Articles Posted in Talent

For its biennial survey of career satisfaction, covered by InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 61, InsideCounsel obtained responses from 1,200 in-house counsel. One question asked them to choose from a list of 11 the MOST rewarding part of working in-house. A second question asked them to choose from another list of 11 the LEAST rewarding aspect of their jobs. This post comments only on the methodology of the survey questions. Later posts will turn to the results.

It is an excellent sample size (See my posts of April 22, 2007: power tests and sample size; Dec. 9, 2005: margin of error and sample size; and Oct. 31, 2007: benchmark data and a formula.). For that reason, if data were collected it would be possible to compare responses to years out of law school or years in present position. A more sophisticated analysis might account for multiple responses from the same law department (See my post of Sept. 5, 2007: probability-weighted samples.).

Multiple choice questions often need an “other” category, which this survey did not offer, or possibly did not report on (See my posts of April 12, 2006 and July 14, 2005: importance of “Other” as a list choice.).

In the business press you often read that a good executive will bring value to whatever industry that executive joins. General managerial ability rises above knowledge of a particular industry. If so, then to the same degree a general counsel in one industry might be equally effective in the same position in an unrelated industry

Some examples are at hand. Richard Walker moved from the top lawyer position at the SEC to Deutsche Bank. Marschall Smith move from a potash producer eventually to a bowling equipment company (See my post of March 24, 2007: a GC in his fourth GC position; and Oct. 2, 2006 #2: more examples.). Stasia Kelly shifted from a retailer (Sears), to a telecommunications company (MCI), to an insurance/financial services company (AIG). Dan Cooperman recently moved from an industrial database company (Oracle) to a consumer technology company (Apple). Years ago, Andy Hendry moved from a high-tech company (Unisys) to a consumer products company (Colgate-Palmolive).

Despite a few examples, my impression is, however, that it is far more common for mobile general counsel to stay within the industry they know. The ability to manage a law department may be transplantable and transcend industry, but legal knowledge and practical business experience gained in an industry makes far more difference for a successful shift of jobs.

At Microsoft, including apparently in the law department, “after every departmental meeting our employees use an online tool to react to what they heard and tell their departments’ leaders how we’re doing.” This communication-enhancer is described by the general counsel of Microsoft, Brad Smith, in InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 8. Since large groups cow many people from speaking out, an online tool lets even the shyest person contribute.

It reminds me of the software that instantly and anonymously compiles responses from people in a room who have keypads (See my posts of April 18, 2005: voting software and its many uses; and March 12, 2006: easy-to-use meeting tool.). Microsoft’s software carries further the idea of a town-hall meeting (See my post of April 17, 2007: town hall meetings.).

Much can be said about lawyers in companies who concentrate on an area of law. Legal specialists are the lawyer’s lawyer for the commercial lawyers who spot legal issues and handle a wide array of needs for a business unit (See my post of Nov. 13, 2006: what business generalists do and what specialty lawyers do; Nov. 20, 2006: lawyers who combine business responsibility and a specialty; and with May 21, 2006: functional generalists and legal specialists create checks and balances.).

Legal specialists play an important role in law departments (See my posts of Sept. 10, 2005 and July, 31, 2005: specialist attorneys in large law departments; June 20, 2007: specialization of in-house lawyers; Nov. 30, 2005: specialty lawyers and references cited; Nov. 15, 2005: assigning lawyers to specific areas of expertise; Dec. 17, 2006: major and minor – specialty – responsibilities of some lawyers.).

How lawyers in the department are structured to handle the flow of legal work, such as by legal specialty or by operating unit is a recurring topic for general counsel (See my posts of May 14, 2006 and references cited; May 1, 2005: should specialists handle lawsuits that arise from their work; and Aug. 5, 2005: who should manage litigation.).

An item in the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 86, May 2008 at 30, summarizes research on the consequences to retention rates of layoffs. Not surprisingly, layoffs often prompt demoralized survivors to leave. Even worse, I suspect, the better employees who survi andve the cuts are the ones most likely and able to find a position with another company. If a legal department endures a reduction in force (See my posts of Nov. 20, 2005: Reuters legal team slashed by 20 percent; and Sept.13, 2005: layoffs after Honeywell and Oracle mergers.), the after-shocks may include departures of more lawyers.

That point, though, is not the provocative point. “[C]areer-development programs, which of course are partly aimed at improving retention, appear to have the unfortunate effect of worsening turnover after a layoff,” says the summary. The reason for this counter-intuitive ricochet, theorize the academics who did the research, “is that such programs raise employees’ awareness of outside opportunities and make participants more desirable to other employers.”

