Learning From the Past to Prepare For Tomorrow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Chapter 8 Revisions of 2010: What does it mean for you and your company?

 

The U.S. Sentencing Commission issued final comments on revisions they are proposing to Chapter 8 – the Corporate Sentencing Guidelines – of the U.S. Sentencing Manual. As most of you know, the Guidelines are relatively rarely applied to companies at sentencing – most criminal allegations are settled or otherwise resolved before adjudication and formal sentencing. The real power of the Guidelines is in its proffer of what constitutes an effective corporate compliance program that someone (like a prosecutor or regulator) might consider as a mitigating factor when assessing the company’s culpability or that someone (like a compliance leader in the company) might lean on to help define the benchmarks of effective corporate compliance initiatives. 

Indeed, rather than being the regular stuff of Sentencing, Chapter 8 is consulted by corporate compliance leaders who wish to adopt standards that are recognized as worthy, and by prosecutors, regulators, and other stakeholders who wish to assess whether they believe the company should be held responsible for the acts of individuals who committed crimes or harmed others.

ACC filed comments with the USSC and offered testimony before the Commissioners (on March 17, 2010, offering supplemental comments on March 26) in an effort to address our members’ concerns with some of the proposed changes. We are gratified that the Commission incorporated much of what ACC asked for and look forward to working with the Commission on future proposals. 

For a full discussion of what the Commission proposed, what ACC suggested in response, and the final amendments that will now go to Congress and become law, please read

 

To Be Fair, Yale Law School Deserves Its Turn

Did you see the news, Greg Fleming, the former President and Chief Operating officer is resigning from Merrill Lynch to take a job teaching at Yale Law School?   Other than graduating from Yale Law, Mr. Fleming’s most notable qualification to teach law appears to be that he never practiced law. I suppose that that simply demonstrates Yale’s commitment to the concept that actually having acquired and demonstrated the skills to practice is a distraction to teaching someone how to practice law.

So what skills will Greg Fleming teach? Well, he appears to be skilled at buying and selling “complex financial instruments” that everyone now claims were unintelligible. Ok, so perhaps legal writing is not his forte. Justice Thomas said his Yale Law degree was worth 15 cents, Fleming  is perhaps there to teach Yale Law students how to turn it into millions, simply by buying and selling legal documents which no one appears to understand.
 

Annual Meeting Program Ideas

Below is a guest post from the Law Department Management Committee's Program Chair, Richard Bates.

 

Fellow ACC Law Department Management Members, as you know this is the time of year all ACC committees devote to idea generation for Annual Meeting programs.  Attached are suggestions to date.  However, we need your input for more program topics to consider.  And, our deadline for submission of program topics -- with description -- is January 16, 2009.  Please take some time to comment to this blog post (and please include a brief description) of your program ideas. 

 1.    Confronting Communication Issues in a Diverse Workforce

Without effective communication among its members and between its personnel and others inside and outside the company, a law department will find success in its mission elusive.  To avoid misunderstandings and disparate expectations, we must communicate with our clients and colleagues in a way that takes into account how the audience is receiving our communication.  We may sometimes fail to recognize – or simply misinterpret -- the gender-, culture- or generation-based verbal and nonverbal cues that we transmit and receive during the interaction.  The panel will discuss how as in-house counsel we can increase our emotional intelligence and awareness in this area and be more effective in establishing broader and more productive relationships inside and outside of the organization.  

