It's No Surprise: It's All About Value

 

ACC’s 2011 Chief Legal Officer Survey was unveiled at this year’s Annual Meeting in Denver. The annual survey and the resulting AM CLO session offered important insights for in-house counsel. I can’t tell you, though, that I was surprised by the results or discussions that followed. They included:

  • CLOs are concerned with regulatory issues that put them on the front line for potential liability, but are more concerned with protecting the company by knowing all activities that could have legal implications;
  • While they are typically happy with their chosen profession, they are affected by having to do more with less; and
  • They want to see the value in their outside counsel relationships and improve communication there, as well as within their own legal departments.

These issues are at the core of what in-house counsel grapple with on a day-to-day basis. The findings of the survey make perfect sense to me, and here’s why:  

 

The increasingly important ­and changing role of the CLO

As in-housel counsel, one of our main goals (if not the goal) is to protect the company we work for from harm. Risk management is a crucial part of our day-to-day activities, and CLOs are on the front line — expected to offer solutions as problems arise, and ensure solutions are easily accessible and compliant with ever-changing regulations and laws. We can also be held personally responsible when something goes legally amiss. There was a time when the attorneys in the company didn’t have to worry about being prosecuted for the “crimes” of their employer. All you have to do is turn on the television to know those days are over.  As I said during our CLO panel at the Annual Meeting, general counsel are considered key players in government investigations, and are therefore prime targets. While not programmed to shrink from a challenge, almost a third (31 percent) of the respondents said that this increased scrutiny is actually affecting their next career move.

Up to the challenge and satisfied

Yes, CLOs are expected to do more with less, while under more scrutiny from the SEC than ever. And yes, these facts can be challenging, but in-house counsel are entrusted with finding solutions. In fact, we thrive in this role. The survey shows that 92 percent of CLOs generally like their jobs. Well, I didn’t need a survey to tell me that, having met and reconnected with many of you in October at the ACC Annual Meeting. I overwhelmingly heard your testimonials that you are engaged and enjoy what you do..  

The economy and staffing

The survey found that fewer CLOs are feeling the effects of the economic downturn (54 percent) in 2010 than in 2009, when 74 percent reported the same. Those who are feeling this crunch are decreasing staff and increasing their work for outside firms at a higher percentage than in 2009. However, despite a challenging economy, many CLOs are planning to increase staff. According to the survey, 37 percent plan to bring on new hires in the coming year. While some organizations and firms, for that matter, are cutting staff, in-house counsel are adding to their own. This, of course, has something to do with the increasing responsibility of the legal department: Three-quarters of your departments have experienced an increased workload.

Fee structures and working with outside counsel

Working with outside counsel, and getting value from those relationships, is always a key concern for CLOs. Most CLOs are currently using hourly-based fees, and 45 percent of them experienced an “increase in hourly rates charged in 2010.” However, a growing number of CLOs (63 percent, according to the survey) have implemented a form of value-based fee arrangements, with 77 percent seeing an “increase in value of work performed by outside counsel.” This is encouraging news, but there is always room for improvement, as 59 percent of those surveyed would like to see more focus on improving matter and budget management. Again, it all comes back to value.

I could go on and on about other tidbits from the survey of ACC members. For example, CLOs in the United States have increased by 5 percent in the past three years, but the growth of those located in other countries has increased by 20 percent. Similarly, ACC’s international reach as an organization is growing, as is the presence of the international in-house counsel and law department. Please view the entire CLO survey, as well as those from previous years, at www.acc.com/community/clo/surveys.cfm.

You’ve made it clear that CLOs want to add value to their organizations and legal departments by managing the risks and supporting the business objectives. CLOs are seeking value from the outside counsel they employ. And they are seeking personal value in their career choices.  

It’s all about value.

 

What You Measure and How You Measure It

If you decide that you are measuring your law department’s performance in the correct context (see prior blogs), you then face two more important hurdles. The first, whether you are measuring something that accurately measures a relevant factor and second, that you are measuring the right thing.

Let me address the last issue first—are you measuring the right thing? Two measures seem to predominate the law department measuring game—customer satisfaction surveys and benchmarking. These are offered by the legal consultants in large part because it is easy to do and does not require the consulting firm to actually understand much about the delivery of legal services.

Customer surveys, or the happiness indicator as I refer to it, have two problems. First, it creates the wrong incentive for lawyers who will become reluctant to give unpleasant advice. Second, it measures happiness and not whether the lawyer is actually adding value in manner that benefits the overall corporation. The later is do able, but it far more complex and costly, and generally well beyond the skill and capability of the legal consultant firm.

The second method is benchmarking. The single biggest problem with that method is comparability. The categories which the consulting firms although superficially appealing could prove very misleading. Take for example my former employer, Alcan Aluminum Limited, and Alcoa, who at one time vied with each other as the largest aluminum producers in the world.  From year to year who was the biggest shifted in terms of revenues and size of shipments, but they were always pretty close. Were they comparable for legal benching marking, say on legal expenses per ton or per revenue dollar? No,  because Limited’s primary revenue was highly weighted to primary metal with large advantages in cheap power in Northern Canada whereas Alcoa dominated the higher revenue finished and semi-finished products that required more complex marketing, technological and patent issues (and far more product liability exposure). Differences in legal expenses actually described more about the difference in the businesses than in than the functioning of the business. I would suspect that other apparently similar businesses are also quite difference.

Benchmarking is offered is by the legal consultant industry because it is cheap for them to do and they can charge a lot for it. It also requires no real understanding of either the actual delivery of services or comparability between the businesses.

How you measure is also very important. Statistical significance and controls are critical. The classic demonstration of control is the Governor who pulls out a chart showing the downward sloping curve of highway fatalities starting in 1985 when he signed and implemented the slower speed limits on major highways. This he concludes demonstrates the effectiveness of his policy. The next day a major paper in the State published a Chart of highway fatalities from 1978 to 1984 and the slope was even steeper. So what was happening? Clearly, the Governor’s policy did not have the casual impact he claimed. Was it counter productive? Or was it wholly irrelevant?

Finally remember correlations are not statement of causation—they are statements of correlations. And remember statistical significance. That which is not statistically significant is noise and much of what you hear about the present recovery discussed on the business channels is nothing more that statistical noise. Do not make the same mistake in your studies. You might find somebody like me reading them.

So Fred Krebs is right--measure often, but measure the right thing, the right way at the right time.