tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5761631297742980492024-03-08T21:59:57.895+00:00thelegalbratblawgBlogging about life as and the issues facing in-house counsel. From copyright to ethics to M&A to disputes to clients to colleagues to outside counsel to the inhouse mission to career dev to networking to the stuff you like to the stuff you don't like to the pressures to the pleasures and back again.legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-85920760172772681402012-05-05T22:36:00.003+01:002012-05-06T12:56:24.224+01:00I'm moving the blog<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Hi -<br />
<br />
Thanks for visiting.<br />
<br />
I'm in the process of moving the blog to <a href="http://www.legalbratblawg.com/" target="_blank">www.legalbratblawg.com</a> - I fancied trying a new platform with a slightly cleaner look.<br />
<br />
I plan to eventually move all blog posts over there, but for the time being they will all stay here.<br />
<br />
If you've been kind enough to bookmark my blog or put it on your blogroll, please may I ask you to be good enough to change the address.<br />
<br />
Hope to see you over at <a href="http://legalbratblawg.com/" target="_blank">legalbratblawg.com</a> - same content, different place, that's all.<br />
<br />
Many thanks<br />
<br />
Tim</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-33337170974336287672012-05-04T08:37:00.001+01:002012-05-04T08:39:00.293+01:005.15 k/o - what a FArce<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="color: white;">I'd love to be writing that I cannot wait until 3pm on Saturday. But I can't write that and therein lies this tale.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: white; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;">Sunderland's was my first Cup Final goal that I remember. The year, 1979, watching in my Grandparent's</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"> front room. I was mesmerised at the colour, the vividness and the drama. I don't know if I saw the whole game but there was no forgetting the end <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYXKwBy4_Fg" target="_blank">as Sunderland (Alan) after scoring the deciding goal for Arsenal</a> in a thriller, ran like a weary man possessed, arms aloft.</span></span></div>
<span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">My viewing of the 1980 final was therefore more meticulously planned in anticipation of this feast. This time my childhood house. My Dad in the garden outside, occasionally asking me the score. I think I watched most of the game alone, glued to the sofa. A dull affair only made memorable by <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUlHRuwZGb4" target="_blank">Sir Trevor Brooking's headed winning goal</a> as second division West Ham overcame the odds to beat the much fancied Arsenal.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">Then in 1981 we sat down to enjoy some Argentine wizardry and the artisan Glen Hoddle, always with his shirt outside of his shorts, even before kick-off.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">Hot spring May Saturdays continued thus (is it just me, or was Cup Final Day in the eighties always hot?) for ten or more years. It became a tradition. An all-day television spectacular. Anyone under the age of 20 won't remember this, but the Cup Final was, back then, the only club game broadcast live on the TV. This was an annual sporting treat to be cherished.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">It wasn't just the match we cherished. The pre-match build-up wasn't just about retired footballers wearing tight fitted suits and issuing over the moon son platitudes. This was a kaleidoscope of random television across two of the country's three or four channels. Saint and Greavsie, Smith and Jones, It's a Knockout and I'm sure I even remember the occasional Question of Sport special. It seemed that build up started just after breakfast and a magical day was all set up.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">My favourite part as a young boy was watching the team's coach ride to Wembley. Let's just pause here a second. The finalists used to allow a live television camera on the team bus on the way to Wembley. There would even be interviews with the players on said bus. There they were, your heroes, on a coach, off to play the biggest game of their season. And here they were taking part in a mini TV reality show on the way. Unbelievable.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">The teams would arrive at Wembley (I guess this still happens). The twin towers. The on-pitch walk about and more pre-match interviews. Flipping back and forth between BBC and ITV. Wondering why the pitch on ITV always appeared in a brighter shade of green than on the Beeb. A marching band, Abide With Me, the National Anthem and off we went. The only tradition we could expect once the match started was cramp affecting the players, which year after year it seemed to do, the Wembley pitch sucked the energy out of them like no other.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">As for the matches. Well, maybe this is rose tinted spectacle time, but it always seemed like an upset was possible and that an exciting game was guaranteed. Who can forget <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgUJYQKZA0U" target="_blank">the Crazy Gang beating the Culture Club</a> (Google it if you don't know what I mean)? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKO6P2mrWf8" target="_blank">Brian "Killer" Kilcline lifting the Cup for Cov</a>. And on a personal note, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4-lFjGnUA" target="_blank">And Smith Must Score</a>. Except he didn't. But moreover it wasn't just the fans who cared. The players cared, the managers cared, the owners cared, the club cared. And we all Knew. We Knew that this was The Cup. The grandstand finale to the season. It was a microcosm of what English (and Welsh) football stood for. We were proud of this annual event of football pageantry.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">If it was a draw, they played again. Repeat - they played again. As a neutral, I used to hope for a draw in the final. Because then we could do it all again on the Thursday, but this time on a school night and under the Wembley floodlights. Just pause here. Between them the FA, Wembley and the Met Police managed to stage one of the country's biggest sporting events on four days notice. Not any more - never again will we have a floodlit replay <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R44tPArJIy4" target="_blank">"Villa, Villa and its still Villa"</a> replay moment - I'm not a Spurs fan but the memory of that goal and commentary still make the hairs stand on end.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">There was nothing more wonderful for a young (and not so young) boy as Cup Final Day.