2010, THE YEAR OF CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL

ACC Board Members See Opportunities in the Midst of Greater Regulatory Scrutiny, Increased Client Demands & Efficiency Directives in the New Year

As 2009 comes to a close, some will look back on the past year disheartened by the economic upheaval that occurred, while others will look ahead with cautious optimism, confident that in the midst of challenges the coming year will bring lucrative opportunities for growth and prosperity. Articles and Blog posts abound, with everyone offering their predictions for the coming year. While nobody has a magical crystal ball to foretell the future, we can learn from events of the past and the current environment to not only predict, but also prepare, for what is yet to come.

I have always found our ACC community to be a great source of support and insight and as Ivan Fong, ACC’s former Board Chair, noted in a previous ACC Docket message, “During times of economic stress, it is important to hold fast to your core values and to the people … who can support you in your time of need and give you hope and inspiration.” By tapping into the collective wisdom of ACC’s Board of Directors, we can all glean added insight to stay on top of the trends – and help us to prepare for 2010. 

When asked what the greatest challenges will be for in-house counsel, as well as where new opportunities will emerge, ACC Board members offer the following predictions.

David Allgood, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Royal Bank of Canada: We will have to respond to the impact of the global financial crisis on financial regulations and I see a significant regulatory onslaught occurring, particularly for financial institutions.  

I am expecting - looking for, actually - more use of project management principles by the outside law firms I work with to ensure greater efficiency and cost containment.

Jonathan Block, Attorney, Former Vice President and General Counsel, Salem Communications Corporation: The current political winds are blowing in favor of increased regulation, and given the speed in which it is happening and the polarization of the political process, it is hard to know where we’ll land until we are already there.  With all of the changes, reduction in resources and increased pressure to take risks that will potentially jeopardize the company, the complexity of how in-house lawyers go about performing their job will continue to increase.  

The increased complexity and reduction in resources, however, provides an even greater opportunity for in-house lawyers to demonstrate their strategic value to the organization. With greater challenges facing companies, GCs have the opportunity to burnish their image as the go-to problem solver for the company. This is also a great time for companies to start building for the recovery and investing in their future. With even well run businesses having to eliminate assets to address cash flow issues over the past few years, strong companies now have the ability to acquire some especially valuable resources (including human capital) in a manner and at a price they previously couldn’t come close to. 

Jeffrey Carr, Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, FMC Technologies, Inc.: In-house counsel must determine how to make value-based engagements the standard for their own teams while simultaneously implementing value-based engagements with their outside counsel.  

In looking ahead, I see the ACC Value Index, the client satisfaction measurement tool developed to help ACC members share meaningful information about the value they get from their outside counsel, being recognized as the industry standard.

Elisa D. Garcia C., Executive Vice President & General Counsel, Office Depot, Inc.: For in-house lawyers with public companies, we will have to nimbly navigate an avalanche of new legislation and regulation in the governance arena. From proxy access to say-on-pay, from risk committees to golden parachutes, and all the enhanced disclosure requirements that will accompany these and other regulations, I foresee substantial confusion and lack of guidance from the regulators. This is especially concerning because of the “anti-corporate” bias of regulators. I hope the regulators work with the business community to ensure that the new rules are clear and enforced fairly.  

I encourage smaller and diverse [law] firms to embrace the ACC Value Challenge as a game changing differentiator. I think the agility of a smaller firm will enable it to be more creative in bringing value solutions to corporations and thereby helping them gain opportunities they may not have otherwise had.   

Michele Gatto, Executive Vice President, Corporate Services & Chief Legal Officer, National Life Group: In the current economic environment it will be incumbent on in-house counsel to manage expenses carefully and strategically, with a focus on increased efficiency, productivity and value. This is an opportunity for in-house lawyers to demonstrate their abilities to be good leaders, as well as good lawyers. We will also need to stay focused on new developments in the legislative and regulatory environment (financial services reform, health care reform, etc.).

J. Alberto Gonzalez-Pita, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Las Vegas Sands Corporation:  Some trends are clearer than others, and increasing regulation is one that stands out. This will happen at the state and federal levels and will impact a wide-range of small and large businesses in numerous industries. I believe we will also see increasing enforcement of existing regulations with larger fines and penalties for non-compliance. Identifying, analyzing and complying with these regulations, as well as ameliorating their impact will require a significant investment of time and resources by in-house counsel.  Another trend is the continuation of the changing dynamics between companies and their outside counsel. The economic recovery is unlikely to be fast or robust enough to diminish ongoing cost cutting efforts, and outside counsel will continue to feel pressure on their fees. The ACC Value Challenge will continue to gain momentum as an effective way for in-house lawyers to achieve demonstrable savings and efficiencies. We will continue to see more alternative fee arrangements and less hourly rates through 2010 and beyond.

There will certainly be numerous changes in store for specific industries (banking and finance, insurance, health care, pharmaceutical and hydrocarbons), but I'm not a good enough prognosticator to say what those will be. "Legal" change is in the air more so than in years past, and I believe this will impact the vast majority of in-house lawyers in some fashion.

