Articles Posted in Talent

A profile of Bristol-Myers Squibb’s former general counsel, John McGoldrick, makes two points that deserve comment. They are in Corp. Bd. Mbr., Vol. 12, 2nd Quarter 2009 at 44.

“Great general counsel come in a variety of flavors. Some are expert at helping their companies influence and adapt to the shifting trends of public policy.” Others litigate skillfully or bring a strong business sense, the piece adds, but I underline the part about policy influence. By training and experience, few general counsel would be expected to weigh in expertly on public policy. Perhaps I misunderstand the term and its nexus with the law.

The second notable point is that while McGoldrick was general counsel (and “taking lead responsibility for global policy, government affairs, and philanthropy”) he simultaneously became president of the medical-devices group, “which gave him operational authority over one of the company’s three main lines of business.” That was an awesome, but problematic, responsibility. How could he remain objective in terms of his obligations to the company as a lawyer?

An article in Corp. Bd. Mbr., Vol. 12, 2nd Quarter 2009 at 38, suggests that Boards of Directors should assess the legal talent of the general counsel and replace that top lawyer if that is necessary. A partner at a large law firm, quoted in the article, recommends that board members “pay attention to your management team’s skills too, including those of your chief legal officer.” If they are not equipped to handle the issues ahead, “you may need to find a new team.”

It is not my understanding that a Board, on its own, can unseat a general counsel (See my post of Dec. 12, 2007: Boards with 18 references.). The CEO should hire, and if necessary fire, the top legal officer. No doubt the views of key Board members shape the CEO’s decision, but they don’t supersede it (See my post of March 1, 2007: a view that the Board should select and pay the chief legal officer.).

Law Department Management Blog is pleased to welcome a new guest author. Robert M. Unterberger, a litigator for more than 20 years, has more recently been CEO, Head of Legal Solutions and Consultant to U.S., U.K., Canadian and Indian-based start-up, boutique and large LPOs. An adjunct law professor, Bob has been profiled in publications including Entrepreneur, New York Law Journal, Lawyers Weekly, and Law Technology News. He may reached at 302-562-2535 or unterlaw@yahoo.com.

A consistent objection to LPO is the potential exposure of client confidences and data to third parties. Add to that the concern that national security might be compromised by offshoring, particularly at a time when government resources are trying to defend against cyber attacks, and a reasonable person might just say: “Why bother with LPO?” But I offer a concept that has been the buzz of conversation among my LPO peers: Offshoring to U.S. commonwealths and territories.

Think about it, LPO performed “by Americans, in America” – but by Americans who will take the job for less, possibly much less.

Data recently appeared about corporate counsel in a large, longitudinal study by a team at the American Bar Foundation (ABF). The study, cited in Researching the Law, Vol. 20, Spring 2009 at 1, started with surveys in 2002of a representative sample of over 4,000 lawyers. Five years later, over 70 percent of the first cohort took part in a second survey, in addition to 26 percent of a similar group of lawyers who had not been surveyed the first year. The results of the second survey are weighted to be nationally representative.

In 2002, two years out of law school, 4.2 percent of the survey respondents who were practicing law were working in corporate legal departments. By 2007, that number had quintupled to 19 percent. In other words, in this large sample of recent US law graduates, by their seventh year of practice almost one in five had become an in-house attorney.

And they were happy. The study broke the respondents into 14 practice settings, such as six sizes of private firms, three government settings, etc. The percentage of women who said they were extremely to moderately satisfied with their career (161 respondents) was highest, at 87.4 percent, in “Business – Inside Counsel.” For men (184 respondents), the career satisfaction rating was 77.9 percent, which ranked about mid-way among the practice settings, but above all the private firm ratings.

Survey data collected by Optia Partners, summarized in Asian Legal Bus., Vol. 7, May 2009, gives compensation data from nearly 500 English-speaking lawyers (bengoshi) employed in corporate legal functions in Japan. The brief article does not explain whether the amounts reported are salary only or also include bonuses.