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">But then, perhaps like the great game itself, it began to change and not necessarily for the better. For me, it was in 1991, perhaps as Gazza lunged into the tackle that ended his Cup Final and ultimately his career, maybe that can be identified ad the turning point. Less pre-match build up. Single terrestrial channel coverage. No TV cameras on the coach. No BBC. No replays. Small teams switching their home leg to away grounds to maximise revenue on grounds of safety. Penalties to decide matches. Penalties to decide the bloody final. Man United choosing not to take part. Semi-finals at Wembley. Teams playing their weaker sides to save themselves for the league. No BBC (sorry, said that). Sponsorship. Predictable finalists. Cagey finals. The Premiership. The Fourth Place League (some call this the Champions League). Slowly slowly our great Cup became a second rate competition, when it once used to be the greatest club competition in the world. And no BBC.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">A barrel load of tradition has incrementally been washed away under our noses.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">And this year, we have to suffer yet more ignominy. Kick-off is on Saturday tea-time. TEA TIME! Simply so that this once great family friend of an event does not clash with Premier League games taking place earlier in the day.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">I will still watch, I always do, it is obligatory really. But something tells me that Abide with Me at 5pm on a grey Saturday afternoon won't sound quite as mesmerising as it would have done at ten to three. We used to talk about the romance of the Cup. The romance has faded over the years. Moving kick-off time is one more dent in the relationship the governing bodies should have with this competition. I'm not sure it can endure too many more.</span></div>
</span><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 21px;"><div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: white; font-size: 10pt;">Please, can someone make this competition great again before we regret losing this loveable old friend. Next year, 3pm please, let's rebuild from there - and how about throwing in a Champions League place for the winner to kick-start this resuscitation exercise. Enjoy the game.</span></div>
</span></span></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-42433320189794334212012-04-29T21:53:00.000+01:002012-04-29T21:53:10.667+01:00See Saw Commercial Law<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Are commercial law departments in
law firms at a tipping point?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">When
talking recently with the out-house community, I’ve discussed the old chestnut
of law firm billing (a chat with me is a guaranteed riot).
I'll start at the end of the conversation. We discussed that the current
law firm model is in rude health for corporate transactions, but has a
challenging future for run-of-the-mill commercial work. The outlook is
sunny for the corporate rainmakers but cloudy for those who don't know an SPA
from a TSA.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Why so?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Well the out-house theory is thus: clients who five years ago had
no in-house lawyers now have one or two. Clients who five years ago had
one or two in-housers now have six or seven. Clients therefore keep most
regular commercial work in-house and even when they do outsource it, clients
want expert advice but don't want to pay much for it. They don't value it
because they can do it themselves if they have to. Contrast this with
corporate work which clients (generally) can't handle in-house and which they
are happy to pay a handsome fee for.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This
chimes with a point made to me recently by the MD of one of the newish
"alternative" providers of legal services. When I asked him who
his competitors were, he said "You".<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Certainly
the above theory is borne out in practice in my experience. When I joined
my employer many light years ago, the bigger ticket more complex commercial
work was outsourced regularly, if not as a matter of course. This was
no-one's fault, it just reflected the size and specialisms of the team at the
time. Fast forward ten years or so and outsourcing commercial work is the
exception in our team rather than the rule. Without realising it we have
as an in-house team been competing successfully for that work with the outside
lawyers we would once-upon-a-time have sent it to.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The fees
aspect to this subject is also important. It is correct that clients do
not want to pay (much) when they send commercial work out the door, whatever
the rights and wrongs of that. I have a rough idea of what a first draft
of a contract should cost for what I'd define as a medium sized project with a
few bells and whistles but which is not too complex. I price that at
around £2-3k, give or take (preferably, take). Most firms, and I'm
thinking non-Magic Circle, will do it for that price and as you would expect
will do a very good job. Thing is though, as a partner or associate you
need a lot of those £3k projects to meet your billable hours target. You
need a whole lot more of them to get your billings anything close to the
corporate lawyers upstairs who can rack up a six figure bill faster than you
can say the words "share purchase agreement" (okay, slight
exaggeration, but certainly faster than you can conclude negotiating one).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The
tipping point from out-house to in-house for this kind of commercial work is
only going to tip further towards more work going in-house (or to alternative
providers) away from law firms. Whereas in my view, the corporate
rainmakers can continue as is for quite some time yet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Where then does this leave the leaders of commercial teams in City
firms?</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Needing to re-invent the service they provide I think.
Rather than re-actively wait for decreasing levels of contract monkey
drafting instructions to come in, how about pro-actively selling some new
services. Here is a potential menu:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">1. Access
to firm precedents - £20k per annum.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0cm; margin-top: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">2. Access to precedents plus 2 hours consultation on any first
drafts produced in-house using firm precedent - £30k per annum.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">3.
Provision of first draft agreements for twenty unspecified agreements over the
next 12 months - £30k per annum.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">4.
Quality assurance audit of 15 random contracts produced by in-house team - £5k
per annum.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<u1:p></u1:p>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">5.
Intensive training over the year for an in-house team to obtain an accredited
qualification in a specialist subject (e.g. copyright) - £10k per annum.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">No doubt
some law firms are offering aspects of this service already to their more
valued clients. But I recommend they make it a ratecard product which is
sold on a standard t&c basis by proper sales-people, not by lawyers who
also have to do a bit of sales.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">After
previous blog posts looking at law firm models, a couple of people have
commented that I should concentrate on looking at how in-housers function
rather than concerning myself with how law firms operate. I disagree.
