Articles Posted in Talent

I commend general counsel who talk to journalists about their department (See my post of May 20, 2005 about star performers being touted and my post of May 20, 2005 about three responses to journalists.)

An article describing a management initiative – a budgeting approach, diversity effort, document management system – or a positive attribute – satisfied lawyers, excellent credentials of paralegals, rapid growth – can disadvantage you, perhaps, if it informs a competitor as a benchmark. Now they know something about you and what makes you successful, without your knowing anything about them.

On balance, it seems to me, good publicity well serves the law department.

Readers may want to read the posts through May 31, 2005 on Law Department Management according to the categories in which I have placed them. Here are the topics and the URLs for the various PDF compilations. Each compilation is 30-60 posts.

For Cost Control;

for Metrics and Benchmarks;

Both terms are used interchangeably. If one of them means that the person has obtained a certificate after appropriate training, then why are those certificates referred to as “paralegal certification?” A tautology?

Someone explained to me that any person could be a “para-legal,” such as a filing clerk or a medical records analyst or a litigation support technician. The term “legal assistant,” according to this person is limited to those people who work with a lawyer on law-related, substantive matters. I don’t know. I welcome the opinions or answers of readers.

I resurrected a press release from Nov. 2003 by Foster Wheeler Ltd. It announced the appointment of the law firm Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe to serve as the company’s General Counsel. A senior partner of Heller would resign from the Foster Wheeler Board to “lead the Company’s legal team.”

I thought the days of having a law firm serve as the general counsel, for a company of any size, had slipped into the twilight of the 20th century. This retro decision shackles the company, in my humble opinion. How can one law firm meet all the needs of a major company? How can conflicts of interest stay quiescent? How can the cost be competitive?

Rosemary Berkery, before her appointment as general counsel of Merrill Lynch, spent two years as co-head of the research department and two years as head of investment products and marketing for Merrill’s private equity group. She predicts, according to her interview in the Financial Times (May 5, 2005 at 9), that it will be more common for ascending general counsel to spend time on the business side.

Her experience is extremely valuable, and all GCs should try to emulate a version of it. Those GCs who come from a law firm will be disadvantaged; lawyers inside the company can take a tour of client duty, but ex pats from law firms will not likely have that opportunity.

Many general counsel believe that when they retire other general counsel will eagerly seek out their sage management advice. After all, aren’t they begged to speak on panels? Don’t reporters call them for pithy quotes? Aren’t outside counsel bowing and scraping? Don’t consultants swarm like flies? Haven’t they belonged to exclusive GC groups?

Many ex-GCs have hung out the consulting shingle. I can think of Bob Banks (Xerox), Alan Cleveland (Conoco), Sara Holtz (Nestle Beverage), Jim Jarrell (Columbia Gas Transmission), Paul Reynolds (Mirant Asia), Robert Jackson (Olin), Susan Sneider (Turtle Wax), Rachel Robbins (Morgan Stanley), Michael Ross (Safeway), Debra Snider (Heller Financial), Rich Weiss (Motorola), and Peter Zeughauser (Irvine Corporation). Some have succeeded.

The downside for law departments who consider hiring a former GC for consulting assistance is that the former GC may assume that his or her way of solving some management problem is the only right way. But then, perhaps this writer has a shade of bias?

Many general counsel recognize the value of sitting next to or near the CEO, but worry that having an office on Executive Row means not working in the midst of the law department. The GCs relish proximity to the senior executives, yet miss leading and interacting easily with their staff.

Some general counsel have more than one office, but my sense is that this compromise does not genuinely solve the dilemma. In the end, if I had to make a recommendation, I would have the GC sit near his or her peer executives, because that intimacy best serves the law department.

But, the remote general counsel must redouble efforts to keep in touch and to have presence with the troops

One of the critical success factors (ugh, consultant speak) for a general counsel is grooming replacements for her position and other key positions in the department. Thar be dragons, one might say, but a recent article spots many of the critters and suggests how to slay them.

Succession planning, one of the steps of professional development, takes time and attention, but it makes such a huge difference over the years to a law department. Here is the article.

Steven Keeva in the ABA Journal (July 2005 at 72) proclaims: “Research over the last decade has conclusively demonstrated that emotional intelligence [known as EQ] predicts success more than any other single factor – more than subject matter knowledge and job experience,” according to Jean Greaves, co-author of a book on EQ.

Swallow hard. I hope you are not on a low salt diet, because to accept this you will need to take a big grain.

To know the law, understand the business, apply analytic ability, live for client service, slave long hours – nah, nothing serves you in the climb to CLO as much as “effective communication between the rational and emotional centers of the brain.” Emotional self awareness, lawyer, that’s the key.

The U.K.-based law firm, CMF (Cameron McKenna), recently surveyed senior executives (presumably in Britain). According to the Financial Times (July 14, 2005) “one-third of senior executives said that while the Chief Executive has overall responsibility for corporate social responsibility, in-house lawyers come second. More than half the respondents said in-house lawyers should take a lead on corporate responsibility.”

With good reason, I believe, many general counsel would balk at this added responsibility. The corporate social responsibility mantle reaches all manner of social, environmental, and business practices. For one, it encroaches on the proper work of a compliance group. Not every demand of society should be legalized, including adherence to ethical standards, nor all forms of risk management. The law department’s role should be to interpret, negotiate, and defend, not to promote and enforce the ambitious agenda of corporate social activism.