Teresa Kennedy, Assistant General Counsel, Cox Communications, Inc.: Lawyers will be stretched by handling more matters than ever in-house, with less support from our business partners.  This situation will require us to be more actively engaged in vetting business issues, which of course, presents us with both opportunities and challenges!

Jonathan Oviatt, Chief Legal Officer and Secretary, Mayo Clinic:  We will continue to see increased expectation that legal services will measure up to the same metrics of "quality and value" that are applied to all other shared services in the organization. Effective lawyers will be those who intentionally partner with clients to improve quality and value, while reducing expenses.  With increased regulatory complexity and decreasing budgets, effective risk balancing and risk management skills are essential for effective lawyers.

"Tone at the Top" has never been more important and effective CLOs have a critical role in ensuring that our clients do the right thing. Additionally, it has never been more important for us to avoid taking ourselves too seriously—we must maintain balance.

Carol Ann Petren, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, CIGNA Corporation:The greatest challenges for in-house counsel will definitely include an increased focus on executive compensation and risk management. There should also be an increased willingness to take advantage of developing business opportunities with a more stable economy and clarity on the regulatory front.  

Eric Reicin, Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Sallie Mae, Inc.: In times of stress, uncertainty and an enhanced regulatory environment, in-house counsel need to be more than practitioners, they need to serve as both a trusted advisor and business partner. During the last 20 years - especially the last five - we have seen a dramatic shift in the speed and efficiency of the practice of law with the addition of each new technology (overnight mail, fax, electronic word processing, electronic legal research, e-mail, e-filing/knowledge management, internet search, video conferencing, intranets, IM, BlackBerry, iPhones, Twitter and private secure social networks), and this trend will continue, mostly to the detriment of our personal lives and to the perceived benefit of our clients. It will continue to fall to us to encourage our clients to prioritize, recognize when immediate turn-around is required and when further thought is preferable. Thoughtful legal advice often takes more than 140 characters of text.

Martine Turcotte, EVP & Chief Legal & Regulatory Officer, Bell Canada: One of the major regulatory and investor areas of focus will be on executive compensation where more disclosure -similar to a management and discussion analysis focused on compensation – that is now required. While we had to go through this as one of the first Canadian issuers last year, regulators have kept a close eye on this, and now with “say on pay” resolutions having been adopted by a few issuers like ourselves, it will be an interesting discussion with governance organizations and major investors.   On the administration side, top focus will remain on outside counsel costs and the value proposal.   

Norman Wain, VP, Corporate Legal Affairs, Assistant General Counsel, The Finish Line, Inc.: I see our greatest challenge as balancing the corporate expectations while continuing to decrease (or manage) costs in light of tighter economic conditions. In-house counsel need to learn to work more efficiently, better manage outside counsel (perhaps changing fee structures) and then battle senior management to still pay attention to legal when they are desperately focused on reducing costs and cutting programs from their budgets.

In terms of prospects for the year ahead, technology is constantly changing, which creates new opportunities. In addition, we will need to monitor new government regulations and what their impact will be on our businesses.

- - - -

From regulatory hurdles - to increased scrutiny - to strengthening relationships with outside counsel, it’s clear that in-house counsel will have their hands full in the coming year. In addition to increased government scrutiny and regulations, I see increased regulation of the legal profession, with more laws and regulations governing the conduct of lawyers. And, while the use of value-based fee arrangements will increase, the billable hour will not disappear. I believe, however, that it will no longer be the default billing mechanism that parties use without consideration of other approaches. 

As these changes take hold, ACC will continue to respond to in-house counsel needs and challenges in the coming year through our educational programs, member communications and advocacy efforts. If you have additional thoughts and predictions, I’d love to hear from you, too.

 

Are There New Salary Guidelines for In-house Attorneys?

I know you are waiting for my insight into the local rule making process, but I just have to respond to the news about the Mayer Brown Associates sent in-house at a fraction of their former salaries and without any guarantee that they will remain employed. The question is what does that mean for in-house salaries.

These were lawyers who were making $200,000 and are now making $60,000 working for United Air Lines and Fortune Brands just to name a few. Apparently, the deal was worked out as an alternative to unemployment; Mayer Brown has apparently let over 70 lawyers go since last November. When I first took on this role of blogger for ACC one of the topics that it was suggested that I write about was the high salaries of associates’ at large firms. What a change has taken place in a year. Now the topic is how the new low salaries for associates at law firms might be harbingers of things to come in-house.

In house lawyers who expressed concern about outside firm salaries probably never imagined that the solution might have a direct impact on their own salaries, but the implication is hard to miss. Competition is good and I never really believed that the associates deserved the salaries they were making because they could not deliver the value that justified it. The same principle applies to in-house attorneys—time in grade alone does not justify salary increases (remember those things in your remote past).

Today I had a conversation with a long time friend in large firm and he expressed the view that when the economy turns (we both agreed it would be a lot later than are optimistic political leaders) it was not likely that the practice as they new it would return. People would not be willing to pay as they did in the past and delivery of legal services had to be fundamentally rethought.

