Articles Posted in Talent

General counsel need to become accustomed to repeating key messages when they speak with members of their department. The repetition of fundamental points, such as the value of teamwork, partnership with internal clients, respect for each other, and communication – may sometimes grow wearying. They may assume there’s nothing more to say and the message had better resonate. But they would be wrong.

All leaders need to lay out clearly and pound home fundamental messages. Ad nauseum, perhaps. Ears open and close at different times, so the words have to be out there all the time. Ideally, of course, the legal leader should believe in and model actions they extol (See my post of March 21, 2006: Mike Dillon without an office as a role model; April 30, 2006: mentor is more than role model; May 2, 2007: listen more, as role model; June 10, 2007: a solid leadership practice under Human Capital Management; Sept. 7, 2008: general counsel as role models; Oct. 8, 2007: 180 degree assessments; and May 4, 2009: walk the talk.).

Two ideas I had not heard of comes from an article in the NYSBA J., Oct. 2010 at 36, which primarily discusses improvements to law schools. Among the opportunities for in-house counsel to pitch in it mentions to “collaborate with a local law school for an externship or guest lecture program.”

Externship means that a law student spends time working in the legal department for academic credit? Maybe an internship has no compensation, by contrast (See my post of March 19, 2009: interns from law school with 6 references.).

The second idea in the quote could work both ways: a professor comes to the law department or a lawyer from the corporation lectures at the law school.

Two points struck me from data in the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s (AIPLA) Rep. of the Ec. Survey 2005 at I-73. The page shows data for 140 chief IP lawyers in corporations. One chart shows the percentage of time they devoted to nine types of work, the other chart shows “gross income in 2004.”

As to time expended, under the category “Office management/administration” the average was 12 percent and the median was 10 percent. It sounds about right to me that management of their portion of the legal department takes about ten percent of their time, a figure I have used more broadly for general counsel in terms of their oversight of the entire law department.

The compensation data, which hearkens back six years, surprised me. Two of the lawyers reported gross income greater than $500,000; one greater than $600,000; and three greater than $750,000. Even with bonuses and vested stock options or grants, those are munificent earnings for lawyers who report to the general counsel.

The imminent departure, by retirement or illness, of a seasoned lawyer worries many general counsel. If they leave, so does their knowledge of the law, the realpolitik of practice, and the company. One way to lessen the loss might be to capture situation-specific advice on complex decision-making tasks.

An ad by Exsys, Inc. www.exsys.com offers software that lets you “Capture and deliver the knowledge of your top experts in online interactive sessions.” I have not looked into the offering but the ad suggests a way to relatively easily extract from senior lawyers some of their tacit knowledge in a format that can advise others. The software claims to incorporate expert system capabilities to enhance decision making (See my post of April 21, 2010: AI and legal applications with 9 references and 2 metaposts.). Perhaps technology can preserve some wisdom and help staunch the loss of experiential knowledge.

The Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Docket, July/Aug. 2010, at 32, recommends an action general counsel should take to elevate the importance of diverse attorneys representing the company. “They should consider establishing a position of chief legal diversity officer or minority counsel liaison, which would send a clear message to the corporation and outside counsel about the importance of diversity.” Later the authors recommend that “Law departments should invite minority counsel to an annual in-house diversity conference.”

In isolation, this recommendation is easy to understand. Should there also be a Chief Legal Technology Officer, a Chief Legal Environmental Officer, a Chief Pro Bono Officer? For any significant initiative of a law department, does it deserve or warrant a “Chief”? We could run out of teepees.

Well, in the interests of full disclosure, these ideas in the Economist, Sept. 11, 2010 at 80 for gaining power were not quite that specific. To amass power, it is not enough to be good at your job. “The relationship between rewards and competence is loose at best.”

For power (promotion) seekers, the article emphasizes, first, the ability to manage up, which means “turning yourself into a supplicant” and “mastering the art of flattery.” General counsel beware! The second step is “the ability to network.” Become a sought-after “node” between different groups within your department and company. Third, stick around. Longevity on the ladder helps with promotions.

The postscript of the article answers the question “How do you keep power once you get it?” “The key to keeping power is to understand its corrupting effects.” General counsel pay heed!

Four performance myths get set straight in an article in talent mgt., Sept. 2010 at 12. The author states one as “When employees select their own work goals, their motivation to achieve them is greater.” Not necessarily. Research has shown that “employees willingly buy into assigned work goals if they perceive those who set them as trustworthy and credible.” My background favors “buy in” and “bubble up the from the bottom” but top-down goals also have efficacy.

That said, the research finding makes sense. A credible goal set by a respected general counsel can send the troops energetically over the top. Let’s close 20 percent of the pending cases this quarter; let’s apply for 25 more patents than the past average; let’s choose and install a contract management system by June 1st – charge!

A person can think well without being able to write well, but no one writes well without thinking well. From that profound claim, let’s move to the practical. Writing proficiency may in fact distinguish in-house counsel more than external counsel because busy executives have no patience for circumlocution, caveats, clumsiness and complexity. Legal genius needs the ability to express its ideas cogently.

One of the common criticisms about new graduates from law school turns to their lack of basic writing skills. An article in the NYSBA J., Sept. 2010 at 23, bemoans the poor writing skills of new lawyers. In the end, if the remedial instruction doesn’t happen at a firm, a law department may have to drag along a poor writer (See my post of Feb. 5, 2009: writing with 6 references.).

Three observations about people management surfaced from a recent discussion. One was that the merry-go-round of lawyer recruitment, departure, and new recruitment in China and Brussels causes consternation. Job hoppers command 20 percent increases and get cars or other perquisites. Too many multinationals are chasing too few qualified candidates. Golden handcuffs and phantom stock, among other inducements, raise costs enormously.

The second observation was that it is no good to send an ex pat to an office of the law department in China because the inability to speak Mandarin is so crucial (See my post of Jan. 12, 2009: ex pat lawyers and their costs, with 7 references.).

Third, no one knew how long you can get an executive search firm to agree not to recruit the person they just placed with you (two years?) (See my post of Sept. 16, 2008: search firms with 12 references.).