That finding made me wonder whether career-enhancing programs for in-house lawyers might not raise their awareness of other job opportunities and burnish their skills in the eyes of those other law departments. Sadly, when you train and improve your good lawyers, you might be increasing the odds that they will leave.

If you read his column in InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 8, you learn that the very busy general counsel of Microsoft, Brad Smith, has “breakfast once a month with a dozen people from across our department.” It sounds like he breaks his fast with a sample of employees and uses that informal time – to the extent that those employees can begin to relax and talk comfortably with him – as an opportunity to take the pulse of the department (See my post of July 27, 2007: skip-level discussions are the right of a general counsel.).

Informal settings let managers of law departments pick up on and respond to employee concerns, learn about disengagement, pick up on rumors, and hear complaints (See my posts of Oct. 24, 2006: rumors everywhere; and April 13, 2007 #4: gossip.). It’s a wonderful thing to do.

Of course, even casual chatter over a bagel will be scrutinized extensively (See my post of Oct. 30, 2006: general counsel are in the spotlight.). Still, Smith deserves much credit for the effort (See my post of Feb. 12, 2008: management by walking around.). His breakfasts embody the opposite of the aloof and remote general counsel (See my post of Dec. 31, 2006: imperial general counsel.).

It amuses me to read the hyperbolic standards set out in position descriptions. “Excellent communication skills,” “mastery of PowerPoint and spreadsheets,” “deep experience in taxation,” and other superhuman achievements are routine to post. Thus, I smiled when I read an advertisement by MSC Industrial Supply Co., in the NY Times, April 27, 2008, Business Section, for a “Corporate General Counsel.” MSC Industrial is a $1.7 billion direct marketer of industrial supplies and equipment based in Long Island and it has decided to bring on a general counsel.

After a routine summary of the tasks this first lawyer will take on, the ad lists several qualities the company seeks. “Strong negotiation, analytical and organizational skills are essential”; also essential are “thorough familiarity with local, multi-state, and federal laws & regulations affecting corporations.” That scope is breathtaking and daunting.

But more is expected. “Experience working effectively and tactfully with boards of directors, senior-level corporate personnel, customers, contractors, court officials and international and domestic regulatory agencies is required.” This Michelangelo of lawyers must clear yet another hurdle: “working knowledge of risk management processes, policies & procedures that affect the authority and operations of the corporation also necessary.” This could be a long search.

The lawyers of Microsoft have the opportunity each year to respond to a survey of all the company’s employees. According to Microsoft’s general counsel, Brad Smith, writing in InsideCounsel, May 2008 at 8, “more than 80 percent of the legal department participates.” That level of participation is commendable (See my post of April 8, 2005: a much lower rate at another law department and some speculation as to why.). It suggests to me that the members of the legal department believe that the survey results will be kept anonymous and that improvements may result from it.

Smith goes on to explain that “We use the extensive quantitative feedback(and typically more than 1,000 verbatim comments) to identify and develop new internal initiatives each year.” The short reference says nothing further about what Microsoft’s legal group has done as an initiative.

I just heard of a law department with less than a dozen lawyers that has three Deputy General Counsel. Talk about title inflation! The Deputy General Counsel title should be used sparingly (See my post of Nov. 20, 2007: typical roles of Deputy GCs and five in-house lawyers who hold that title.).

Since that post I have mentioned one other lawyer with that title (See my post Nov. 20, 2007: ConocoPhillips.) and made some other references (See my posts of Nov. 6, 2007: value of long-term compensation; and March 13, 2008: gaps in cash compensation.).

The lid is off this Pandora’s Box (See my post of March 13, 2008: use of Esq. by lawyer not in the law department.). The mailbag of the columnist who tackled this knotty issue bulged with advice. “Many readers wrote that they have been taught and still believe that it is never appropriate for professionals to apply a title or honorific to themselves.” Whether in the law department or in a non-lawyer role, a designation that discloses someone has been admitted to the bar offends some people. Very odd, as I suspect many medical doctors and holders of doctorates would disagree.

“Other readers responded that the use of ‘Esq.’ by a corporate officer might be considered misleading and therefore unethical because it suggested that the officer had more authority or knowledge than was actually the case. For example, the statement that ’we will bring legal action’ might be considered to be more threatening coming from a lawyer who presumably had the authority to bring the action than from a corporate lawyer who had no such authority.” This convoluted point leaves me confused. Setting aside the “corporate officer” distinction, isn’t it true that any in-house lawyer has the authority to state that the company might pursue its legal remedies?

These readers suggested that a corporate lawyer should use only his or her corporate title (for example, “Vice President for Compliance,” perhaps adding the degree (LLB, JD). It does not seem, throughout the responses printed in NYSBA J., Vol. 80, March/April 2008 at 52, that readers distinguished between lawyers in law departments and lawyers who have moved to non-legal posts.