Those in legal marketing are likely going to have to reinvent themselves as the old shibboleths that defined the kernels their sales pitch may become irrelevant. Who knows, you may even see prices on law firm web sites.

What does it mean for in-house—at the very least it means a lot more people vying for a lot fewer jobs and a level of competition which may well change the culture of the practice.
 

ACC Value Challenge Event: DC

The situation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take-away items from the event include:

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

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

In the middle-has the economic crisis made our status any clearer?

You wonder what I am talking about. Well, I am talking about the uneasy role of in-house counsel between not quite being a lawyer or a business man. You may not want to admit it but it is true—your management never quite viewed you as a lawyer, at least not like the outside firm you hire. And you always yearned to be a businessman—why because you were never quite accepted as part of the business team.


Oh, I know you will deny that such a situation exists in your company. Heck, Steve Bokat might even post a reply saying he never saw a situation where in house counsel was not considered a co-equal part of the business team—certainly he was always considered a part of the business team. My answer—you are not fooling me—I’ve been around too long.  I have been in business meetings where in-house counsel gave an opinion and were asked to check with outside counsel.  I have worked for a General Counsel who insisted we call ourselves business men and woman—me thinks thee protest too much.  And I have heard very similar accounts from my ACC  colleagues.


A few years ago there was an article about me in the National Law Journal entitled: “ He Will Litigate You to Death.” That article was inspired by an earlier article in the same publication that was effusing praise for some inside attorney who sat next to his trial attorney during a trial. Needless to say that inspired a letter from me saying I could not do that during trial because I was the trial attorney.


Think they were impressed—sort of—but they could not get out of the groove. You will note near the end of the article there is a statement that I have no main outside counsel. Where did that come from?  Well, after an entire interview focusing on our in-house litigation, their last question was who was my main outside counsel. You see folks whether you want to admit it or not the world does not think that inside counsel can exist without outside counsel.


You call tell them you just argued before the US Supreme Court, and they will ask the name of your law firm. That media obsession is the same obsession that your business folks have, and trying to look like your business folks will not make a difference. They will never quite accept you as one of them and never really be able to see you without your outside counsel by your side. So what are you going to do about it?


I do not have an answer. ACC has been facing the challenge since its inception. However, the present financial crisis is likely to create a sufficient cultural change to give you a shot at making a change. By the way, you do not have to call yourself a businessman to be accepted as part of the business team, but you are likely to have to shed all those bad habits you acquired in law school.
 

Yes, the new FMLA regulations DO impact YOUR business!

On this month's NTI Committee call, Mark Sampson, Womble Carlyle Labor & Employment attorney presented the Legal Quickie on the new FMLA regulations.  The overview on how the regulations impact all employers with at least 50 or more employees covered:

  • New categories of leave for military caregivers and certain qualified exigencies
  • Clarifications of what constitutes a serious health condition
  • Substantial modifications to employee and employer notice obligations
  • Major adjustments to the medical certification process


With these new regulations also comes an entirely new and/or revised set of notices and forms that employers will be required to use. The regulations contain significant revisions which address numerous issues that have plagued employers and employees alike since the initial regulations were published nearly fifteen years ago.

Share your insights and or questions about the new FMLA regulations here and Mark and others will participate in the dialogue.

To contact Mark Sampson directly email him at msampson@wcsr.com or call him at (336) 574-8095.

A Tribute to Bob Banks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NTI Legal Quick Hit- Legal and Compliance: Bridging the Gap

On tomorrow's New to In-house Committee Monthly Teleconference, Howard Steinberg, of McDermott, Will & Emery, will be presenting on the ways to bridge the gap between the compliance and legal departments. Here's a quick description of the discussion:


"The current economic crisis and its ramifications are putting legal and compliance departments under additional stress.  This presentation will discuss the intense focus on risk, from a management and disclosure perspective, and the role of legal and compliance departments in the risk process. It will also touch on hot button issues du jour for law and compliance, including greater transparency, executive compensation, and shareholder access, all in the context of reduced resources, lower budgets and likely changes with a new administration in Washington."

If you're new to the in-house community, I highly recommend that you take a minute and sign up for the committee. It's a great place to reach out to your peers, and to help get a feel for what in-house life is all about.


 

The Second of the Three C's: Collateral Consequences

So you never heard of collateral consequences in your contract course. That is because you are a lawyer and went to law school. Law professors are simply concerned about the legal consequences of the contract, not the practical consequences. To them what is important is whether the contract is legally enforceable as a theoretical issue. In the first C we learned that one might have a legally enforceable contract that is simply uneconomic to enforce.

Collateral consequences examine the notion that contract enforcement has different practical implications, such as it is not such a good business strategy to sue your best customer, even if you win. But the there are far reaching implications to collateral consequences when you design a contract. For example, in my lecture we examined alternative design options that achieve the same legal objective but resulted in profoundly different competitive advantages.

The good news is that you have now heard about the concept. The bad news is your wasted a lot of tuition money in a school that should have examined these concepts, but largely serves as a barrier to entry.
 

Leadership Development Institute

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

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