Articles Posted in Talent

It is wonderful to hear lawyers say that their general counsel has an the door policy. They can drop in and talk with the lead lawyer with a degree of informality that evidences comfort and teamwork. Conversely, the general counsel is much more aware of workloads, issues, talent, and the legal heartbeat of the company.

An open door policy usually means that the law department is relatively small, in the range of 15 lawyers or less, and is clustered in one location. It also means the General Counsel’s office is proximate to the rest of the department (See my post of May 16, 2005 about the gold coast syndrome). The more lawyers in the department, however, the more the door shuts.

I have modified these useful distinctions from an article in OD Practitioner 2006, Vol. 38, No. 3 at 13, and adapted them to law departments. Managers of lawyers should bear the differences in mind.

• Training: Someone with subject matter expertise and authority shows another person or group how to achieve success in a task. CLE courses train in-house counsel.

• Performance management: A boss influences or requires improved behavior from a subordinate. The general counsel sets objectives for a lawyer, such as to speak up more during client meetings.

The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) properly distinguishes between the two categories of external minority counsel. Assuming solutions to the difficulties of how to define “minority” (See my post of Sept. 4, 2006 on “diversity.”), it makes a big difference. It’s easier to retain lawyers than firms.

Moreover, if a law department favors minority-owned firms, it will limit itself to somewhat smaller firms. On top of that, the number of minority firms may be shrinking. “A recent study commissioned by Dupont’s law department confirmed that the number of successful minority-owned firms has declined over the past 15 years.” (Business Law Today, Vol. 16, Sept./Oct. at 21, emphasis in original article falvaro@adorno.com)

The adjective “successful” gives me pause, since perhaps the industry still has many minority-owned firms that are not growing or that don’t make much money, but the Dupont finding casts a pessimistic pall on the available supply of minority-owned law firms.

Citigroup Global Wealth Management has begun an innovative recruitment program aimed at law school graduates. The program will initially target second-year law students. A select group will be employed by Citigroup Global Wealth Management but start their careers at a top-tier New York law firm for two years. Following that, qualified participants will be offered a vice presidential position with Citigroup Global Wealth Management’s legal department.

This excellent and creative merger of law-firm training and in-house career is described in Hildebrandt Headlines, Sept. 15, 2006 at 1.

The Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) has defined diversity best practices. By my summary, a best practice as to diversity (1) promotes it, (2) addresses barriers to it, (3) evidences serious commitment from management, (4) builds in management accountability, (5) is implements conscientiously, and (6) shows noteworthy results.

My initial observation was that diversity best practices must be rare. Since the definition is cumulative, not disjunctive, the standard soars high above nearly all law department achievements. Most initiatives fall short, if only on management accountability and noteworthy results. Not so, it seems, for diversity best practices, since the report publishes a preliminary set of ten.

My second thought was that if you substitute any other goal in place of diversity – perhaps technology use, leadership development, succession planning, or outside counsel management – you could apply the same sextet of desirable characteristics for a best practice.

A recent report by the Minority Corporate Counsel Association (MCCA) uses both terms, “diverse” and “minority”. It appears that ethnic minorities are African American, Asian American and Latino while women are gender minorities (See my post of Dec. 4, 2005 that recognizes it’s easier to meet goals for women than for other minorities.). That much we know, save possibly the omission of Native Americans.

The term “diversity,” immeasurably broader, includes “ethnic, racial, thinking styles, religious beliefs, communication styles, education, parental status, and sexual orientation, to name a few.” Imagine naming a lot!

Does the MCCA believe law departments should extend special efforts on behalf of Irish (ethnic), MBTI extroverts (thinking styles), Mormons (religious beliefs), stutterers or Southern drawlers (communication style), LLM’s or Ivy Leaguers (education), adopting parents (parental status), and transgender lawyers (sexual orientation)? Are over-weight in-house counsel mainstream or diverse; do bald men deserve hiring, mentoring and retention efforts? And, what degree of the characteristic qualifies a person (See my post of Sept. 4, 2005 on this nuance.)?

A powerful truth stands out in a sentence from OD Practitioner, 2006, Vol. 38, No. 3 at 52: “ So much of what occurs in organizations feels personal, but it’s not … it’s systemic.” Your environmental lawyer has been performing poorly, but if you diagnose the causes as personal, then your solutions are to fix, fire, rotate, motivate, review, urge therapy — personal.

If instead you were to consider the systemic pressures on that lawyer – the reorganization underway in the Environmental Safety Group, the SMART goal to resolve three festering Superfund cases, the reporting structure to two Associate General Counsel, the maternity leave the lawyer’s assistant has been on, the location of the lawyer’s cubicle three floors from the rest of the department – the solutions lie less within the hapless lawyer and more within the company and department (See my posts of Sept. 22, 2005 on systems thinking as a discipline; and May 14, 2006 on the Fundamental Attribution Error regarding context.).

Here is how the Fin. Times, March 14, 2006 at 7 explains the concept of “social distance”: “The idea of ‘social distance’, introduced by George Stimmel, the German sociologist, helps leaders identify when they need to be more intimately involved with those around them, and when they need to withdraw and maintain distance.” A general counsel – or for that matter any manager – needs some special recognition and reserve.

Social distance becomes harder to maintain properly when a general counsel has been plucked from peers to head the legal department. Lunchroom camaraderie gives way to some reserve and definite power. “Bosses shouldn’t be friends,” or ogres. Social distance connotes a flexible separation between employees of different ranks.

Many encrustations on efficiency are simply bad habits, those the corporate lawyer slipped into for some reason and never scraped away. Three-hole punching all documents so that they can go in a binder; putting all in-box material back in the box before “making a decision.” Highlighting in yellow marker the key language of all letters received. Drafting the first version of contracts on a yellow pad. Starting each day with your e-mail inbox. And endless other barnacles of effectiveness.

Marcia Pennington Shannon writes in Law Practice, Vol. 32, July/Aug. 2006 at 58 that “Experts say that you should plan on at least three to six weeks to incorporate new habits into your routine.” I suppose that pace depends greatly on how frequently during the time period you have an opportunity to alter the rut of experience. Later, she urges people to “choose two at a time, starting with the ones that will make the most difference.” Everyone in a law department can improve if the chains of a few bad habits are broken.

Robert Half Legal has a pithy comment in a recent release that contrasts generalist skills with the legal specialization rampant in our day. “Today’s GC wears many hats — legal advisor to the board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, savvy business strategist, knowledgeable interpreter of regulations and statutes, risk assessment expert, as well as visionary and manager of outside counsel. Despite the growth of specialization in legal practice, a GC has to be a generalist.”

This blogger must note one other GC hat: manager of the legal function. I like the quote because it underscores how difficult it is for a general counsel to don all the hats – Bartholomew-like, particularly the high-tops of “savvy business strategist” and “visionary.” To be an accomplished multi-hat GC is a rare feat and my hat’s off to those few.