage of the sessions and networking events throughout the conference.

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

In-house counsel and legal industry professional from around the world came together at Boston’s Hynes Convention Center as ACC kicked off its Annual Meeting with a Welcome Reception and networking event in the Exhibit Hall on Sunday evening. Over 100 event sponsors and exhibitors were on hand from international law firms, top litigation support providers and leaders in knowledge management -- all ready to interact with attendees and support the in-house counsel community. Many are returning sponsors, and some are new this year, but one thing is for certain – all are energized and ready to engage with attendees and explain what they can do to help in-house counsel, their clients and legal departments.

With the challenges many have been confronted with, along with the cuts in travel budgets, it’s a great testament to the association and the quality of programs offered that, once again, the Annual Meeting is expected to draw an impressive crowd of more than 1600 in-house counsel and over 2400 total attendees.  ACC President Fred Krebs is extremely satisfied with this year’s turnout, and noted during the Leadership Dinner later in the evening, “We have more attendees here with us this year than last year….and ACC closed out the fiscal year on September 30 with over 25,000 members worldwide.”

As Krebs addressed the packed room at the Leadership Dinner, he thanked Iron Mountain for their sponsorship of the evening’s event and further explained, “This year’s conference will focus on value and how to leverage resources, without comprising quality. ACC has worked with its members, chapters, committees and supporters to put together a program that, over the next three days, will provide attendees with efficiencies, tools and networking opportunities to help in-house counsel lead their departments and their companies through the challenges, as well as identify the opportunities, to thrive into the future.” 

Krebs was joined by outgoing Board Chair, Dan Fitz, and incoming chair, Pat Hatler, to present this year’s award winners with their much deserved recognition for outstanding achievements and support. In between bites of salmon sliders and Hoisin duck rolls, attendees applauded this year’s award winners:

·         Robert I. Townsend, Jr. Member of the Year: John Tanner, Senior Vice President & Division Counsel at McGriff, Seibels & Williams.

·         Committee of the Year: Employment & Labor Committee

·         Committee Member of the Year: Jeffrey R. Stern

·         Committee Sponsors of the Year: Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice  and Jackson Lewis

·         Outstanding Chapters: The Austin Chapter (Small, less than 250 members); Colorado Chapter and San Diego Chapter (Medium, 250-750 members); DELVACCA Chapter (Large, 750+ members)

·         Chapter Challenge: The Israel Chapter and the Charlotte Chapter (Small); The St. Louis Chapter (Medium); and the Chicago Chapter (Large)

.

In addition, Krebs recognized ACC’s Northeast Chapter and its President, Paul Cushing, for their unyielding support of ACC and for their assistance as host Chapter for this year’s Annual Meeting. Krebs also welcomed a number of organizations that made the trip to Boston – some so far as Australia – including, Veta Richardson, from the Minority Corporate Counsel Association; David Patience and Tony Degovrik from the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association; Rodney Moore and Maurice Foster from the National Bar Association; and Esther Lardent from the Pro Bono Institute. Accolades were capped off with recognition for the 12 past ACC Board Chairs attending this year’s Annual Meeting – a record number. 

As the evening drew to an end, the buzz was still going strong --- the next three days are sure to be filled with engaging encounters, interesting insights and awareness for new ideas and opportunities among the thousands of in-house counsel in Boston this week.

* Susan E. Jacobsen, formerly ACC’s Director of Communications, was retained by ACC to cover this year’s Annual Meeting and will be providing coverage of the sessions and networking events throughout the conference.

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

 “Automating broken processes won't make us smarter; it can make us stupider faster.” ~ Steven Levy

Participating in a panel discussion at the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) conference last month was yet another opportunity for me to engage in a discussion about the ACC Value Challenge.  But, instead of speaking to in-house counsel and law firm partners, this time I addressed technologists.  It was an excellent opportunity to discuss IT’s involvement in the initiative to close the gap between the cost of legal services and the perceived value clients received from those services. 

Tim Corcoran (Altman Weil), John Alber (Bryan Cave) and Constance Hoffman (Bryan Cave) provided a number of practical examples culled from their own experiences, explaining how technologists can play an integral role in strengthening the relationship between law firms and their clients. The questions from those in attendance reinforced the significance of this group’s involvement in the ACC Value Challenge.