I'm not writing this to try and help law firms. I'm writing it to
try and make the point that what clients want is changing.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Firms who
are serious about the long-term future of their commercial practices need to
incentivise portions of their partnership to think innovatively in these
changing times. Because if the entire partnership remains incentivised to
keep on billing for this year's targets, then we have a turkeys’ voting for
Christmas scenario for any partner who goes out on a limb in the way I'm
suggesting. Point is, law firms incentivise their staff for the here and
now. Not for the there and future.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Due to
the growth in numbers and excellence in the in-house side of the profession,
without a sea change in product offerings the seesaw will continue to tip and
commercial teams in law firms will continue to become the ever poorer cousins
of the corporate powerhouse departments. They will be stuck at the top of
the seesaw, unable to get off without jumping. The landing may not be
soft if their corporate law colleagues do not feel like catching them.</span></div>
<u1:p></u1:p></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-75764016624109304192012-04-11T09:41:00.001+01:002012-04-11T09:41:28.010+01:00Would you consider an in-house role?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Last week The Lawyer published a
front page photo of a female lawyer with the eye catching headline that
"65 per cent of you want to be her".
That was one of several intriguiging statistics arising from <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/interior-designs/1012050.article" target="_blank">research compiled by The Lawyer into the attitudes of private practice lawyers to theirin-house cousins</a>, and specifically whether private practice lawyers would like
to work in-house instead of in a firm.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The Lawyer already did a deep dive
on those statistics so there is no merit in repeating them all here. But it was the headline statistics in
particular which caught my eye and which I think merit further attention.
First, The Lawyer's survey found that 68 per cent of all private practice
lawyers "would consider taking an in-house role". Second, the survey found that 80 per cent of
all associates "would consider taking an in-house role".</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">What does this all mean?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Well it is easy to jump to the
obvious conclusion that the private pratice business model is bust and
associates now realise that. I admit to
partially jumping to that conclusion myself at first and it reminded me of <a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/why-us-lawyers-dont-want-their-bosss.html" target="_blank">one of my early blog posts where I wrote about</a> my experience interviewing
associates looking for an in-house role in New York, just under 18 months ago.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Maybe there is a grain of truth in
that, but that argument is too simplistic.
The truth is not that the model is bust, because it's not. But that as the gateway to partnership, let
alone the hallowed equity, narrows year on year, I am willing to punt (this is
not an evidence led argument for all you evidencists out there) it is true to
say that associate dissatisfaction is pretty high.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">But alongside that conclusion, one
also has to look at the question which was asked, and a hat tip is due to solicitor <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/tucola" target="_blank">Ian Tucker</a> and <a href="http://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/author/lawyerwatch/" target="_blank">Richard Moorhead of Cardiff Law School</a>
for causing me to pause for thought a bit on this. The words "would consider" in the
question are important and arguably undermine the ability to rely on any
conclusions drawn from the survey data.
I suppose I "would consider" any number of things suggested to
me, but I might well decline to press ahead with most of them being a cautious
lawyer type. I think The Lawyer could
improve on an already fascinating study by making the question more specific in
any repeat survey.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I'd also be interested in the
answer to a different but possibly the same question. How many private practice lawyers (associates
in particular) "would consider" leaving the profession entirely? Or even more stark, how many private practice
lawyers "sometimes wish" they had never become a lawyer in the first
place? Again in the interests of a lack
of evidence based analysis, I'd punt that the answer to my first question would
be similar to The Lawyer's magical 68 per cent figure and that the answer to my
second question might not be too far behind.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">If I am right about the likely
answers to my made-up questions, and I acknowledge that is a big if, then I
would be very interested in the motivations of those private practice lawyers
who expressed an interest in the in-house side of the profession. Set aside the "I want to be involved in
the business" cliché, why is this army of well paid (I'm assuming most
respondents worked for large practices) professionals so keen to look over the
other side of the garden fence? Admittedly,
the private practice lawyers interviewed for The Lawyer piece made the right
noises about how they think life is actually more difficult in-house, its no
longer for those who can't hack it in practice and even - gasp - that you even
find lawyers in-house who once worked for top City firms blah blah. So are lawyers in firms looking over the
fence because they genuinely believe it is more difficult and challenging? Or is the reality that unhappy private
practice denizens perhaps in reality think that the “pat on the head”
sentiments expressed in The Lawyer are a load of old guff and that life
in-house offers a more pleasant and easier lifestyle than the one they are
currently (not) enjoying? Because if
not, what is the point of considering a move in the first place?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Two final thoughts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">First, a whopping 53 per cent of
the partners surveyed "would consider an in-house role”. This statistic in itself possibly deserves a
separate blog post. It certainly went
contrary to my theory that the point of slaving for ten years as an associate
is that although you still have to slave for a further ten years or more as a
partner the rewards warrant it in the way they do not necessarily do so for
associates (disclaimer: do not think that last statement runs contrary to <a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.co.uk/2011_09_01_archive.html" target="_blank">mytheory in this earlier blog post!</a>). Again,
motivation here would be fascinating.
Have these partners earnt enough to pay off the mortgage and school fees
and are they willing to take a pay cut to try something else out in the last
chunk of their career? Or is the reality
that life at the top of the firm does not quite match the hedonistic promise it
has before you get there so they want to get out?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Second, if the fact that 80 per
cent of associates "would consider" moving in-house does equate to at
least some degree of disatisfaction at life in private practice, is that a
problem? Yes, it is for me. Not just for the altruistic reason that we
don't want a profession full of unhappy lawyers. But because more importantly, as any decent
in-house lawyer knows, we need excellent private practice lawyers and as I
think I've said before, an unhappy lawyer does not usually make a good lawyer,
or at least does not make a good lawyer a great lawyer. And we in-housers need great private practice
lawyers for the reasons stated at the end of The Lawyer article – that the
relationship between in-house and private practice lawyers “ is a partnership
in the truest sense”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Congratulations must go to The
Lawyer who put together what I considered a really decent bit of research that
has provided me and I am sure others with food for thought. I would like to see that research go further
and ask more binary questions and delve into the motivations for the answers
given.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">But what does it all mean? Well, you will have to draw your own
conclusions and throw in some assumptions like I have done. But at a minimum I think it shows - yet again
- that those at the top of the law firm tree still have work to do to ensure
that their future – and more surprisingly their existing - partners are as
happy as they might be.</span></div>
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-27360909321705302652012-03-03T07:27:00.002+00:002012-03-03T07:27:21.443+00:00Terrace Nostalgia<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I normally blog about law. For a change, I’m blogging about football. And more specifically about my club. <a href="http://www.seagulls.co.uk/page/Home">Brighton and Hove Albion</a>. We’re by far the greatest team the world has
ever seen etc. Let’s see how it goes,
bear with it.....</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It was twenty and more years
ago. The walk down the Old Shoreham
Road to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstone_Ground">the Goldstone Ground</a>. In short sleeves in the spring,
huddled against the cold in the winter.