The seven industries represented show widely differing average compensation. I have listed the comp figures in declining order. Finance ¥20.4MM; Manufacturing ¥17.6MM; Insurance ¥15MM; Technology ¥14.6MM; Life Sciences ¥14.4MM; Other ¥8.9MM. Advertising and Consumer ¥6.5MM. At the conversion rate of about 100 Yen to a US dollar, that puts in-house lawyers working for Japanese financial institutions at about $200,000.

Not that much hiring is going on, but for the straggling few departments that have an opportunity to add someone, consider this recommendation about interviews: “It’s more important to choose the right assessors than to focus on the assessment technique.” The Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 86, May 2009 at 81 stresses this point: “Getting the wrong people involved in your hiring process increases the risk not only of hiring an unsuitable candidate but also of rejecting a good candidate. The worst interviewers actually have a slightly negative effect – that is, following their recommendations will lead to a worse decision than simply hiring a candidate from the pool at random.”

So, choose who interviews attorneys very carefully (See my post of Jan. 1, 2006 on past behavioral interviewing; April 23, 2008: video interviews; April 7, 2006: distractions of the interviewee’s looks or height; Sept. 3, 2008: six suggestions for effective interviews; Oct. 1, 2006: shorten the interview process; and Jan. 1, 2006: competency interviews compared to IQ tests.). At the other end, by the way, try to talk with everyone who leaves (See my post of Aug. 24, 2005: exit interviews.).

For eleven years, Booz & Company has analyzed data about CEO succession at major companies. For the world’s 2,500 largest public companies, they researched whether there was a “succession event” in 2008 and if so all kinds of information about the former CEO and the next CEO. A similar analysis about general counsel would be quite interesting, at least to devotees of departmental operations (you are reading one). Some of the findings, as published in strategy + bus., Issue 55, Summer 2009 at 61, point to what we don’t know but could collect and report (Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, are you listening?).

The average age of incoming general counsel (See my post of Nov. 28, 2005: average age of a group of in-house counsel was 48; April 18, 2005: average age of US in-house counsel; June 13, 2006: age differences and extroversion; and June 30, 2007: age differences and narcissism.).

The average age of outgoing general counsel (See my post of April 20, 2009: retirement of in-house lawyers with 8 references.).

Marschall Smith, the General Counsel of 3M, described at the SuperConference one of his department’s significant investments in leadership development. He explained that every six months 15-20 of his 165 lawyers spend one week off campus at a program called the Leadership Development Council. The aim is to “turn them into business associates with law degrees.”

The Council runs twice a year, so he is able to teach many more lawyers about business than the three lawyers a year that can attend a corporate high-potential program (See my post of July 29, 2007: high potentials with 10 references.).

Sylvia Bateman, an Associate General Counsel at Exelon, took a few minutes at the SuperConference to describe some of the professional development opportunities her legal department makes available. Batemen said, “We provide training if lawyers want to sit on a not-for-profit board.” Exelon’s legal department also hosts a chapter of Toastmasters, the international organization that helps people speak more confidently and competently before groups.

Next, Bateman told the audience that Exelon’s 60-lawyer department sponsors eleven committees, mentioning about half of them: the environment, CLE, diversity, mentoring, pro bono and summer clerks. This blog has metaposts on all those topics, and a few citations to summer programs (See my post of May 23, 2007: sharing summer associates; May 7, 2006: GE and its summer interns; Feb. 17, 2008: diversity and a summer associate program; and March 19, 2009: summer interns to save costs.). The eleven committee heads report periodically to the Exelon “Legal Council.”

Bateman noted in passing that the mentoring committee sometimes pairs lawyers with business officers. A co-panelist, at Ford Motor Credit, said that her legal group uses Mentium to arrange mentors outside the company.

At a panel during the Ninth Annual SuperConference, a lawyer from Exelon told the audience how that large law department makes sure managers each use a similar approach and grading style. The twenty managers of lawyers, those who evaluate lawyers who report to them, meet together to assure “ratings reliability.” In that session, the managers describe each lawyer they evaluate, explain the basis for the ratings given the lawyer, and field questions and comments from the other managers.

All law departments should emulate these practices. Fairness dictates that those who evaluate performance have reasonably consistent, articulated, and defended methods and outputs(See my post of Sept. 21, 2008: annual reviews and evaluations, with 12 references.).