Articles Posted in Talent

It’s good to be an in-house lawyer. Many surveys ask those lawyers what they like about their job, and so did the 2011 In-House Counsel Barometer, produced by the Canadian law firm Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg In association with the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association (CCCA). Actually, the question had a twist: “What is the main reason you would recommend becoming an in-house counsel to your friends or colleagues who are currently in private practice?” At page 15 of the report a chart lists 10 reasons to choose from, plus “Other.”

The dominant reason, selected by almost one out of three of the 820 respondents (28%), was “Better work-life balance.” A kindred reason, chosen by one out of ten as noted below, was “Better lifestyle,” which seems to overlap considerably. Doesn’t speak well for the culture of law firms, does it!

Two other advantages were tied at 15% (“Type of work (challenging, fulfilling)” and “Being part of business decisions”). Slightly less frequently chosen were “Integration into business process” at 12% and “Better lifestyle” at 9%. The remaining advantages had 5% or less: “Variety of work,” “Opportunity to gain business/sector experience,” “Ability to focus on work/client,” “No timesheets/billable hours,” and “Job security.” In short, less pressure at work and more interesting work – an alluring mix.

An article in New England IN-HOUSE, February 2012 at 12, discusses whether in-house counsel who leave a law department are free to join a competitor and practice law. It explains Rule 5.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which prohibits restrictions on the right of a lawyer to practice law after termination of the attorney-client relationship. Many states have held that in-house lawyers are also protected by this provision.

The article also argues that these restrictions apply to financial disincentives to lawyers who leave. It says “there is a strong argument that forfeiture agreements dis-incentivize in-house counsel from representing clients of their choosing, and, as such, they are unenforceable.” The article closes with some discussion about protection of confidential information and conflicts of interest. What I took away is that general counsel can’t lock up their talent by such constraints. To learn more contact Russell Beck.

Diversity & The Bar, Jan./Feb. 2012 at 47, published last year’s survey results that gathered data from hundreds of companies. The full report is available at the website of the Minority Corporate Counsel Association. http://www.mcca.com/data/global/images/Research/mccacldd_book.pdf

For the initiatives discussed in the article, only law departments of much size carry them out. Overall, only 30% of responding legal departments reported having some type of diversity and inclusion program. Notably, the larger the department, the more likely they were to have a program in place. For example, only 14% of the departments with two-to-five attorneys reported having a diversity program, while 87% of respondents with more than 75 attorneys did. Likewise, special outreach or recruiting efforts were rare among departments of less than 25 attorneys. And, similarly only the largest departments track hours billed by outside counsel for specific diversity groups.

Larger departments have a bigger talent pool to fill and manage so it makes sense that they take up diversity efforts more frequently than small law departments.

I propose that the term “direct report” should apply only in those law departments that have at least one lawyer reporting to at least one non-GC lawyer. By this criterion, a six-lawyer department where all five report to the general counsel would have no “direct reports.” Yet, add one junior lawyer who reports to one of the five and all five of them could proudly call themselves “direct reports to the general counsel.” After all, the term itself suggests there are “indirect” reports – lawyers who are two levels or more below the general counsel.

A tougher definition, in the sense of being more exclusive, would restrict the designation “direct report” to those lawyers who have at least one lawyer reporting to them (or one person other than an administrative assistant or paralegal). In the example above, only one lawyer, by virtue of supervising the junior lawyer, would be entitled to be called a “direct report.”

If the law department world adopted either definition, it would drastically reduce the number of “direct reports” since so many law departments are so small that every lawyer reports to the top lawyer. Many in-house lawyers might object to both of these definitions because they will lose some resume-appeal.

Those who manage in-house lawyers sometimes interchange the terms “talent” and “skill.” They have, however, different meanings and it is our loss to blur them.

“Talent” concerns innate abilities, along the lines of a melodious voice, athleticism, humor, intelligence, and spatial sensibility. Bestowed at birth, perhaps genetically programmed, plastic under encouragement (Mozart’s father) or suppression (Taliban girls), talent distinguishes people as a gift from birth.

