Articles Posted in Talent

A piece on PSLs – professional support or practice support lawyers – in the ABA J., July 2011 at 27, led me to ruminate why some law departments don’t agree to share a PSL. The large law firms cited in the article have non-practicing lawyers who “provide practice guides, up-to-date forms and other support that frees up the time” of practicing lawyers. They sound like knowledge management specialists and they sound like a useful resource for many law departments.

Few law departments on their own, however, can afford a PSL. So, why can’t two or three law departments join together to retain a PSL, not as an employee but as an independent contractor, to help with those sorts of beneficial support tasks that the departments have in common? With the world awash in good lawyers looking for part-time or full-time work, and with law firms eager to second associates for opportunities with law departments, many would be available at modest costs when those costs are divide among several departments.

The longer a lawyer stays in the same law department the more embedded the lawyer becomes. Known to everyone in the company, familiar with the execs and the cleaners, politically attuned, a compendium of historical business knowledge leavened with legal savvy, the lawyer’s value grows proportionally (or faster) with tenure.

Yet, the more years you stay, the harder it is to leave, since your knowledge base, your grasp of the business, its goals, operations and executives, cannot be transported. Were you to join another law department, that tacit and explicit wealth of knowledge evaporates.

So the longer in-house lawyers stay with a company, the greater their worth, but the stronger their chains (See my post of April 25, 2011: tenure of in-house lawyers with 8 references.).

No Road to Damascus vision causes a CEO to hire the company’s first house attorney. Rather, the CEO or CFO probably becomes aware of several arguments that compel the decision. Consider eight of them, in the order that I think they contribute to the decision (See my post of May 2, 2008: ad for first hire by manufacturing company; March 30, 2006: intermediate decision of contract general counsel; and Dec. 27, 2008: small departments with 7 references cited.).

Reduce external legal fees. The most pressing reason is cost-saving: hour for hour it is less expensive to pay an employee than to pay an outside law firm (See my post of Jan. 8, 2008: claim that company created a general counsel’s office to strengthen procurement of legal services.).

Handle flow of similar legal issues. Another impetus to bring a lawyer onboard would be workflow; sufficient demand or need – demand recognized and need immanent – for legal guidance and advice. The revenue of a company can be miniscule (See my post of Dec. 23, 2008: at least 20% of a survey’s law departments had less than $100 million.).

The Council on Litigation Management (CLM) has teamed with Columbia Law School to host the Litigation Management Institute. According to a press release, “The Institute is the first certification program specifically designed to provide attorneys a comprehensive understanding of the business of litigation management.”

The Institute, to be limited to 100 participants, will start October 28th. Nine courses will cover topics such as case evaluation and assessment, reserving, data management, resolution strategies, fee arrangements, and the fundamentals of insurance coverage and risk transfer. Upon completion of the program, attorneys will receive the Certified Litigation Management Professional (CLMP) designation and be awarded the Litigation Management Institute certificate. Additional details are available on the CLM website.

From a presentation at the SuperConference, someone threw out the PIE theory of career success. They credit that theory with a quantification of what contributes to an upward career trajectory. I quote from the slide:

“‘P’ for performance: it accounts for 10% of success

‘I’ for image: 30% of success

My usual comments about titles in legal departments culminate in something about Associate Counsel being senior or junior to Assistant Counsel. That pair of titles seems quite common, and usually in that order of ascendancy. But the title stepping-stones for the home office attorneys at Allstate sit quite differently.

From a presentation at the SuperConference, we learn that Allstate’s lawyers proceed from Staff Attorney to Attorney; then Senior Attorney; up to Corporate Counsel; and top out as Officer. Nary a mention of Associate General Counsel or Assistant General Counsel. Nor does it matter. It is important to some degree that lawyers and others outside the company appreciate, at least reasonably well, the level of someone from their title alone. Otherwise, a counsel by any other name would smell as sweet.

As an aside, I suppose to some a “Senior Attorney” sounds pretty influential, as compared to a mere “Corporate Counsel,” but that is mere speculation (See my post of June 26, 2008: titles with 15 references.).

