The hits just keep on rolling at station WBLOG!
Competitive bids, RFPs hyperpost (See my post of Oct.12, 2010: competitive bid processes with 7 references and 6 metaposts.).
Contract templates, form contracts (See my post of Nov. 8, 2010: templates for common contracts with 11 references.).
Portugal’s largest retailer, Jerónimo Martins, had three lawyers in 1999, when its current Head of Legal, António Alves, joined. In the decade that followed, he has built the department significantly. He currently has two lawyers reporting to him directly at the Group holding level “and 10 more reporting functionally in Portugal, at operational level, and he coordinates with colleagues in Poland on every major operation.” The quote and facts come from the Iberian Lawyer, Sept./Oct. 2009 at 26.
Once again, the international commonality of legal department concerns proves true. Here is a $10 billion plus company, with more than 53,000 employees, that has made management decisions about decentralized reporting of in-house lawyers, grown headcount as the business has grown, spread internationally, and undoubtedly uses external counsel to supplement its internal staff. This blog may be US-centric but the world of law department management extends everywhere.
Much as I admire and have learned from Stephen H. Kellert, Borrowed Knowledge: Chaos Theory and the Challenge of Learning Across Disciplines (Univ. Chic. 2008), it leaves me doubtful that even in the mid-term there will be recognized, encompassing principals of law department management. Nothing like “laws” exist, in the sense of reliable if-then statements along the lines of “Reduce the number of law firms you retain by 30% and you will reduce law firm fees paid by 40%.”. Best practices are a fractious collection of subjective beliefs. We can’t even argue solidly for linear relationships, such as years worked in-house improves the quality of a lawyer’s services. The crucial output of inside lawyers remains significantly and stubbornly immeasurable.
Mine is no counsel of despair, not managerial relativism or nihilism, far from throwing in the towel. Indeed, despite the disarray of the field, it is my strong belief that those who direct legal teams can make poor decisions, conversely with learning and practice they can improve their oversight, and for both mistakes and adeptness we have justifiable reasons to make those assessments. The quest for a scientific understanding of management, even in the tiny sphere of law departments, may be for the foreseeable future unrequited, but that does not in the slightest mean we can’t get better and gradually accumulate more useful experience and pragmatic insight.
The fourth release of the General Counsel Metrics global benchmark survey has among its 702 participants seven from France. During 2011, that number will surely increase dramatically. Meanwhile, the modest showing impelled me to see whether this blog has offered much about French legal departments.
In a mot, “Non!” I found only scattered references even to France and Paris let alone to specific companies headquartered in France (See my post of June 25, 2005: George Stansfield of AXA; March 30, 2006: Societe General’s convergence effort; May 27, 2007: Franck Tassan and Carrefour; and April 25, 2009: Peter Wexler of Schneider Electric.).
The other posts refer more generally to France and law departments (See my post of May 23, 2007: Juristes Associes on French Law Departments and Education; Aug. 26, 2006: large law departments in France; Jan. 3, 2007: US firms with branch offices in France; May 8, 2007: why French law departments change law firms; May 13, 2007: French law departments; Feb. 8, 2010: ratios of inside to outside lawyers in France; and Feb. 9, 2010 #1: attorney-client privilege for corporate lawyers; May 24, 2010: litigation costs in France; May 31, 2010: total legal spending as a percentage of revenue in France compared to other countries; June 11, 2010: recent survey data from France; and June 11, 2010: more survey data from French legal teams.). If I did not refer to a company as French or based in France (or Paris), however, I would not be able to find them with my search tools.
Historical note on the first female GC in the US. The first woman to become a general counsel of a Fortune 500 company was Mary Ann Hynes, appointed by CCH Inc. in 1979. Thank you, Corp. Counsel, Oct. 2010 at 22 (See my post of Nov. 10, 2007: gender differences with 10 references.).
Resolution on “Law” or “Legal” Department. It occurred to me that we call it “law school” not “legal school.” Ergo, “Law Department” not “Legal Department.” The proper term is the compound noun, not the adjective plus noun. What the world commonly does holds little weight to a grammatical purist (See my post of May 24, 2005: difference between “legal department” and “law department”; Oct. 19, 2005 #5: Raytheon sidesteps intractable issue; Jan. 4, 2008 #3: Google Blog Search results; Nov. 1, 2008: BlogPulse references to the two terms; April 20, 2009: Google Trends and numbers of references; and July 7, 2009 #4: Jux2 searches of the terms.).
Dr. Lawyer, Chief of IP. The American Intellectual Property Law Association’s (AIPLA) Rep. of the Ec. Survey 2005, at I-66, includes the unusual fact that 8.6% of the respondent Heads of Corporate IP Departments had earned a doctorate. That is an impressive educational background, not least because they had also graduated law school. Further, one third of them have a master’s degree.
