Articles Posted in Productivity

As in-house counsel handle matter after matter of a similar kind, they gain experience and they can do more, better, and in less time. The knowledge they accumulate can be thought of as a by-product — a spillover from the repeated production of advice and counsel. The legal department does not need to invest anything, aside from compensation, to enjoy these gains.

Such an improvement in productivity as a result of doing tasks over time has been dubbed the Horndal effect, after a Swedish steel mill where the phenomenon was observed. At the mill, annual output per worker increased steadily for 15 years, with no additional investment. David Warsh, Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations: A Story of Economic Discovery (Norton 2006 at 152).

A survey done in February 2006 by Mahlab Recruitment and Harris Cost Lawyers produced data from members of the Australian Corporate Lawyers Association (ACLA). Some of the comments made by the respondents had to do with integrating the legal department into business decisions and activities (at 12). The one that made me pause and think was “ensuring internal management follow up legal advice.”

That objective troubles me, because it is hard enough to give management good legal advice, let alone keep track afterwards to see whether they act in conformance with that advice. It is easy to say that no lawyer should be content with simply giving the right advice, if the client will disregard it, but if the onus of responsibility lies on the lawyer to ensure compliance, the lawyer’s responsibility and workload will soar.

A previous post defines the term “process” (See my post of April 27, 2006 that collects my efforts to that date.). A clear awareness of what process and alertness to them raises operational effectiveness in law departments.

Four reasons come to mind. Where it identifies a process, a law department can systemize and streamline it (See my post of Nov. 14, 2005 on Six Sigma and the posts cited.). Further, to train lawyers and clients it helps greatly if there is a repeatable process that you can describe and decompose (See my post of June 28, 2006 on possible repercussions of training.). A third benefit of sensitivity to processes is that efforts to coordinate and disseminate knowledge then have a focus (See my post of June 15, 2006 on individual disregard of efforts to help the group.). The ability to look at workloads of in-house lawyers more perceptively makes up the fourth reason for a concentration on processes.

All I would add is that the grander ones perspective, the easier it is to call something a process. Those in the hurly burly of activity may rail against what they believe is a false perception of consistency, logic, and linearity – a process – by those above them, not to mention consultants.

Many law departments run training programs for their clients (See my post of July 14, 2005 regarding methods of training.) and others sponsor online legal and compliance training programs (See my post of June 13, 2006 on such software programs.). Still others circulate guidelines and primers to their clients to educate them about the law and its processes.

A hoped-for result of this combination of training and legal emancipation (See my posts of Sept. 14, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006 on the self-service model for clients.), though what might result is the opposite. As clients become more sensitive to legal risks they may call upon their in-house counsel even more frequently than before. After all in every business action legal risk is ubiquitous and ineradicable. That being so, opening the eyes of clients may trigger demands for an outpouring of legal work.

Another irony of good intentions possibly backfiring (See my post of May 10, 2006 about Kraft’s IP training and its consequences.). Despite this potential boomerang, I am absolutely sure that training clients pays off.

Everyone bemoans that which they can’t live without: e-mail (See my posts of July 14, 2005 about inefficiencies from e-mail interruptions and June 5, 2006 about the stress they cause.). Can a law department legislate relief? Ponder this fiat: “One law department has a rule that lawyers will not log on to their e-mail accounts two hours before or two hours after normal working hours in the jurisdiction in which they are located.”

Aside from wondering how anyone can enforce such a rule, as cited in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 17, I just don’t follow how it helps. If you don’t want to peek, you won’t. If the rule prohibited lawyers from sending e-mail, then at least the volleys and clicks would drop.

No, I haven’t flipped out. Inspired by some programming aids, self-styled life hackers have thought about how knowledge workers can increase their productivity (See my post of April 3, 2006 with its analysis of the term “productivity.”). The Economist, June 10, 2006 at 14, mentions two sites, 43 Folders and lifehacker.com, and usefully gives five life hacks.

1. Change your e-mail so it fetches new messages at 15 or 30 minute intervals, so you can concentrate more (See my post of today about another e-mail restriction.)

2. Create form responses for e-mail messages you often send

A recent survey on UK law department technology, in Law Dept. Quarterly, Vol. 2, May-July 2006 at 21, reports that “almost one third of the departments (30%) allow some or all of their lawyers to work from home up to two days a week.”

To read that statement carefully is to notice that it does not say all lawyers are eligible for telecommuting nor does it say how many eligible lawyers do actually work from home. The key verb is “allow” not “report that some lawyers work from home” (See my posts of Sept. 25, 2005 and Oct. 19, 2005 about obstacles to remote work.).

In most law departments, one of the most common processes is to draft or review routine contracts (See my post of Dec. 3, 2005 on ways to expedite contract processes.). I wouldn’t be surprised if lawyers assigned to a business unit spend close to half their time on contract-related matters.

According to Corporate Counsel, Vol. 13, June 2006 at 67, General Electric used Six Sigma disciplines to cut the time needed to draft routine contracts from 30 to three days. DuPont did something similar and saved $4.5 million a year through its effort. All law departments can increase the speed and decrease the cost of how they handle contracts.

By early 2004, this tool, which enables online acceptance of terms and conditions, was in full swing. According to a press release, “Employing Click Accept for demonstration equipment loan agreements alone has freed up two full-time positions to take on other work and has reduced cycle time from 10 days to two. More than 80,000 transactions have been processed using this tool. Cisco has 10 types of contracts on Click Accept and a roadmap to implement an additional thirty-two. Conservative estimates place the number of annual transactions it can facilitate for Cisco at 6.5 million and the potential annual productivity benefits at a minimum of $10 million.”

Boggles my mind that two people were slaving full time on one kind of contract and that the savings from this software matches many law department’s total legal spend.

• Sometimes when you start to type in the name of someone in the “To” line, prior names beginning with the same letters will automatically pop up. Make sure you don’t accidentally choose the wrong name.

• When you are responding to an e-mail, it isn’t always necessary (or desirable) to reply to everyone who received the e-mail. If you “reply to all,” make certain your reply should go to everyone and not just the sender.

• With a long e-mail chain, it’s easy to forget what was written at the beginning (bottom) of the e-mail. Before forwarding the chain, always check what’s contained in the earlier parts.