Steven Levy, principal of Lexicon Steven Levy & Associates and former senior director of Microsoft’s Legal Information Systems Department, addressed this same topic in a recent Law Technology News article by focusing on trust and productivity. Levy discussed 10 ways IT Departments can work together with their law firms to “deliver more value,” and in doing so, he honed in on how an IT department can not only assist its law firm in strengthening the relationship with its clients, but also help it to be more responsive - and proactive - in this effort.

One of Levy’s suggestions resonated with me: Don’t Automate Broken Processes. Improving processes should not be confused with moving things around to just look different.  This does not work.  I often hear, “Sure things are different, but they aren’t better.”  Technologists need to listen to their lawyers to hear what it is the clients want and how they can help the firm change systems to achieve that goal.  By conducting internal reviews, such as document management system assessments, data can be analyzed to actually improve productivity and not just “shuffle things around.” 

Indeed, it’s a two-way street and the weight of this endeavor should not be dropped on the IT Department’s shoulders.  Lawyers must convey the information correctly and provide their technology team with the necessary information to effectively implement these changes.  The IT Director needs to ask the right questions, repeat the issues and concerns and confirm what he/she believes the intended results should be.

An even better solution would be to bring the IT Director into client meetings. As Hoffman noted during the ILTA panel discussion, she has been involved - on the front lines – working with Bryan Cave clients to identify needs and determining the best practical applications to ensure success.  Her intricate knowledge of the technology involved enables the firm to be better prepared to not only respond to client requests, but to also appreciate how working together can strengthen the relationship between clients and firms.

By involving IT in the process – from the start – law firms are better equipped to manage client expectations.  As Levy so aptly noted, “Unlike Wine, Bad News Does Not Get Better with Age.”  Law firm attorneys cannot afford to be in the dark, nor can they keep their clients in the dark.  When an open dialog between attorneys and technologists exists, there should be no surprises.  No surprises means keeping clients abreast of the progress – and the delays. For those of us who travel frequently, we know the feeling of sitting on a plane, delayed on the tarmac … wondering what’s causing the holdup.  When the pilot explains that air traffic control has delayed our take-off by 20 minutes due to incoming traffic, our expectations are managed and we can relax.  Without the pilot giving us an update, we’re left to fret and to worry (or get agitated!). Being honest, upfront and providing assessments throughout the process ensures a win-win for all involved.

An underlying principle of the ACC Value Challenge is to “promote a dialog among corporate counsel, law firms, law schools and others who are interested in driving an alignment and focus on value.” The success of the initiative encompasses the participation of everyone within the legal services industry.  The ACC Value Challenge is not a “silo” initiative where everything is compartmentalized. It’s an initiative based on collaboration and sharing, and IT’s role cannot be overemphasized. Value is in the eye of the beholder and without effective communication and sharing, this, too, will fall into the bucket of automating broken processes that yes, “will make us stupider faster.”

Frederick J. Krebs

Next Up: The Chief Marketing Officer’s Role in the ACC Value Challenge

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

“Your problem is to bridge the gap which exists between where you are now and the goal you intend to reach.” ~ Earl Nightingale

 Accountability, efficiency and value --- three words that are reverberating throughout the legal services industry these days.  In-house counsel are being held accountable by their companies to contain costs and predict expenditures; law firms must demonstrate efficiency and provide metrics to help communicate the value of the services provided. We’re in an era of transparency, one that demands, as Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) President Fred Krebs, recently noted, “open communication and dialog.”

The recent International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) conference, held August 23-27 at the Gaylord National Resort & Conference Center near Washington, D.C., provided a forum for discussing technology’s role during this period of intense scrutiny.  One of the final sessions of the conference, “The ACC Value Initiative and What It Means to Technologists,” brought together the following panel with vast experience and insight from both sides of the legal aisle:

Fred Krebs, President, Association of Corporate Counsel

John Alber, Partner and Leader of the Technology Group at Bryan Cave, LLP;

Constance Hoffman, Chief Information Officer at Bryan Cave, LLP; 

Timothy B. Corcoran, Senior Consultant, Altman Weil

Alber, a practicing attorney with over 25 years of experience who also served as CEO for a software and database company, opened the discussion with an analogy, “Ten years ago newspapers made most of their money from display ads. That was also the start of monster.com and the dot-com explosion. Well, we’ve seen what can happen over a ten-year period to one segment when a critical mass bands together to affect change; and the legal industry is not immune to succumbing to this type of pressure to change.”