2.    Ethical Responsibilities of In-House Counsel to the Corporate Client

Most of the ABA Model Rules deal with the private practice of law and the fiduciary duties owed clients.  As in-house counsel, we have just one client: the company, our employer.  This session will revisit the current ethical rules governing the in-house practice of law -- including those rules that apply to both in-house and private practice – and how the application of those rules has of late come under pressure.  From in-house counsel’s ethical role in e-discovery to compliance reporting, this session is a welcome refresher on ethics and the in-house practice of law.
3.    Technology Open Forum/Ask the Experts

Faced with increasing budget constraints, legal departments are looking at technology solutions to help them do more with less.  But how do you find answers to the questions you have about maximizing usage of the systems you already have, or about new systems you may be considering?  This unique session is primarily devoted to Q&A so that attendees can ask their most pressing questions and obtain candid feedback from industry experts.  This panel will help you sort through issues and solutions regarding available technologies -- including integrations between and among systems -- involving matter management, e-billing, contract management, digital signatures, and document management systems.  This session will address prevalent questions collected through ACC listservs, as well as spontaneous questions and comments from the audience.

4.    Inexpensive/Free Applications for Your Law Department

If you are wondering which inexpensive or free technology-related solutions are available for your legal department, this session is for you.  The panel will cover solutions ranging from workflow efficiencies to professional/social collaboration and networking.  This session will also include live on-screen demonstrations and tips on how to customize these solutions to meet your individual and department needs.

5.    Making an Effective Imprint on the Business Side of the Company

As in-house lawyers, we interact with all business units of our employer organization.  Often we are viewed as an obstacle or bottleneck rather than as a facilitator to the business units.  How do we change the perception of in-house counsel within an organization from an obstacle to a valuable contributor to the development and implementation of business decisions?  This program will explore how in-house counsel can add value, and be perceived as adding value, to the departments outside of legal.

6.    Information Management

How can you, as in-house counsel, select and implement effectively an information (A/K/A records) management program?  What are the requirements you will need for your particular department and organization?  How can you make it part of a knowledge (or information) management program that is effective and intuitive?  How can you be proactive in the event of a discovery request?

7.    Challenges Facing In-House Counsel in Our Current Economy

Today’s economic climate heightens the urgency of securing the maximum value for your expenditures.  How should you work you’re your in-house and outside colleagues so as to meet the CEO’s and other management’s value-added expectations?  How can we effectively manage legal costs, both internally and of outside counsel, while building and maintaining a productive and effective legal team with a positive work-life balance?

8.    In-House Counsel Malpractice Insurance Coverage

The role of in-house counsel continues to evolve, from professional employee to trusted advisor for ever-broadening stakeholder segments of the company.  Whether it is necessary to purchase or obtain professional liability insurance becomes an important consideration in taking on these new roles.  The panel will review the types of coverage available and discuss the situations where the attorney-employee is potentially exposed to liability based on the legal services they provided.
 
 

A Job Versus A Calling

My wife and I have two sons, both appear be driven by a calling. The youngest graduated from college and headed off to Italy (we are dual citizens) to start his life, while becoming fluent in a second language, experiencing another culture by living it, and developing his skill and love for food. The oldest is in China, working to succeed in a business he and his college roommate created, while developing business skills well beyond the ability of any business school to teach. Both have lifestyles driven by their calling, in which income and lifestyle have taken a far back seat to their passion. Perhaps they will be financially successful someday, perhaps not, but for someone driven by a calling that does not appear to be important.

My oldest son sent me an article by Michael Lewis on this topic since he was undoubtedly aware of his state in life. It was a response to a young man who worked on Wall Street and he was contemplating going to Hollywood as he saw the opportunity to make money and the excitement of the Wall Street heyday melt around him. Lewis’ advice to this young man starts by distinguishing between a job, something that makes money so you can survive and pursue other interests and a calling which consumes your life. Both have their benefits and costs.

I mention this because some of you may find the consequences experienced by this young man impacting your career. Law school, unfortunately, is a default educational choice for many who really are not sure what they want to do. I know I should be telling you that it is a great profession, and for me, it was close to a calling for most of my career. But it is not that way for everyone—what type of job you have can make a big difference. For some of you the present economic condition may present you with a unique opportunity to ask yourself whether you are in a job or a calling. These conditions may well present you with an opportunity to make a change that you would not consider when economic security restricted your options.