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

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

 Process Mapping Primer 

Week 12. Each week via the In-House ACCess blog, follow the promise and pitfalls of forming a new value-based client-firm relationship. ACC Value Challenge steering committee member Ken Grady, General Counsel and Secretary of Wolverine World Wide, offered to profile his selection and start-up process of launching a trademark portfolio management engagement with law firm Seyfarth Shaw. Ken's co-blogger is Lisa Damon, a member of Seyfarth's Executive Committee and leader of the firm's efforts to incorporate Lean Six Sigma into its business. The voice, views and stories expressed by the authors below are their own and not ACC’s. To catch up on the story so far, click here.

The client side

From Ken:

Lawyers are idiosyncratic workers. We do things differently when you compare one lawyer to another, and we do things differently when you compare how we do the same thing from time to time, such as preparing contracts. We justify much of this idiosyncratic behavior by claiming we do bespoke work – each time we do a case, contract or other matter, it is unique. Our idiosyncrasies, however, make us very inefficient.

We have designed the Wolverine/Seyfarth partnership to reduce process variability, using the SeyfarthLean techniques, so that we each become more efficient in providing legal services to our client. To know what Wolverine does today, we will make process maps. A group of two to eight individuals, drawn from both entities, will brainstorm and capture each step in a current process. In the old days, we did this by taping a long piece of butcher paper on the wall and noting each step in the process sequentially along the length of the paper. With all the mistakes, corrections and additions, it was busy when we finished. Today, Seyfarth does the same thing using computer tools that make the result much cleaner. Using the process map, we then (1) simplify steps, (2) weed out unnecessary steps, (3) re-sequence steps, (4) standardize steps and (5) create tools for steps. Each time we change the process, we update the map. We pull from a variety of metrics to measure our improvement – e.g., overall time to complete the process or number of steps in the process.

An obvious place to start with a trademark portfolio is the application process. The client sends an e-mail asking about the availability of MARK for use with a product. The in-house paralegal does a quick screening search and e-mails back saying that it looks like it is available, and asks whether she should do a full search and how the client will use the MARK. The client emails back saying yes to the full search, and gives a partial answer on use. The paralegal e-mails the outside paralegal requesting a full search. The outside paralegal requests the search and sends the outside IP attorney the results. The outside IP attorney has some follow up questions and sends them to the in-house paralegal, who in turn sends them to the client, who in turn responds to the in-house paralegal, who in turn responds to the attorney. Draw a line on your yellow pad and put each of these steps in sequence. Congratulations, you drew your first process map and already see several ways to improve the process. After each iteration, we want to achieve a steady state. That is, we want a defined process that we will repeat each time we do an application keeping variability to a minimum. One benefit of this technique is that you can apply it endlessly to any given process, always finding room for improvement,

We still can be brilliant lawyers. We just exercise our brilliance at the right time in a defined process that eliminates the unnecessary steps that cost our clients more, but don’t add value.

Next: So what is the status of those fee discussions?

The firm view

From Lisa: 

Ken has delved into the world of process mapping in his post this week. Okay, we love process mapping. We use this Lean tool often at Seyfarth -- we use it in very complex matters and those that are more repetitive. We may do it electronically, on a white board or even in our heads -- the trick is that it is a way to think about a problem.

When we first started working on process mapping, there was some resistance among our lawyers (and from me, as well). "Every matter is different," I kept saying. "This is complex litigation. How can we know what will happen?" We also heard: "My M&A work is highly specialized; a process map won't work." However, as we began to refine what we thought what a map could be and how we put it together, our lawyers began to see the magic of the tool. We think of our maps as "guides." We know that every legal matter is different, but we use maps to think through strategy, to organize our resources, to spot inefficiencies and to refine our strategy. They have become for many of our lawyers a true strategic tool as they think through complex issues for our clients. A quick plug: If you want to see how this works in real life, Ken and I will be doing a session at the ACC Conference, where we will have the audience on its feet, using a number of Lean tools, process mapping included. If you are coming to San Antonio, join us for some fun.

Another tool that we love to use to think through an issue is a "root cause analysis" tool. This can really force you to think beyond immediate problem-solving by requiring you to stop, think and ask tough questions. One of the tools, in fact, is called the "5 Whys" because it essentially demands that you probe for the root cause, using a series of "why" questions.

We also use other tools to guide our thinking. We find that other tools -- fishbone diagrams, for instance -- can be useful in working through client and internal issues to help identify the right solutions. I used one in a complex internal investigation last week, and it enabled me to get to an efficient solution that worked at the heart of the matter, not the periphery.

As we have said before, Lean gives us a way to think, a different approach to the practice of law. The tools support the thinking; they allow us to analyze and solve problems more efficiently and effectively. We would love to hear what kinds of tools and disciplines you are using. Let us know.

Next: A fee update and Ken teaches Seyfarth

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