“No food or drink is allowed into the corporate offices.” Yikes! When I read that policy of the UPS Law Department, I remembered the stream of salads and sandwiches I have swallowed at my desk for lunch or the ubiquitous bottled waters and Diet Cokes seen everywhere, let alone the stimulant of choice for Americans – coffee – and I can hardly believe that this food code is upheld. Sure, cafeterias at UPS are open all day and nearby, but that’s no match for a Snickers in the left drawer.

“No male employee can wear a beard [but females may?], hair must be kept above the collar, and a mustache cannot grow below the corner of the mouth [but sideburns, goatees and beards?].” This policy restatement in Corp. Counsel, June 2011 at 73, may be partial or misquoted, but I assume its gist is correct. I had to smile at the contrast between the puritan UPS and the playful Google, winner over UPS in the magazine’s choices as best legal department. Anything goes sartorially, and does go, out in Mountain View.

A final straw (removed at the end of the day): “And desks must be cleared and clean at the end of the day.” For those of us who have taken piles to the nth degree of organization, this would be too much (See my post of Feb. 2, 2008: piles.).

The ideal general counsel, as a selfless developer of people, mentors the lawyers below and helps them maximize their potential. We wish. In the rough-and-tumble real world, cautions Jeffrey Pfeffer, strong performance may harm you if your powerful general counsel refuses to play that nurturing game. “Power holders prefer to keep the most competent performers in their current roles. By keeping these standouts down, those with power not only look better but also are less likely to lose the stellar employees …”

The quote comes from a review of Pfeffer’s book Power: Why some people have it – and others don’t in Talent & Leadership, Q2 2011 at 79. Optimists hope that Pfeffer has picked on a rare perversion of power – bury talent to raise your own stock – but a sneaking suspicion remains that such misapplications of might do happen (See my post of April 23, 2008: bad behavior by managers with 10 references; and March 31, 2009: nine more posts on poor behavior.).

Some data from Booz & Company, in strat.+bus, Summer 2011 at 43, gives more insight into the frequency of the tumultuous period for a general counsel when the boss changes. A column graph shows that in 2010 CEO turnover in the U.S. and Canada hit about 12 percent. Of that figure, about 6 percent was planned, around 2.5 percent was from dismissal, and about 3.5 percent was due to the acquisition of a company.

Even for planned retirements of the CEO, the general counsel has some nail-biting while the new CEO comes aboard and scrutinizes the senior leadership team. Dismissals of the CEO create even more anxiety and when a new company takes over, at least one general counsel usually leaves (See my post of May 14, 2005: CEO leaves; in 2004, March 28, 2006: CEO of PPG reorganized business structure; Aug. 2, 2006 #1: CEO turnover was about 11.7% in US; June 20, 2007: turnover of GCs when new CEO arrives leaves; and Nov. 7, 2007: GC depends on fortunes of CEO.).

A verse from Matthew in the Gospels says “For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance.” Some people refer to the Matthew Effect where skills and ability beget wealth, and more wealth, such as well-favored law firms getting more and more high-value work. This teaching and term comes from Len Fisher, The Perfect Swarm: The science of complexity in everyday life (Basic Books 2009) at 121. In-house, a smart lawyer who works hard gets more opportunities, shines more, gets promoted, gains more recognition and the beneficent spiral continues.

A vendor whose package breaks away from the pack may continue to widen the gap as the Matthew Effect kicks in – more users, more R&D, better marketing, and the road to market dominance clears. In a fanciful moment I even applied the Matthew Effect to blogs, inasmuch as the better ones attract more readers, comments, sponsors, and attention. In our competitive world, the good often get better and pull away to dominate as the winner takes nearly all (See my post of April 26, 2006: Internal Labor Model depicts tournament; Nov. 13, 2007: network benefits can build to winner-take-all; March 16, 2008: lawyers in a top-dog competition; April 22, 2008: struggle for promotion will lead to cognitive enhancers; Nov. 19, 2008: jostling, in-house lawyers will spend freely; and Nov. 13, 2010: drugs that enhance cognitive ability will be used because of tournament mentality.).