A scarf on whatever the climate.
Past that pub on the Sackville Road cross-roads (but never in it). Skirting the West Stand with only one
destination in mind. The North
Stand. Turn right, push through the big
iron turnstile with blue flaking paint.
Ticket to the turnstile operator behind the mesh grille. The unmistakeable and satisfying clank of the
turnstile as you pushed it. And you were
in. Away from the worries of the world,
whatever they might be, where for 90 or so minutes nothing else could get into
your mind.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Through the turnstile. The stench of the men’s toilets at the foot
of the North Stand steps – nothing more than a brick shack with a huge metal
trough attached to the wall. Jog up the
steps. Turn right. Pass the first entrance to the stand, turn
left into the second entrance, the splendour of the pitch in front of you, down
a few steps, duck under the barrier and now you were really in. Into the pen towards the top of the North
Stand, behind the goal, just to the left.
We’re the north stand, we’re the north stand, we’re the north stand
Brighton boys. Murmuring an hour before
kick-off, volume building in that hour and rocking at 3 o’clock.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The smell of cigarette
smoke. Jostling on the terrace steps to get
your place. A tribal place. Definitely an edge to the atmosphere, it
never would go “off” but it sometimes felt like it just might. A strange mix of the safe and friendly but
ever so slightly edgy. I was young, not
one of the stand’s “top boys” (and I don’t mean that in a hooligan sense), I was there to observe and enjoy rather than as one of the master of ceremonies. This was a place miles away from village
boredom, from school monotony, from ‘A’ Level stress, from anywhere.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What a place this was. The surge on the terrace when a goal went in
that dragged you along like a rough sea.
You could end up yards away from where you had been standing. And if you were unlucky, end up painfully pinned
against one of the terrace bars while the hoards surged around you. The added magic of a night match, the
floodlights only adding to the atmospherics.
Maybe even a few seagulls circling above for posterity, their spiritual
home as well as your own.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Enjoying that we were the North
Stand. Affectionately mocking the quiet
West Stand (can you hear the West Stand sing), encouraging the altar-boy
sounding family South Stand (South Stand South Stand give us a song), never
quite sure what to make of the stalwarts who stood on the uncovered terrace
that was the crumbling East Stand where grass could sometimes be seen between
the cracks in the steps. And loving it
when one of our heroes applauded our efforts, we used to imagine that
they’d like to be in there with us.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A clear pecking order even within
the North Stand – I never stood right at the top, it would have been
discourteous do so, that was where the leaders stood. You would never start a song, which was the
job of <a href="http://www.wearebrighton.com/crocsontour/2004-05/leedsa_files/LUkrispies37.JPG">the mighty Krispies</a> (he still exists apparently). You would never contradict a view you heard
that you disagreed with. But despite
that, you belonged.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some great days and nights and
memories. Kurt Nogan scoring a late winner in front of the North at a night match, the first game I took my
girlfriend to sometime in the early
nineties (she is now my wife which is somewhat amazing considering that I
thought that was a good early date).
Losing four-nil to table-topping Sheffield Wednesday and managing to
chant for most of the second half “We’re going to win the League”. Almost beating Liverpool in a cup replay
until Rush and MacMahon turned on the style.
Dean Wilkins (brother of Ray for non-Albion readers) scoring a last
minute free kick against Ipswich to take us into the play-offs. Beating Millwall in the play-off semis. “Bravely” taunting Leeds fans one lovely
sunny day only for the North Stand to scarper back down the Old Shoreham Road
once the Leeds support took our invites literally and invaded the pitch,
seemingly intent of invasion of our stand (I have never seen a stadium empty so
quickly). Thrashing Luton (then a top
flight team) in the cup. Heroes like Digweed,
Keeley, Nelson, Bremner, Chapman, Curbishley, Byrne, Small and of course
Crumplin. And what seemed like every
week celebrating Brighton-based celebrities who would be paraded on the pitch –
Sir Des of Lynam, Chris Eubank and most surreally Detective Inspector Burnside
(Burnside Burnside give us a wave), or at least the actor who played him.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
90 enjoyable minutes, even if the
football was not always so. Because those minutes were so far removed from the mundanity of normal life – which for me at this
time was school or being home during student holidays (something the more
seasoned North Stand congregation would enjoy recognising with the intra-stand
banter of “It’s back to school tomorrow”).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Twenty or so years ago. And then the ground closed in 1997. Sold, <a href="http://cms.442.haymarketnetwork.com/contentimages/blog/PA-228182.jpg">thanks to the actions of a fewindividuals who didn’t love the club</a> (euphemism). Homeless and so came the wilderness years. The club lost thousands of fans as it camped
first in Gillingham and then at the soulless and non-atmospheric Withdean. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Fast forward to 2011 since when
we (the Albion) have one of the best stadiums in England. <a href="http://www.talksport.co.uk/magazine/big-picture/2011-08-03/pictures-brightons-new-ground-amex-community-stadium">The Amex</a> (or the American Express Community
Stadium to give it its full sponsored title).
