Articles Posted in Productivity

Not a fan of time tracking in legal departments, except for limited times and purposes, I question even more internal tracking of time when there are stated expectations of chargeable hours. That practice is problematic for the same reasons that chargeable hour goals at law firms ought to worry law departments (See my post of Nov. 2, 2006: chargeable hour goals in firms; and Aug. 22, 2006: chargeable hour goals in firms.).

In-house lawyers may be sloppy about tracking their time, to be sure, but the more important objection is that people bend over backwards to achieve the minimum goal and pay secondary attention to whether the client who pays for the work gets value.

Here is where this off-beat idea comes from. “An example of a strategy for controlling the predictability of intrusions in organizations is the institution of “quiet time,” whereby members of an organization agreed to a standard period of clock time during which coworkers will not intrude on each other and organizational members can concentrate on their solitary work.” This eyebrow-raising concept (horribly written as it may be) comes from the Acad. Mgt. J., July 2003 at 496.

Perhaps it is worth a try in a legal department. “Let’s all agree to a time out among ourselves from interruptions so we can collect our thoughts and ponder a bit.” If clients, adversaries, regulators and external bodies call or email, so be it. Within the department quiet will prevail for that brief period. Maybe it would only be on Wednesdays, maybe it would be at another time of the day, certainly there will be exceptions and it won’t work perfectly, but it might quiet the tumult and boost the cognitive productivity of the department.

Expectations about what internal audit can do to improve a legal department may be unrealistic. An article in Compliance Week (July 7, 2010) by José Tabuena, senior vice president of governance and compliance with PhyServe Physician Services, gives an example of over-reach. Jose.Tabuena@physerveinc.com

“The objectives of auditing the legal department may vary but there are several key questions the internal auditor should consider:

 What are the goals and objectives of the legal department? Are they congruent with those of the organization?

The Red Flag Group was praised by a speaker at the InsideCounsel SuperConference. Brian Martin, the general counsel of KLA Tencor explained that his $2+ billion company retained the Red Flag Group to “take all the company’s policies and put them in a common format. They put them on a portal with search capabilities.”

Martin said that IT policies, expense policies and others are therefore much more easily available and understandable. Whatever law departments can do to educate clients and help them adhere to company policies will reduce the department’s eventual workload.

The Red Flag Group was praised by a speaker at the InsideCounsel SuperConference. Brian Martin, the general counsel of KLA Tencor explained that his $2+ billion company retained the Red Flag Group to “take all the company’s policies and put them in a common format. They put them on a portal with search capabilities.”

Martin said that IT policies, expense policies and others are therefore much more easily available and understandable. Whatever law departments can do to educate clients and help them adhere to company policies will reduce the department’s eventual workload.

Treading into an area full of unknowns for me, I note from Exec. Counsel, April/May 2010 at 26, some data about USPTO rates for allowing patents. “The allowance rate varied only slightly from 2005 to 2007, from 55 percent to 52 percent.” However, after a blockbuster decision by the US Supreme Court on patent “obviousness,” the allowance rate plummeted to 44.2 percent in 2008 and further to 41 percent in mid-2009.

Many factors determine disallowances by patent examiners, but at least this data gives a chief patent counsel a crude yardstick to measure the performance of those who prepare and file patent applications. I do not know enough to say whether a patent lawyer who beats the disallowance percentage has for that reason alone done better, but at least a metric is available to judge one aspect of performance and results.

A numeric norm undoubtedly exists between the number of cases handled per litigation lawyer inside and the number of outside counsel managed by the same lawyer. In general, you would expect that the more lawsuits in the dossier of an in-house lawyer the more law firms that lawyer would manage. If the lawyer had on his or her plate only one massive case, it is quite likely that only a handful of law firms are involved. At the opposite extreme would be a caseload of hundreds of product liability cases each handled by a different local law firm.

I have written about litigation case loads of 20-30 per lawyer as about the maximum for effectiveness (See my post of April 8, 2005: from a survey about 50 cases per litigator.) and I have written about 5-7 law firms per in-house lawyer as a rough guide (See my post of July 17, 2009: law firms and vendors per user; and Feb. 11, 2007: in smaller departments, about three law firms hired regularly per in-house lawyer.), but I have seen no metrics that combine and describe the incidence of the two figures.

Talking with a client, we developed a set of disciplines regarding cc’s on email messages. They relate to the length, level, importance, and number of people to copy. We came up with these eight ideas.

1. Delegate responsibility to forward. Add to the end of your message the phrase “Copy others as you see fit.” Each recipient has their own view of whom should be included or excluded, so let them make the call. On your own you are as likely to over-copy as to under-copy.

2. Pick one end of a reporting chain. Copy the senior person or the junior person, but not both or any intermediates. When you copy an entire reporting chain (general counsel, deputy general counsel, and one lawyer who reports to you) you are probably over-copying.

I have always assumed that a bureaucratic organization stifles creativity, fosters dissatisfaction, and de-motivates employees. Never assume! Some organizational researchers present positive aspects of bureaucracy. It provides guidance for workers, clarifies responsibilities, and reduces stress.

This more balanced view is important to bear in mind because all law departments operate with a certain amount of bureaucratic controls. There are forms, decision rules, guidelines, unquestioned practices, and hierarchies. Those bureaucratic manifestations help members of the department know what they must do and allow them to devote their energies to other areas and what they might do. Job descriptions are part of formal procedures; as are operating manuals. Another key premise of bureaucracy is that rank has its privileges. Rules abound, but some people like operating within a system of rules – after all, what is our common law system but an elaboration of rules?

Those with a bias against bureaucracy need more nuance, with an appreciation that rules and approvals and directives create positive benefits (See my post of Oct. 22, 2006: sclerotic bureaucracy; March 8, 2009: larger departments tend to be more bureaucratic; and June 21, 2006: my libertarian opposition to requirements.). What we malign as bureaucratic rules and procedures channel efforts to activities that have higher value.