Home > Page 92
Published on:

By

Lisa Damon spoke recently at a CTTymetrix conference and noted ten tools that her firm has used from the Six Sigma tool chest. Many of them I have written about; some are new to this blog. Here are thumbnails of them in terms of how law departments might apply them.

Voice of the Client – to ask what the end user wants (See my post of Sept. 10, 2005: paying law firms based partly on client satisfaction scores; March 24, 2007: Reed Smith and its program to interview clients; June 1, 2008: client satisfaction survey by a firm and possible learning by a law department; June 20, 2008: Eversheds and Tyco; Feb. 16, 2009: Bruce Heintz on role of relationship partner; May 19, 2011: partners vs. consultants who interview law departments; and May 30, 2011: response to partner vs. consultant post.).

WIN’s – to “work it now” and make quick changes that these efforts uncover

Continue reading
By
Posted in: Tools
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By
  1. Benchmark hyperpost (See my post of May 29, 2011: thirteen metaposts since the previous hyperpost.).
  2. Blogs blawgs in-house (See my post of May 16, 2011: blawgs by in-house lawyers past or present with 16 references.).
  3. Budgets on matters by law firms (See my post of March 25, 2008: matter budgets with 19 references.).
Continue reading
Published on:

By

A group of large law firms in the U.S. has proposed that “sophisticated” clients be permitted more flexibility when they retain law firms. Recognizing large companies know what they are doing and can assume more risks, they would have more room to maneuver in such areas as potential conflicts of interest, limitations on liability they can agree to, and acceptance of counsel from lawyers not be admitted in states where the department wants legal advice. The group calls itself the Law Firm General Counsel Roundtable and it has tackled economically disadvantageous regulations on lawyers that have historically been aimed at protecting ignorant and intimidated individuals, regulations which hobble capable law departments who know enough to protect themselves (See my post of April 15, 2007: companies with in-house lawyers are sophisticated enough to enter into a hold-harmless agreement with its employee lawyers.).

The looser restrictions would apply to clients “based on such criteria as whether a firm is publicly traded, the size of its balance sheet, the number of jurisdictions in which it operates, and how much it uses legal services.” Such a safe-harbor for knowledgeable clients, and I presume one test would be an internal legal function, would help large business and modify some musty restrictions designed to protect less-informed clients. Years ago I proposed a similar flexibility (See my post of Sept. 21, 2008: “what if companies with revenue of more than $1 billion and a legal department of more than four lawyers were permitted to obtain legal services from anyone, even if they were not admitted to the bar of any state and regardless of their educational credentials.”). For more on this proposal, see the ABA J., June 2011 at 58.

Published on:

By

The legal department of WellPoint, the nation’s largest health benefits company by enrollment, supports operations in 14 states. Only ten of WellPoint’s 97 lawyers work in its Indianapolis headquarters. The rest work from 28 different locations.

To attempt to bind together that dispersed assemblage, the general counsel, John Cannon, started holding quarterly town hall meetings for the whole legal group by means of teleconference. The meetings were interactive and relatively nominal cost; they helped keep the group in step and in communication (See my post of April 27, 2008: video conferencing; June 22, 2008: preferred methods of communication; Aug. 28, 2008: telepresence; Oct. 3, 2008: ethics training at Lockheed Martin by videoconference; Dec. 22, 2009: candidate interviews by videoconference; April 27, 2009: benefits of video-conferences beyond cost control; and June 25, 2010: Coca Cola and video conferences.).

Published on:

By

“No food or drink is allowed into the corporate offices.” Yikes! When I read that policy of the UPS Law Department, I remembered the stream of salads and sandwiches I have swallowed at my desk for lunch or the ubiquitous bottled waters and Diet Cokes seen everywhere, let alone the stimulant of choice for Americans – coffee – and I can hardly believe that this food code is upheld. Sure, cafeterias at UPS are open all day and nearby, but that’s no match for a Snickers in the left drawer.

“No male employee can wear a beard [but females may?], hair must be kept above the collar, and a mustache cannot grow below the corner of the mouth [but sideburns, goatees and beards?].” This policy restatement in Corp. Counsel, June 2011 at 73, may be partial or misquoted, but I assume its gist is correct. I had to smile at the contrast between the puritan UPS and the playful Google, winner over UPS in the magazine’s choices as best legal department. Anything goes sartorially, and does go, out in Mountain View.

A final straw (removed at the end of the day): “And desks must be cleared and clean at the end of the day.” For those of us who have taken piles to the nth degree of organization, this would be too much (See my post of Feb. 2, 2008: piles.).

Published on:

By

Just because a law department assigns most of its work to a smallish number of preferred firms, there still remains a challenge when someone in the department needs to find an unusual legal specialist. When searching for a needle of expertise in the haystacks of hundreds of partners and associates, the task is daunting.

Preferred can help the law department and themselves with several actions. They can summarize their areas of arcane expertise and make that available to the department. They can come and visit to deepen the understanding of the department about their unusual pockets of experience. They can circulate articles or memos that spotlight talents that might otherwise not be known. They might even ask the law department to list potential occasional needs. All these efforts help spot the needle.

Published on:

By

The appreciation executive managers have that patents can generate business-enhancing value was brought home in a presentation at Consero’s conference last month. Keith Chanroo, Chief IP Counsel at TSMC, spoke about what he calls the new paradigm for intellectual property. One of his slides offers this provocative projection: “Commercialization (monetization) of IP assets can enhance revenues and profitability (estimated @ minimum of 2-4% revenue/2-5% profitability per annum).”

Increasingly, the potential gusher of value like that will bring more responsibility on the law department and its patent lawyers, staff, and service providers. It summons up images of law departments as cash registers.

Published on:

By

How to get bulky board books to members of the board of directors has always been a problem, if only for the simple minded logistics of photocopying, collating, binding, and shipping the complicated tomes. Some corporate secretarial functions have turned to online software platforms to expedite delivery (and to benefit from other functions such as calendars, secure e-mail, and document repositories (See my post of Sept. 2, 2009: software for corporate secretaries with 11 references.).

In the latest twist I have heard about a law department uses IPads to deliver the materials. At first the idea seems outlandish, but if you have ever used an IPad to read material and annotate it, you start to see the allure of this medium. I presume the directors turn in their IPad at each meeting.

Published on:

By

When a Corporate Counsel reporter interviewed Christine Jones, the general counsel of domain-name company Go Daddy, the resulting profile mentions that she, the reporter, had read some of Jones’ “tweets and blog posts.” My sleuthing turned up her blog, The Rudy Syndrome, and I officially welcome her to the fold of blogging CLOs (See my post of

Before you get too excited, however, note that she has published only three posts this year, the most recent one in mid-March. It reminds me of the neologism, cobwebsite, for a site covered with dust.

Published on:

By

Four general counsel who have had distinguished careers have come together through a law firm’s efforts as an advisory group. In January of this year, Rees Smith encouraged Carl Krasik, Lawrence Stein, William Mutterperl, and Michael Bleier to offer no0cost advice to any executive of a client of the firm. The article that describes this in Corp. Counsel, June 2011 at 18, explains that some of the questions members of the quartet have answered have to do with law department operations and management, such as outside counsel cost control.

This initiative of Reed Smith marks an innovation and a welcome addition to the wisdom of management. I wonder whether these experienced resources will continue to restrict their guidance to clients of the firm.