Articles Posted in Tools

Members of law departments can take part in different kinds of knowledge networks. They may belong to an association (See my posts of May 30, 2005 and Dec. 19, 2005 about associations and networks of law firms), they may join an online community, they may take part in projects such as the UTBMS task force or the Sedona Conference (See my post of Feb. 18, 2007 about the Corporate Forum.).

Networks, according to the Harv. Bus. Rev., Vol. 85, Feb. 2007 at 48, lend themselves to at least five basic tasks. I will take the liberty of translating Christopher Meyer’s tasks chris.meyer@monitor.com into legal department examples.

A network can “scan the horizon,” such as when a group of law departments that handle environmental issues share what their members learn about state and federal enforcement activity. Networks can “help solve problems,” such as when someone in an association asks if anyone else has had experience with a certain consultant. A network can “innovate for its own benefit,” such as when members come up with a new approach for technique. A network can “exert influence,” such as when several law departments lobby for enhancements by a software provider. And a network can “allocate resources,” such as when the head of a community of practice decides who should work on a new problem.

ONSITE3 a vendor of consulting, forensic services, discovery and review services was the subject of a profile in Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 15, Feb. 2007 at 28. The company’s CEO, Mark Hawn, explains that they created a forum called the Corporate Forum “consisting of over 100 of the top Fortune 200 companies that attend quarterly meetings to talk about changes in the law, e-discovery and new technologies that help them save money.”

The group sounds like more than a user group (See my post of Sept. 18, 2006 on software user groups.) and is perhaps an example of a research association or consortium (See my posts of July 21, 2005 on a group of law departments intent on cost savings; Nov. 28, 2005 on the potential for sharing data among law departments; and Oct. 19, 2005 #4 on an investment bank consortium.).

Law Firm Inc., Vol. 5, Jan./Feb. 2007 at 24, provides some details about the Corporate E-Discovery Forum. “[C]reated in May 2006 … executives from the 83 member companies use the confidential forum to discuss strategies and emerging issues involving e-discovery.” James Wright, director of e-discovery for Halliburton Energy Services Group (Houston, TX) was one of the co-founders.

Here is another example of a group for law departments to join (See my post of Dec. 19, 2005 about other groups and four references.) as well as an admirable instance of collective law department action (See my post of Oct. 14, 2005 on collective activities by law departments.) and an underscore on the importance of discovery costs (See my post of Feb. 14, 2007 on Pfizer and its standard for handling litigation documents.).

These vendors offer software systems that help with all aspects of corporate entity management (See my post of Aug. 9, 2006 on these and board member packages.). The software packages manage corporate minute books, assemble various corporate documents, generate reports about subsidiaries and officers, support document management systems, and craft corporate hierarchy charts. Some also offer capabilities in records management, insider tracking and reporting, as well as securities management.

Some of the vendors’ software offerings include Secretariat (by Bridgeway); EnGlobe (by Corporatek); and and Global Corporate Manager (by Datacare).

In addition to pro bono assistance, a law department’s members can contribute in another way: company-wide public service efforts. Data from the 2006 ACC’s Seventh Annual Chief Legal Officer Survey at 9, shows how 848 chief legal officers or general counsel responded to four choices for the question “Which of the following issues are important to you as the leader of an in-house legal department (select all that apply)?”.

Some 260 respondents skipped this question, which suggests to me that they found none of the four choices relevant to them. Of those that did, their least important was “participation in pro bono services” (18.4% chose it), the next most-frequently chosen was “diversity within outside firms” (24.8%), followed by “diversity within the department” (43.4%).

Of the four choices, by far the most important for the 588 respondents was “participation in company-wide public service efforts” (60.4%). I suppose this includes activities like United Way, Habitat for Humanity and myriad other programs and charities.

A useful way to display data that should be broken out by components, such as a law department’s spending, is by means of a cascading bar chart. The components look like stair steps of different heights.

Think of a column to the far left of the chart for, say, base compensation. To the right of that column is another column but it floats above. Its bottom is on a horizontal line from the top of the bar to the left. This second, higher column might show incentive compensation and bonuses. To the right of it, floating at the point where the incentive compensation column ends is yet a third column, which might depict the value of long-term options or benefits, and so on.

Marching across the chart from left to right, therefore, are a series of floating columns. The height of each gives its amount and the composite of all those columns shows in this example the total spend.

“Strategic” often isn’t, as that worn-out adjective is stuck promiscuously on too many actions. A law department that decides to install a matter management system has not made a strategic decision. A law department that sets up a pro bono program has not embarked on a strategic initiative. To hire only certified paralegals isn’t of strategic importance. Yet too easily general counsel magnify initiatives such as these as “strategic.”

My working definition of strategic is along the lines of “a decision with long-term consequences and its steadfast implementation that together alter in a profound way how the law department creates value for its company.” Four strategic decisions depend almost entirely on the general counsel (See my post of Dec. 15, 2005 where I suggest three, with some differences from those below.).

1. How are the lawyers oriented toward legal risk, which is strategic because it has to do with the lawyers’ alignment with business managers (See my posts of May 14, 2005 on quantifying legal risks; June 5, 2005 with a definition; and Nov. 15, 2005 with amplification and references cited.).

More a McMansion industry than a cottage industry, the providers of ADR services to companies and law departments include many very large entities, such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA); Endispute, JAMS (which has more than 200 full-time neutrals, according to the Economist, Feb. 3, 2007 at 62); and the National Arbitration Forum. Some magazines include entire directories of companies that offer arbitrators and mediators. Here are just a few of the other providers:

Adams ADR Services Ltd.

ADR Services, Inc.

Litigators in many law departments must periodically send out litigation hold orders (See my post of March 19, 2006.). At the recent LegalTech conference there was material about Atlas LCC, which is software from PSS Systems that “automates and optimizes the legal holds and collection process for the litigation department.” Its capabilities help in-house staff “track, manage, and monitor all legal holds,” “scope and automatically document legal holds,” and “send hold notices and reminders automatically.”

A sibling product, Atlas ERM, assists with enterprise-wide retention policies and schedules (See my post of Feb. 5, 2007 with some data on document retention and destruction; and Sept. 21, 2005 about the many iterations of legal documents.).

Notice how specialized this software is: it targets a niche need in legal departments and joins the pantheon of cottage industries. Eventually, this suite of capabilities will probably become absorbed by matter management systems (See my post of Aug. 5, 2005 about supplements to matter management systems.).

A model simplifies reality, to the point where scientists, engineers, consultants or economists can describe at a high level and quantify the elements of the model (See my post of July 14, 2006 on narratives, theories and models.).

What are some models of law departments already entertained in these posts?

McKinsey 7S framework (See my post of Aug. 28, 2005: structure, style, skills, shared values, systems, staffing, and strategy.);