Despite huge amounts of work on their department’s plates, sometimes general counsel add more for the greater, longer term good. An appeal to the US Supreme court by Wal-Mart, regarding a massive class action certification, has gained 19 companies as allies. As reported in Corp. Counsel, Nov. 2010 at 22, an amicus curia brief was prepared and Altria, Bank of America, Chrysler, Cigna, Del Monte, Dole, Dollar General, du Pont, GE, HP, Kimberly-Clark, McKesson, Microsoft, Pepsi, Tyson Foods, UnitedHealth, UPS and Williams signed it. Intel filed a separate but similar brief.
This is another example of collective effort. The law departments came together and expended some internal time, and possibly external counsel fees, because of the importance of the issue – “class certification decisions are often tantamount to a decision on the merits.” Law departments can and should join in common cause.
The NYSBA J., Oct. 2010 at 36, discusses in an article how law schools need to evolve. In one paragraph, the author mentions three ways that general counsel could wield their influence for the greater good of the profession. They are to (A) “pressure the ABA to change the accreditation regulations to allow more flexibility in the law school model, like distance learning and greater use of non-tenured faculty”; (B) “push for a national bar examination and faster, more streamlined admissions processes”; and (C) “pressure state authorities to let non-attorneys officially provide the kind of work they need and have needlessly and traditionally been overpaying licensed attorneys to do – like discovery, expert witness preparation, patent filing, and similar tasks.”
The second and third initiatives make sense to me. (B) would ameliorate issues with certification for in-house lawyers and (C) could save enormous amounts of money.
Along with these long-term efforts to change the industry come tort reform, collective positions on punitive damages and class actions (two give but two examples), as well as both statements and action for corporate social responsibility (pro bono, diversity, environment, health.).
A large number of references on this blog to law schools have to do with years out of law school as a metric for benchmarks. In this vein are posts that have to do with law schools attended by in-house lawyers as an indicator of ability (See my post of Nov. 28, 2005: percentage of graduates of top-ranked law schools in law departments; Aug. 28, 2008: benchmark general counsel by LSAT scores; and July 31, 2009: lawyer intelligence, judged by law school rank, might alter legal department management.).
Still, a number of posts concern other aspects of law schools. Many have to do with research pumped out by law schools (See my post of Dec. 31, 2008: UCLA Law School’s Empirical Research Group; Feb. 7, 2009: Stanford Law School’s Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse; April 22, 2007: Cornell Law School’s research on employment litigation; Dec. 28, 2006: New York Law School’s Institute for Information Law & Policy; Feb. 28, 2006: Stanford Law School and its securities litigation research; and March 30, 2010: survey of Harvard Law School’s Center on Lawyers and the Professional Services Industry.).
Law school graduates appear, mostly facts about India (See my post of Oct. 10, 2005: cites 200,000 graduates a year from Indian law schools; Jan. 16, 2009: Yale Law School’s Career Development Office; Feb. 22, 2009: 80,000 graduates per year from Indian law schools; and Nov. 14, 2005: about 38,000 graduates a year from US law schools.).
Virtually everything on this blog that refers to India falls under the topic of offshoring. Aside from that 800-pound gorilla there are, in fact, some tiny chimps of posts related to India. A few refer to the number of Indian law graduates and lawyers (See my post of Oct. 10, 2005: 200,000 graduates a year from Indian law schools; Nov. 14, 2005: 298,000 graduates in law per year; Dec. 29, 2008: Indian law graduates do not have to pass a bar exam; Feb. 22, 2009: 80,000 graduates per year from Indian law schools; and Feb. 19, 2010: India has about 1 million practicing lawyers.).
The occasional other references pertain to Indian law firms and in-house attorneys (See my post of Dec. 12, 2006; dispute with solicitors over Rs 141 lakh (almost Rs 1.56 crore); Nov. 17, 2006: no attorney-client privilege for in-house lawyers in India; Feb. 17, 2008: Howrey, first US firm with office in India; May 2, 2008: difficulties US law departments have when they seek a law firm in India; March 15, 2009: Indian firm added employment-related fees to invoice; and April 28, 2009: Luthra & Luthra, ISO 9001 certified.).
Then, the odd post (See my post of and April 6, 2009: HCL Technologies collects comments from employees.).
General counsel have power. They can hire and fire, pay and promote. They can mentor and support or they can neglect and derail. There lies power.
An ad for a DVD from the Stanford Graduate School of Business gives a thumbnail description of some of the risks of misusing power. “Dr. Gruenfeld’s research explains the psychological effects of power: disinihibition, single-mindedness, depersonalization of others, and an orientation to action.” In all likelihood, the lecture has in mind CEOs, not functional heads who report to the CEO like most US general counsel, but within their realms, general counsel wield considerable power. Do Dr. Gruenfeld’s findings apply?
Disinihibition lures GCs into imperial behavior (See my post of Dec. 31, 2006: the imperial general counsel.). If everything revolves around you, it’s tempting to fall into a Sun King syndrome and act however you see fit.
Law Department Management Blog