A recent study by Corporate Executive Board, found that over the past ten years costs to U.S. companies went up 20%, but that legal costs went up 75%. Law firms and clients are both under pressure to reduce legal spend, while still performing many of the same functions. Clients are now creating joint and highly-structured initiatives, such as the ACC Value Challenge, aimed at closing the perceived gap between what legal services cost and the value clients receive from those services. Law firms are finally sitting up and paying attention and as they develop ways to demonstrate their value to clients, those working with - and inside - legal technology departments can play a vital role.

“The ACC Value Challenge developed in response to member dissatisfaction,” explained Krebs.  “Rising costs, the disconnect between costs and services delivered in relation to hours billed and lack of communication, have all contributed to the development of this initiative.  ACC is calling for an increase in communication between in-house counsel and law firms to bridge the gap and work toward value driven solutions.”

In painting the picture of what it is clients want, Krebs highlighted the numerous opportunities that exist for technologists to help their firms respond to client needs.  The key areas where they can help, from the client’s perspective, are:

        1.    Better management; lean/efficiency (two-way) 

2.    Certainty /predictability (up-front budgets/scopes that stick)

3.    Focus on outcomes and results, not just on process and analysis (driven by evaluations and metrics)

4.    Costs that equate with value received

5.    Outside counsel and firms whose motivations and business models are aligned with the client’s

“The emphasis on predictability cannot be stressed enough,” explained Krebs. “This is where technologists can make a real impact.”

Coinciding with the ACC Value Challenge is the “Value Index,” an evaluation tool that will allow ACC’s in-house counsel members to rate their law firms and exchange information amongst each other.  Scheduled to be unveiled in October 2009, during ACC’s Annual Meeting in Boston, the goal of the Value Index is to enable in-house counsel to “tap into the wisdom of the crowd,” and gauge first-person feedback on the performance of outside counsel.

Law firms need to communicate with their clients and ask the hard questions, “Are they performing to the level expected? What is [their] perception of the firms they engage and the legal teams working on their matters?” Lawyers need to address these concerns, because soon, their clients might just be sharing their dissatisfaction with their colleagues.  Law firms cannot afford to be in the dark and must identify ways to not only address concerns, but also head off problems before they occur. 

The smart use of technology (making sure systems work efficiently), metrics (analyzing the data and improving processes) and collaboration (internal dialog) all play a significant role in helping firms to be more responsive to their clients’ needs.  Technologists, working closely with the attorneys and other administrative departments, can develop streamlined solutions and processes that can help with efficiency, reducing costs and long-range forecasting. 

Improving processes, however, should not be confused with “moving things around to just look different,” explained Krebs.  Referencing an article by Steve Levy in the August issue of Law Technology News, Krebs noted that, “Automating broken processes won't make us smarter; it can make us stupider faster.”

Having worked in-house with a law firm, as well as with a leading legal service provider and now with Altman Weil, Corcoran draws from his experience, and agreed with Krebs that, “After years of training, change is upon us and our time has come….but it’s not going to be easy.”

Corcoran referenced a recent Altman study, which showed that, in 2009, 40% of the In-House counsel surveyed planned to reduce the use of outside counsel, and almost 30% had reduced their internal staff. 

“We grew up with the belief that property values will always rise, and we see where that got us,” Corcoran said. “The same has been the case for lawyers, believing that demand will continue to rise and clients will continue to pay.  But clients are insisting on change. We’re hearing more about the challenges our clients are grappling with, and our surveys confirm, there is a movement going on. ACC has provided a framework – a voice  – to hear and respond to those challenges.”

While the use of outside counsel is declining, the work still needs to be done.  Corcoran believes this presents firms with a challenge, as well as an opportunity, to do things differently. “Firms need to look at the cost base and figure out a way to deliver their services at the lowest cost and in the most efficient manner.”

 Law firms must acknowledge that this is not “everyone else’s problem” – they must face reality and recognize that they are part of the solution.  Culling from other industries, Corcoran outlined how law firms can be more responsive to the changes taking place:

 ·      Cross-Selling:  For law firms, the concept of cross-selling is seen as a “nice to have,” and one that is inconsistent throughout law firms around the country. For most corporations, however, the idea of looking for opportunities for more business with the same client is “a matter of life or death.” It’s the lowest cost of sales – expending less on an existing client than trying to woo a new one. Having technologists’ insight and input – to better understand client needs (from a technology standpoint) - will help to strengthen the relationship.  Law firms need to make cross-selling a priority.