Padded seats, video screens for replays, good views from everywhere, no
surges after a goal, the toilets don’t stink, people don’t smoke, you can buy
edible food, we have fan zone on the video screens before the game, Sky Sports in
the bars - the edge to the terrace atmosphere has gone but there is still a
great atmosphere, it’s just different.
It’s a safe environment where I’m happy to take my Dad and young
children.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
And our stadium really is
amazing. I’ve visited Elland Road and
Anfield in the last few weeks and I’d take our stadium ahead of those two
British landmark stadiums any day of the week (although I will add as a footnote
that I find the evocative traditional terraced street atmosphere around Anfield
something very special to behold, walking through the Shankly gates an almost
privileged experience given the history they represent. And most importantly of all, seeing the Hillsborough Memorial, a rightful and painful reminder of English football’s most tragic day
which, as a result of <a href="http://www.fsf.org.uk/uploaded/publications/pdfs/hillsborough%20stadium%20disaster%20final%20report.pdf">the Taylor Report</a>, led to the all-seater stadia that
allow us to now enjoy football in a safe
environment. A basic right that <a href="http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/hillsborough">‘The 96’ who so awfully lost their lives</a> that day, were
so very wrongly denied). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
I wouldn’t swap the Amex for the
old Goldstone. That was then and this is
now. But occasionally, just occasionally,
I miss the pungent atmosphere of a rocking terrace as a goal goes in, the
gallows humour as a result goes awry. Rose-tinted spectacles? Maybe.
But that’s what memories are made of.
Above my desk at home I have <a href="http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/collection/search/brighton/1/123">a wonderful framed photograph of the North Stand</a> taken by that most brilliant photographer of football stadia, <a href="http://www.homesoffootball.co.uk/about/">Stuart Clark</a>. His photos bring memories to life. And a good long look at that photograph
brings those memories very much alive for me. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If you got this far you must be a
Brighton fan. Or someone who is very tolerant
of a lawyer’s musings on a subject he is not qualified to write about. Thank you for reading this far. And if you are going to any match today,
whoever you support, enjoy, and remember what a beautiful game this is.</div>
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-33815050387637999562012-02-16T20:34:00.001+00:002012-02-16T20:34:40.309+00:00In praise of.....Big Law<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">If I look back at the 12 months or
so I've been blogging, it is fair to say I've sometimes been a tiny bit critical
of aspects of the Big(ish) Law model.
<a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-us-lawyers-dont-want-their-bosss.html">Work/life balance</a>, inflated salaries for junior lawyers and <a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.com/2011/09/big-law-salaries-can-we-have-pep-talk.html">the funding by clients of high six or even seven figure PEP levels</a> have featured in my
musings.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">But this blog is in praise of Big
Law. And if that comes over as at all
patronising then I'm sorry, it is genuinely not meant to.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In the last quarter of last year, I
worked on two corporate transactions.
One was big and attracted a lot of coverage <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8950265/Pearson-sells-450m-stake-in-FTSE-to-London-Stock-Exchange.html">in the media</a>. The other was small and attracted less (<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/financial-times-buys-assanka-to-boost-web-software-development.html">but still some</a>). Both were challenging and I suppose even fun
in a rose-tinted glasses after the event sado-masichistic kind of way.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">We used a different Magic Circle
firm on each project. It is on
transactions like these that you really see what well oiled machines Big Law
are for dealing with the blue riband events.
The raft of skills and disciplines on offer is incredible. You want to discuss an issue with the
corporate partner? You get strategic,
not just legal, advice. The documents
need turning - again - after a meeting which ended in the small hours? The associates turn them whilst the rest of
the deal team sleeps. A last minute tax
issue comes up and all of a sudden indemnity discussions are rife? Within minutes you have the tax specialist in
the room kicking around the various permutations. An obscure IP issue gets raised? And so arrives the copyright specialist. Everyone is hungry? A trainee will soon arrange for lukewarm
pizza to be delivered. And all of this
is done under deal pressure, under time pressure, under tired pressure, under
client pressure (not me, I'm far too nice) without any complaint to the client.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Now I realise that stating this is
to state the obvious. As one partner
said to me recently when I pointed all this out, well that's what we do. Whilst that might be right, I think it is
wrong to take excellent service for granted, law firm service isn't always like
this. The best deal teams in law firms are not a number of expert individuals,
but are a team of expert individuals genuinely clicking together as an even
more excellent team. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">These deals aren't easy for
in-house counsel either and that might be the subject of a future blog post
where I try to garner sympathy for the poor in-house lawyer's lot in life. Suffice to say, the job of in-house counsel
in the run-up to signing of a big deal is to make strategic decisions, risk
calls and field a crazy number of emails from the Big Law team. But that role
is made easier with a strong Big Law team working with you, trying to make your
life as easy as possible.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">You hear a lot of talk in business
about partnerships or a partnership approach.
Often such talk is trite. But corporate
transactions create a perfect environment for a partnership relationship between
in-house and out-house lawyers. We each
bring different things to the table, different perspectives, different
skillsets, different personalities. But
when these are combined with the entire team focussed on the same objective, it
can create a powerful force.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">The old saying goes that nobody
ever got sacked for hiring <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/">McKinsey</a>.