“Skills” we can deliberately learn or less consciously absorb. Any corporate lawyer can become a skilled writer who takes the time to study grammar, composition, and style, makes an effort to edit and improve, reads quality prose, and generally tries to increase writing prowess. Other skills develop less deliberately but more by osmosis. If you watch someone experienced select jury members, and if you attend to the questions asked and the objections made, your skill should improve. You can’t practice and teach yourself as readily as with writing, but you can absorb the elements that lead to mastery.

Diversity & The Bar, Jan./Feb. 2012 at 47, provides data from 390 companies regarding the percentage of men and women lawyers who are direct reports to the general counsel. Those companies had 2,330 direct reports. (By the way, that works out to almost exactly six direct reports per general counsel.) Overall, the gender split among those direct reports was 56% men and 44% women.

The pattern that stuck out for me, however, was that with increasing size of legal departments the percentage of women who were direct reports shrank steadily. For law departments of 2-to-5 total attorneys the split was 41% man to 59% women. With 6-to-10 lawyers the percentages were almost even and that pattern of shifting toward male reports continued up through law departments with more than 75 total attorneys, where the ratio was 68% to 32%.

Approximately 62% of the responding legal department employed 10 or fewer attorneys. Some of this pattern might result from newer and smaller companies having a younger attorney mix. Larger, older companies still have throwback ratios.

The NY Times, Feb. 26, 2012, at BU4, wrote about a part of the brain called the Brodmann area 10. “This region of the frontal cortex is believed to be associated with our ability to make inferences about others’ preferences and beliefs based on their actions.” I take that to mean a person’s ability to “read” someone’s behavior and interpret what they value from their actions.

In-house lawyers, because some of them negotiate and because all of them deal with clients and other people, should appreciate the benefits of this aspect of emotional intelligence – the ability to empathize and read other people accurately. As this small item suggests, neuroscientists are moving gradually toward a fuller understanding of what makes us tick. This boringly named cluster of neurons has stimulating importance.

The most recent ALM Intelligence metrics survey asked about 26 practice areas, including “Other.” They allowed me to examine data provided by about 70 US legal departments. Of them, eight practice areas accounted for two-thirds of all the lawyer positions. Litigation and Commercial each accounted for around 15%, while Intellectual Property and Regulatory were next most common (7%). International as well as Labor/employment both had around 6%. Securities, Healthcare, and Insurance, at 4% each brought the total of the most common practice areas up to two-thirds of all the lawyers.

From a different perspective, with the exception of Insurance, which was influenced by the participation of a large insurance company, the other seven specialties of law are generic, in that any company might have lawyers who practice in those areas. To learn more about the Law Department Metrics Benchmark Survey of ALM Legal Intelligence, click here for ALM’s website.

One question asked in the most recent ALM Intelligence metrics survey was about the source of lawyers who had been hired during 2010 by the respondent law departments. As it turns out, 44 lawyers were hired from law firms and 36 were hired from other law departments. Most readers of this blog probably think that law departments hire much more commonly from law firms, and it may well be that junior hires come from firms; but for more experienced practitioners general counsel want someone who is had in-house experience previously.

There did not appear to be much difference in the one-to-one ratio as law departments grew larger. It might have been plausible that larger departments would hire more from law firms. To learn more about the Law Department Metrics Benchmark Survey of ALM Legal Intelligence, click here for ALM’s website.

Two out of three general counsel (or chief legal officers) who responded to last year’s benchmark survey by ALM Intelligence also serve as their company’s Corporate Secretary. That is, of 80 respondents, 58 held the dual title and 21 did not. This finding leads me to speculate that privately held companies, without stock traded publicly, may be less likely to bestow the Corporate Secretary title on the top lawyer, although they still have a Board of Directors and obligations to it.

To learn more about the Law Department Metrics Benchmark Survey of ALM Legal Intelligence, click here for ALM’s website.