·      Project Management: Lawyers need to have more than just legal skills – they need to have an aptitude for project management. They would be wise to look to their own clients as models for project management – construction, transportation, manufacturing – all industries that require intense, seasoned managers to ensure projects are on target and within budget. Clients don’t like surprises. Without an experienced project manager to ensure matters are on track, law firms are exposed to unknown risks. Technologists have the knowledge from a project management standpoint and can convey to lawyers similar insights.  Law firms need to recognize the importance of project management skills and tap into technologists’ skills, as well as increase training in this area. 

 ·      Outsourcing:  When some think of outsourcing – they automatically equate that with legal departments using “non-traditional sources for their legal work,” but in actuality, outside law firms are an “outsourced provider.” Companies focus on their products and core competencies; they don’t do legal work. Law firms are one of their solutions. Technology departments and legal resource vendors, provide law firms with the necessary tools and resources to get the job done.  They are an integral part of the success – or failure – of a relationship and should be seen as a necessary partner in the firm/client relationship. In addition, a law firm can find ways to do some tasks a lot more cheaply, so the client does not turn to outside vendors.   

Companies, such as Practical Law Company, a leading provider of practical know-how for business lawyers, can help law firms provide their clients with the resources needed to practice more efficiently and deliver greater value. NOVUS Law, a document management provider, is another example of an external company that can help firms understand how to eliminate redundancy and find ways to do things more quickly, with less people, and improve the quality of the work provided. Off-shoring/outsourcing companies can help firms improve their business processes. Law firms need to embrace this concept and see the value in their technology departments and outsourcing companies to help them to be more efficient.

While technology can enable business process improvements, the answer, Tim noted, “isn't technology, it's the business process that needs fixing.”  Too many IT leaders get hung up on the technology and miss the wider point, which Krebs emphasized earlier: “good technology on top of a bad business process is meaningless. 

Understanding the kinds of technology initiatives clients expect firms to undertake in order to reduce costs and increase value is key.  Hoffman, who has been involved in identifying these needs for Bryan Cave clients, recognizes the practical applications of what can be done to transform relationships – bridge the gap - between clients and firms.

In order to be responsive, firms must have an open dialog with their clients. This dialog, explains Hoffman, “will provide law firms with the insight needed to develop systems and processes that will keep clients informed and abreast of issues that might change the timing, or even, budgets. “

Again, clients do not like surprises.

“By having that in-depth conversation with clients at the onset, explains Hoffman, “firms can put systems, such as detailed databases, in place to track progress on a continual basis. Not only can this help to reduce transactional costs, but it also allows for better reporting and transparency for the client.”

“The efficient use of junior lawyers or contract lawyers, with assistance from technologists, to collect the necessary data,” explained Alber, “enables senior lawyers to adequately analyze the data to evaluate the situation and keep clients informed throughout the process.”

This streamlined process helps eliminate surprises at the end of an engagement. Law firms can better manage expectations and in-house counsel have access to the necessary information to keep their CEOs apprised. 

This is a fundamental concept of the ACC Value Challenge, to bridge the gap of uncertainty, encourage transparency and connect expectations of value to the costs of the services provided.   The momentum for such discussions and frank negotiations is gaining and law firms are responding.  For those firms just now reacting, Corcoran noted, “they will not be first – they will be trying to keep up with the pack.”  Law firms cannot afford to lose their role as trusted advisor, because if they do, it will be years before that relationship is salvaged. 

Technologists’ ability to help streamline processes, improve efficiency and provide measurement tools is a reality in today’s legal environment.  Technology experts need to be part of the process from the start and valued members of the law firm/client team. Paraphrasing Churchill, Krebs noted that in discussions about the death of the billable hour, “never has so little been accomplished by so many for so long” the time for change is now.  Real change has begun as clients and firms implement value based arrangements.

 ====

Susan E. Jacobsen, President of LUV2XLPR, Inc. has over 15 years of experience helping attorneys and corporate executives with public relations, business development, not-for-profit and advocacy communications, and continues to work with clients to developing successful new media and traditional public relations strategies.

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