Home > Page 96
Published on:

By

A previous hyperpost brought together 10 metaposts on benchmarks (See my post of July 19, 2009: ten metaposts on benchmarks.).

Since then, another 13 have accumulated. Some of these newer ones quite likely repurpose earlier posts that have already been included, many of the posts are recent.

Some metaposts concern individual benchmark metrics (See my post of Oct. 27, 2009: one-to-one ratio of lawyers to support staff with 9 references; April 16, 2010: TLS goes down as revenue increases with 9 references; April 16, 2010: TLS as percentage of revenue with 15 references; Sept. 20, 2010: R&D spend related to legal spend with 8 references; April 3, 2011: all-in cost per hour of internal lawyers with 9 references.).

Continue reading
Published on:

By

As I noticed the drumbeat of downloads of my recent article on the value delivered by in-house counsel, I wondered why that theme grabbed so many readers. The straightforward answer would be that many managers of law departments want to understand better how to describe the value their team brings, increase that value, and be appreciated for that value. In short: “the topic matters to me.”

Perhaps “nine” titillates people; how could someone proliferate so many thoughts on a topic that perhaps is taken for granted? In short: “the topic couldn’t possibly justify such profusion.”

A dark and troubling explanation also came to mind. Perhaps the topic taps into a deep and broad vein of in-house insecurity. Would secure people, confident in their contribution and certain of their respected value even bother to look? In short, “the topic scares me.”

Continue reading
Published on:

By

You can’t declare “mission accomplished” when your law firms agree to freeze their billing rates. The reason you can’t is that firms may end up with more senior lawyer time on similar matters than before the rates froze. In fact, that shift upward may be likely since for the same reason you have tightened the belt – budget constraints due to business falloff — at the law firm work may be less plentiful. The senior lawyers hoard work to plump up their own chargeable hours and handle more of the work at their higher, albeit frozen, rates. True, rates did not go up; false, fees held even or declined.

Published on:

By

A panelist from Baxter Laboratories recently shared with the audience that the law department requests an early case assessment at the 180-day mark. Baxter’s period between receipt of the complaint and receipt of the law firm’s assessment – six months – is longer than the more usual 30- or 45-day periods. Baxter feels a month allows too little time to gather documents and interview people and think carefully about the case.

That criticism is well-founded, I suspect. Still, six months feels like too long on the other side. Perhaps the best practice would be to choose and ECA due date based on the type of case (See my post of June 10, 2008: firm hired solely for ECA; Aug. 5, 2008: millions saved at GE by early case assessment and resolution; Feb. 4, 2009: different use of term “Early Case Assessment”; Nov. 25, 2009: “Well-done ECA uncovers 80% of what you will ever know”; and Feb. 23, 2008: early case assessment with 8 references.).

Published on:

By

Representatives from Mosaic Consulting attended Mitratech’s Interact 2011 Conference. Some of their material referred to the category of “Business Intelligence” software. I asked about it and the Mosaic folks, Chris Wilson in particular, told me that he believes Business Objects has the most presence. He pointed out that both TeamConnect of Mitratech and TyMetrix’s 360 have that package built into their offering.

Second would probably be Crystal, which Business Objects has acquired. Third would be Cognos followed by Actuate. I have written before about report writer packages (See my post of Dec. 18, 2006: five ways to obtain reports from matter management systems; Dec. 12, 2007: Pfizer and Business Objects for its dashboard; Feb. 15, 2009: matter management systems and report writers, with a few others listed from an ILTA survey;

Published on:

By

Some data from Booz & Company, in strat.+bus, Summer 2011 at 43, gives more insight into the frequency of the tumultuous period for a general counsel when the boss changes. A column graph shows that in 2010 CEO turnover in the U.S. and Canada hit about 12 percent. Of that figure, about 6 percent was planned, around 2.5 percent was from dismissal, and about 3.5 percent was due to the acquisition of a company.

Even for planned retirements of the CEO, the general counsel has some nail-biting while the new CEO comes aboard and scrutinizes the senior leadership team. Dismissals of the CEO create even more anxiety and when a new company takes over, at least one general counsel usually leaves (See my post of May 14, 2005: CEO leaves; in 2004, March 28, 2006: CEO of PPG reorganized business structure; Aug. 2, 2006 #1: CEO turnover was about 11.7% in US; June 20, 2007: turnover of GCs when new CEO arrives leaves; and Nov. 7, 2007: GC depends on fortunes of CEO.).

Published on:

By

The global e-discovery counsel of Google, Theresa Beaumont, shared recently her nine “key components of a successful, defensible e-discovery process.” As reproduced in InsideCounsel, May 2011 at 61, the second component raised my eyebrows.

“Accomplish what you must with the most elegant solutions and processes you can.”

One eyebrow jumped because that advice could just as easily (and implausibly) apply to any list of any recommended activities. It’s a useful as exhorting someone to “Think as hard and as well as you can.”

Continue reading
Published on:

By

Marc Firestone, the General Counsel of Kraft Foods, said a few words at the InsideCounsel SuperConference about the pressures of being alone at the top. “It is important,” Firestone said, “for the General Counsel to have a mentor outside the company whom they trust – a wise head.” He has such a guide, a trusted advisor, and has found it cathartic to talk sometimes about the difficult decisions that reach his desk.

Some general counsel have a friend; some use a veteran partner at a law firm as the pressure valve and sounding board; others turn to an executive coach; spouses often provide support and encouragement; and some general counsel find guidance and support from a fellow member of a group for general counsel. Whatever, that support can be invaluable (See my post of April 14, 2005: coaches for general counsel; Sept. 25, 2005: no one else but the GC; April 28, 2006: the notion of “social distance”; and March 1, 2009: it’s lonely at the top, so there are many groups for general counsel to join.).

Published on:

By

Speaking at the InsideCounsel SuperConference, a lawyer from Aerojet described his “Buyer’s Handbook.” It weighs in at 150 pages. The left-hand page shows a particular clause in Aerojet’s procurement contracts and the right-hand page provides both commentary on that clause and alternative language that its buyers might resort to. For example, Aerojet wants the jurisdiction for disputes to be California, but it is sometimes acceptable to accept a contract where Aerojet agrees to bring any action against the seller in the seller’s chosen state.

The speaker said that this hefty guideline for contracting helps keep positions consistent, helps to train buyers not only in what to seek during negotiations but also why, and also makes his job much easier since he has assembled in one document – which is easily and constantly updated – much of his experience and counsel (See my post of Nov. 8, 2010: templates for common contracts with 11 references.).

Published on:

By

For years I have urged law departments that negotiate fixed fees with a firm to insist on monthly bills nevertheless. The law department wants to be able to review staffing, the order of tasks undertaken, levels and composition of lawyers assigned, and other intelligence from invoices. Furthermore, when it comes time to renew the set-fee agreement or perhaps to choose another firm, the basic data of tasks, hours and staff provides a backbone of understanding. It is much easier to describe the potential workload when you have historical data.

A speaker on a recent panel jolted my self-satisfied belief. He said “If we still ask for hours, we’re still in that domain – drop hours and focus on value.” In other words, if you make the decision that a certain fee for certain work delivers appropriate value, then abandon the Tayloristic approach of time records and minutiae. Value is value, not hours.

A good point, but not good enough. You need to have a grasp on what was done and by whom so that you can review and report on activities accomplished and so that you can extend such an arrangement based on credible descriptive metrics.