Well to an extent the same is true of Big Law in a corporate transaction
context. And there's a reason for
that. Because quite simply, they are
awfully good at what they do. Whilst it
is absolutely right in these changing times to challenge the status quo, to
examine the way legal advice is delivered, to challenge billing models, l don't
think clients should be afraid to acknowledge excellence when we see it. And this is an unambiguous acknowledgement.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">This post is dedicated to any
corporate associate reading this late at night looking at the hundred page SPA
in front of them and wondering whether they can turn it before the 0800
breakfast meeting with the client. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee">Course you can</a>. Good night and good luck.</span></div>
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-76683590435677236122012-01-31T21:17:00.000+00:002012-01-31T21:17:59.946+00:00What not to review?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is a basic principle of
in-house lawyering that you are supposed to refuse to advise "the
business" (aka clients) on things that don't really require legal
advice. Or if you are the GC or a senior
lawyer you are supposed to avoid advising on matters that don't require someone
senior to advise on them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It is all about time management
you see. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Simple, right? Well yes, in theory. Until a client asks you for some advice that
you think you should refuse to provide but with which your client wants you to
help. Turning theory into practice is
more difficult.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In our team we call this the
Coffee Machine Contract Conundrum (I will resist the obvious lawyerly OCD temptation
to define this as the "CMCC"). It all goes back to an occasion where we were
asked to review the contracts under which our procurement team was procuring
some coffee machines (cutting edge digital media law, that's what we do). Ah, we thought, this is one of those contracts
which we're not supposed to review. We
need to remember that basic principle we've all heard about. We're supposed to politely say no and spend
our time on something strategic instead.
We need to take a grown up approach to risk and tell our client sagely
that they do not need to have the coffee machine contract regularly reviewed
(when I get carried away I like to think of this as akin to Obi Wan Kenobi in
Star Wars telling the stormtroopers in Mos Eisley that "these aren't the droids you're looking for"......with a very persuasive, wise and
unarguable "this contract does not require a legal review" voice. Admittedly, Obi Wan has the edge on me in achieving a
successful outcome).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Except when the lawyer
"glances" (a euphemism) at the Coffee Machine Contract to, you know,
just double-check that it doesn't require review, they discover a low value finance
lease underpins the purchase of the coffee machine. And lawyers don't ignore finance leases do
they, even low value ones? That would be
negligent wouldn't it? Oh, this can all
get very confusing. Do we review it or
not? I know, we'll have a vote - all
those in favour of refusing say aye (the commercial lot) and those against say
no (the negligent lot).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">And since this episode, we refer
to contracts or issues that don't really require a legal review as Coffee
Machine Contracts.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">So it is recently that I found myself
advising on an issue that possibly required no legal input at all and certainly
did not require me to sign-off as GC.....after all, I have far more important
things to do. Like, erm, wade through
email and debate with law firms about invoices (there - first unsolicited and
unjustified dig at out-housers of the year, it does wonders for the page
views). I should know better. I know that this advice fell into the Coffee
Machine Contract category. I ask my team
to spend their time wisely. But I spent
my time advising anyway.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Why?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Because the client wanted me
to. And they were happy that I did. If I was an out-houser, a happy client would
make me feel good about my day's work.
But as an in-houser, my unhappiness at breaking the CMCC, sorry, I mean
the Coffee Machine Contract Conundrum principle, is outweighing the happiness
of the client. But I have a feeling that
if I'd refused to help my client, my happiness at complying with that principle
would have been outweighed by the unhappiness of the client. What I think you call a Lose Lose.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Legal process theorists will tell
you it is easy to put different types of legal work in different types of boxes
and resource them appropriately (or not resource them at all). And to some degree, this is certainly
true. But what the theorists ignore are
the grey areas between the boxes where the Coffee Machine Contracts reside.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Time management is tough. Theory is easy - but anybody who thinks they
can work based on theory alone needs to wake up and smell the coffee (I confess
to being mildly pleased with the segue-way into that line). I could go on, but
work calls - someone wants me to review the services agreement for the upkeep
of the plants we have in our office areas, and who knows what illegal and
harmful pesticides the supplier might use if I don't review the contract
properly and add an appropriate indemnity......</span></div>
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-16738005469482772402011-12-28T08:25:00.000+00:002011-12-28T08:26:26.957+00:00Negotiation: the art of compromising positions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Negotiation is an art form, not a
science, and countless books have been written on the subject.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">But for lawyers, the overarching
rules are simple. We have a duty to do
the best job for our client. It is a <a href="http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/handbook/handbookprinciples/content.page">key principle of our professional code</a>. So we must
negotiate with this objective in mind.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">What does doing the best job for
our clients mean in non-professional conduct speak? I think it means, in deal or commercial
agreement terms anyway, getting the deal done, within a reasonable timescale, on
terms that are broadly favourable for our client and which do not expose our
client to material or uncustomary risks they are not fully aware of and willing
to accept. (Apologies for the length of
that last sentence, my next post will focus on top tips for succinct drafting.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Terms that are reasonable for our
client do not generally mean terms that ringfence all risk for our client. Nor do they mean terms that leave our client
exposed to the point of butt nakedness.
