Articles Posted in Talent

Spot bonuses of cash may be a wishful gleam in the eye for most, but some law departments have programs to reward members with an immediate check effort above and beyond the norm (See my post of Nov. 8, 2007: on-the-spot awards.). Such seemingly beneficent programs bump into many nettles.

One risk is that the bonuses go too often to lawyers who work on high-visibility projects, a distortion that treats unfairly those who steadily do yeomen’s duty on less glamorous needs. Another is that awards go disproportionately to senior people, since it is harder to identify when a person at a lower level has significantly outperformed his or her peers. A third complexity arises when the company – above the level of the legal department – doles out rewards for multi-disciplinary teams of employees who made a major contribution, such as a merger team, and a lawyer was on that team. Warning bells ought to go off, furthermore, if one senior lawyer tends to hog the spot awards for that lawyer’s reports. At a deeper level, every time you favor someone, someone else probably feels slighted.

To recognize exemplary contributions with cash – or vacation days or dining out certificates, for that matter – earns you a rose, but issues of complexity, equity, consistency and consequences may prick you.

An article in strategy + business, Summer 2008 at 42, mentions that many Human Resources organizations track the number of job offers made by the law department and accepted. Such a metric might be insightful for large law departments that with some regularity bring aboard new lawyers.

It would be hard to say, however, in which direction you would like the metric to trend. If you are seeking the best applicants possible, you might end up with a relatively low acceptance rate. If you set your standards at a lesser level, you could boost the acceptance rate.

Benefits, in the context of compensation, I define as monetary fillips for an employee, as distinct from entitlements and perquisites, which cannot be converted to money or save money but do cost the company.

By that definition, benefits include employer matching contributions to 401K plans, other kinds of supplemental pension plans, tuition reimbursement, car or mass transit allowances, payments for medical and insurance premiums, subsidized day care, low-cost cafeterias, and relocation assistance (See my posts of Jan. 10, 2006: no benefits paid to temporary staff; May 1, 2005: tuition reimbursement; and April 8, 2007: ex pat benefits.).

Non-cash entitlements include free parking, fitness centers, access to executive dining rooms, and other employee largess (See my posts of Feb. 28, 2006: perquisites of becoming a corporate officer; and Dec. 6, 2006: richer benefits as reason why larger departments might attract better lawyers.).

One word that ought to be banned from thoughtful writing and speaking is the word “resource” when it describes a human being who does something. What galvanized me to write this tiny diatribe is a recent post of mine that quoted a general counsel as referring to a law firm’s “resources available to actually do the work.”

A defender of the abused term will say that systems and technology and training and leadership are all part of the resource package. Granting that, I still feel that most speakers and writers really mean “lawyers,” or “lawyers and support staff” or employees of the law department. Brevity is no defense, because the engineering and economics term “resources” de-humanizes.

Blogs are wonderful for venting to all the resources who read this!

A profile of Respironics’ general counsel, Steve Fulton, has dotted throughout four commendable people practices in his department.

Strong hires and strong retention. During Fulton’s 13-year tenure, “I have never needed to terminate an attorney and none of the attorneys I hired has left” as quoted in GC Mid-Atlantic, June 2008 at 8 (See my posts of Dec. 12, 2006: low attrition in UK legal teams; March 4, 2007: rates of departure; June 24, 2007: blame the general counsel for high attrition rates; and June 15, 2008: Qwest lowers its attrition rate.).

Experienced, mature lawyers. Respironics’ four transactional attorneys average 17 years of experience.

Of the four drivers of employee engagement (See my posts of Jan. 10, 2008: “business” and May 29, 2008: “boss.”), the final in a “b” quartet I call “briefs,” which stands for the actual work done by lawyers.

The work itself is classic motivator for professionals. As professionals, inside attorneys enjoy both the grandeur and granularity of practicing law.

At the most grand, for some lawyers their belief in a system of justice, devotion to equality under the law, appreciation of the sophistication and suppleness of our statutory and common law framework, and the magnificence of our country’s fiercely-held trust in “the law” revs them up. Big projects, big suits, and big-league issues excite them.

Regarding the four drivers of employee engagement (See my posts of Jan. 10, 2008: “business” and May 29, 2008: “boss.”), the third is what I dubbed “buddies.”

Your colleagues who work with you day after day are often what creates an engaged employee. If you like the people around you, you feel part of a team. You feel collegial affection and trust and engagement (See my posts of Feb. 8, 2006: buddy system at Cox Communications; June 17, 2008: buddy system at Starbucks; April 13, 2006: collegiality didn’t rate as an advantage of working in-house; and Jan. 27, 2008: lawyer retreats build collegiality.).

Morale in law departments has spawned a number of reflections on this blog (See my posts of Oct. 29, 2005: morale affected by a hodgepodge of titles; Oct. 29, 2005: morale is a symptom of underlying causes; May 29, 2008: morale busters; Nov. 25, 2006 and Dec. 9, 2005: pay, pride and pals and 5 references cited; Nov. 19, 2005: morale in Reuters’ law department; June 1, 2008: colleagues were morale boosters; and June 1, 2008: some aspects of law department cut both ways regarding morale.).

A piece in GC Mid-Atlantic, June 2008 at 8-9, describes the role Steve Fulton, the general counsel of $1.2 billion in revenue Respironics. His legal team consists of nine attorneys and three support personnel. The article comments that Fulton “wears two hats. He is responsible for ensuring that all of the company’s legal needs are handled in a high-quality, time-efficient, cost effective manner. He also serves as part of the executive management team.”

The point may be obvious, but it is important to remind ourselves. Two roles converge for most general counsel: leader of the legal department and one of the leaders of the company. The best general counsel, in my opinion, have more respect within their company as an executive than as a lawyer. Indeed, it is not unusual to see a general counsel promoted to a business position (See my posts of March 1, 2007: Angela Braly at WellPoint; and May 26, 2007: six references cited.). This blog comments most on the hat of the top lawyer as manager of the law department; the second hat, senior corporate executive, deserves commentary also.

For six months in 1995, Steve Fulton served as the general counsel of Respironics on a half-time basis and as an employment-law partner at Reed Smith. Speaking to a reporter for GC Mid-Atlantic, June 2008 at 8, Fulton remembers the period as “the hardest six months of my life.”

When a company reaches the size where it needs an in-house lawyer – Respironics than had about $100 million in revenue, an arrangement such as Fulton’s with Respironics allows both sides to try out the new position. He joined when. The simultaneous partnership at the firm would be tricky, but obviously at least one company found the issues were solvable.

Other split roles of general counsel are described on this blog (See my posts of July 17, 2005: partners at firm while also general counsel of a company; Aug. 8, 2006: part-time general counsel; March 28, 2006: split of the general counsel position between two universities; and Aug. 14, 2006: general counsel splits time as an arbitrator.).

In law departments, titles are important for showing where someone stands in the hierarchy, for morale, and for status (See my posts of Jan. 27, 2006: titles should reflect and explain the work staff does; Jan. 24, 2006: try to match lawyer grade/titles to client grade/titles; Dec. 10, 2005: titles are positional goods; Oct. 29, 2005: morale in a law department affected by a hodgepodge of titles; and Feb. 28, 2006: value to an in-house lawyer of an officer title.).

Those who have a title and those around them read significance into the title (See my posts of Nov. 8, 2005: “Associate” over “Assistant” General Counsel; March 23, 2006: hierarchy below Associate and Assistant General Counsel; Aug. 21, 2005: titles for paralegals or legal assistants; Dec. 9, 2005: new title at Barclays of Chief Operating Officer; and March 16, 2006: A-positions may not match titles.).

Titles and changes in titles (promotions) are a key part of talent management (See my posts of Jan. 4, 2006: hallmarks of a progressive performance management system; March 23, 2005: title simplification is passé; Nov. 1, 2005: title simplification, but “Corporate Secretary” still needed by law; March 6, 2006: dual-track career paths for generalist managers and specialist experts; and Nov. 8, 2005: human resources representative for the law department.).