In most commercial negotiatons reasonable terms will be a mid-point
between these two extremes.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Occasionally (for the purposes of
this blog post "Occasionally" means "All too frequently") and
unfortunately lawyers can mistakenly think that doing the best job for their
client actually does mean ringfencing all risk for their client. It's almost like the starting point for the
negotiation is "Don't Be Negligent" instead of "Be
Pragmatic". Such a negotiation
position can come across as either overly-aggressive or unduly cautious. Worst of all, it is uncommercial. And it is a behaviour that will influence the
other party to the negotiation to behave in the same way, because they fear
that taking a pragmatic approach in such a negotiation will lead to concessions
being offered that are not returned. So
the lawyers dig in and it all gets a bit yawningly counter-productive.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Lawyers are good at digging
in. We're good at coming up with
arguments as to why a point should not be conceded. We can talk for a long time too. And whilst a negotiation like this unfolds we
can even tell ourselves that we're doing a good job for our clients by
protecting their position. But what can
be forgotten, is that we're not protecting our client's position by making it very
difficult for them to do the deal, certainly within a reasonable timescale. Legal hot air can extinguish the oxygen in
the negotiation room with near fatal consequences for the transaction. When this happens, lawyers have forgotten their
clients' instructions and arguably our professional duties - to help our client
get the deal done. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Deals and commercial agreements
are about risk allocation. Of course,
there are risks lawyers will always want to (and should) avoid for their client
and to an extent risk allocation will depend on negotiation positions. But negotiation is a rare example of a
situation where it is not embarrassing to be caught in a compromising position. Indeed, in a negotiation it is more embarrassing
to be caught in a non-compromising position than in a compromising one. If lawyers
try to over-allocate risk to the other party to a negotiation then we actually
fail to do the best job for our clients for the reasons articulated above - and
that is embarrassing.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">To sum up, good lawyers breathe
oxygen into a negotiation, less good ones exhale hot air. Any similarities between the behaviours
referred to in this post and real life lawyers are, of course, purely
co-incidental. And if you ever catch me
negotiating in a manner that is inconsistent with this post then, naturally, I
assure you that will be the justified exception that proves the rule. </span></div>
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-12793610706768626872011-09-29T10:58:00.005+01:002011-09-29T11:01:25.287+01:00Big Law Salaries - can we have a pep talk?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I am fortunate enough to work in
<a href="http://aboutus.ft.com/">an organisation full of experts</a>. About several hundred of them all told. They know rather a
lot about what makes the financial world tick.
In fact they often predict how it will tick and why. And sometimes their thoughts move markets. It is a privilege to work amongst them.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">You can buy this expertise quite
readily. It costs about £300 to buy an
<a href="http://FT.com/">FT.com</a> subscription and read as much of this expertise as you like for a whole,
entire year. Hundreds and thousands of
articles, most of them analytical, detailed and bathed in expert commentary. FT plug over.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Contrast this with the
organisation I used to work in, contrast it with any Big Law firm. They too are full of experts. They know quite a lot about how the law works. They too can sometimes predict how it will tick
and their thoughts can help their clients move markets, even if they cannot do
it themselves. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">You cannot however buy that expertise very
readily. £300 will get you about an hour's
time of someone who has about 4 or 5 years experience and they probably won't
have time to tell you what you need to know in that short hour. One hour.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Which would you rather buy with
your £300? What sounds like better
value? Even putting aside my subjective
bias to my current employer, it is a bit of a proverbial no-brainer isn't it? More economic and financial analysis than you
can possibly read and which will provide you with a year-long competitive
advantage, or an hour on the phone with a lawyer.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Why is there such a discrepancy in
the price and value of journalism compared to professional services? I propose that it is in no small way down to
custom and practice. Down to habitual
lazy behaviour and assumptions which are not challenged by the clients that
instruct law firms. If you need any
evidence of this behaviour, I recommend <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202514929386&From_the_Experts_Seize_the_Day">this excellent piece</a> on <a href="http://Law.com/">Law.com</a> by Mark
Harris, the CEO of <a href="http://www.axiomlaw.co.uk/index.php/overview">Axiom</a>, which states that between 1998 and 2008 law firm
pricing increased by 70 per cent, in contrast to a rise in non-legal business
costs of 20 per cent over the same period.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">One such un-challenged assumption
is this – that the level of compensation payable in Big Law Firms is reasonable. That in Big Law Firms, it is reasonable for
PEP to be (give or take) no less than half a million pounds, that it is
reasonable for newly qualified solicitors to be paid salaries in the region of
£60,000 according to <a href="http://www.rollonfriday.com/InsideInfo/CityFirms/tabid/68/Default.aspx">Roll on Friday’s data</a>.
These assumptions seem reasonable at face value, but it is these
assumptions which allow (or even require) law firms to charge in one hour what
the FT charges a subscriber in one year.
Contrastingly, there is no assumption in news organisations that a large
proportion of the experts within the workforce must earn high six or even seven
figure salaries (or drawings to be technically correct), which is reflected in the price of the product.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">In-house lawyers don't much like
the hourly rate model. There are of
course plenty of alternatives to it these days but most of those alternatives
are still priced on a "time spent" basis with the spectre of the
hourly rate lurking in the background. Law
firm business models require a certain amount of money to be generated by a
certain amount of time spent in order to fund the high compensation packages referred
to.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">I wonder if in-house lawyers are
wasting our time focussing on the hourly rate model. I wonder if instead we should be spending our
time focussing on the reasonableness of the assumptions which exist in the
marketplace about what private practice lawyers "should" earn. But we don't, because market norms exist
which make it abnormal to challenge such assumptions.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">If news did not exist today as a service
and were "invented" tomorrow, I'm confident it wouldn't be priced on
the basis it is today. What CEO of
NewsCo (geddit?) would assemble a few hundred experts and ask them to write for a year in
order to assemble a product that would sell for about one or two pounds a pop? But
because we are used to news being relatively cheap, it is accepted that it is
cheap, despite the immense value created by thoughtful commentary and analysis
of news. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">It's time to drive down law firm
rates. But not just by reference to the
hourly rate. By reference to the irrational
assumption that it is acceptable for clients to help their lawyers become
millionaires.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">Let me add an important
rider. I appreciate that Big Law lawyers
are intelligent, work extremely hard and often at unsociable hours. I accept that there is a price to pay to be
able to call on that expertise at any hour, any day of the week. And anyone working at that level of intensity
has a right to expect a high level of compensation, otherwise why bother
frankly. So I'm not calling for the high
end of the legal profession to adopt some kind of Marxist ideology. But I am challenging the assumptions that
exist in the legal marketplace about the "normal" levels of
compensation payable.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span lang="EN-US">A footnote for any aggrieved
solicitors reading this who don't work in Big Law. This post is about Big Law. It is not intended as a criticism of the
thousands of UK solicitors who ply their trade on the high street or elsewhere
for more modest compensation. And if you
are an aggrieved solicitor reading this and working in Big Law, then feel free
to pull my arguments apart in the comments section below.</span></div>
</div>
legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-55826298840105801602011-09-16T13:44:00.000+01:002011-09-16T13:44:31.837+01:00Why this cloud has no silver lining for IT lawyers<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">I used to be an IT lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before I moved in-house and developed a specialism in the legal vertical known as jackofalltradeslaw.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But even now, I like to think I know the difference between a software licence and a support agreement and most of the time I get it right.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">IT law used to be easy if you were acting customer-side.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You stuck in some wacking great warranties which referred to what IT lawyers biblically defined as "the Specification".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You drafted 3 pages of accepance testing provisions which no right minded individual would ever want to try and follow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if you really knew your onions you blathered on about the criticality of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code_escrow">escrow</a> and forced the client to spend money with the NCC depositing source code which no-one would ever be able to really use anyway.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All safe in the knowledge that if the project went wrong then best case the supplier was firmly on the hook or worst case you could blame the client for providing a poor Specification (anyone ever seen a good one?), not doing the acceptance testing properly or forgetting to deposit the seventeenth version of the code update into escrow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Job done.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">IT software/maintenance/services also used to be expensive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which meant, when acting customer side, one could negotiate a liability cap that had meaning and could cause the supplier a degree of pain if they failed to deliver a product on time which danced and sang as the biblical Specification said it would.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">On the whole, the legal risk in IT agreements used to be balanced, more or less, in favour of the customer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as in-house counsel at a company which buys IT services this was not an unhappy situation to be in.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Unfortunately though from a customer perspective this is no longer the case.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">First came the web, HTML, XML and all that followed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suddenly the words "source code escrow" seemed to have any real resonance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although in practical terms the benefits to the customer of source code access was always questionable, the threat of an escrow trigger hanging over the supplier was a useful incentive to ensure that suppliers kept their side of the bargain, simply because they always hated the idea of handing over the crown jewels in a wost case scenario.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think (and willingly stand to be corrected by any devs out there) that the value of the jewels reduced when the commercial web came along and HTML coding started to replace more proprietary software packages.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Then came <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software">open source</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It had always been in the background a bit, but with the advent of the web came an increased usage of open source by the dev heads.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only did this really put the final nail in the escrow coffin but it also allowed suppliers to start cutting back the warranties they provided their customers, even the customary IPR warranty backed up by the accompanying juicy indemnity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">The negotiation see-saw had begun to tip, sending the customer up in the air.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if a lack of warranties in respect of source code was not enough, now the customer also had to worry about ensuring compliance with third party open source licences, some of which require the customer to deposit modifications of the open source back into the software community.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Still, all was not lost from a customer perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Customers still had our theoretical hundred page specifications to rely on (often of course drafted as six bullet points with "full specification to be agreed by the parties within 30 days of signature of this agreement".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yeah, right) and the lovely warranties that went with it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Didn't we?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Well, we did until the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development">agile development</a> started to become mainstream.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the uninitiated, agile development works using the concept of "sprints".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://blog.brightgreenprojects.com/2010/03/10/sprint-iteration-agile-scrum/">A sprint</a> is broadly a series of project segments or stages which take a project from conceptual idea to final delivery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the problem for lawyers is that the project is defined and developed in the course of those sprints.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no specification at the beginning of the project, it is iterated and re-iterated over the course of a project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The customer pays the supplier to develop something that does not really become properly defined until some way into the project.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So by now, customer-side lawyers also had to throw their specification warranties out of the window.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But we do at least get to define the word <a href="http://scrummethodology.com/the-scrummaster-role/">"Scrum Master"</a> to show that we were still down with The IT Crowd.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">During the time that these developments were taking place, the cost of IT services was reducing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Good news for customers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bad news for customer-side lawyers, because as project values came down, so too did the value of liability caps, sometimes to such a degree that it would barely be worth suing the supplier even if a project did go a little bit Pete Tong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Luckily (<a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1996/1296.html&query=title+(+icl+)+and+title+(+v+)+and+title+(+st+)+and+title+(+albans+)&method=boolean">*coughs*</a>) that rarely happens in IT projects so would never be an issue in practice.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">And now we have "the cloud".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whoever came up with this term deserves a creativity medal for finding a way of making an IT solution based on thousands of inter-connected boxes across the world sound exciting. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing">The Cloud</a> has a futuristic, almost mythical air about it, it makes you think This Is The Future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reality for customers is that your supplier is now not even telling you where they are hosting your data or website.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But don't worry, it's The Cloud so all will be well my friend.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Except the cloud requires the customer to carry out a barrel load of data protection due diligence as data flies across the world and, better still, suppliers seek to protect their liability position even further both by way of reduced caps, both because prices are yet again reduced and also cloud providers are able to say, in a way they couldn't in the days of more traditional outsourced hosting, we are not taking full responsibility for the entire gig.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">As a result, the customer-side lawyer's role is becoming one of due diligence and risk identification, rather than one of negotiaton.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">A colleague of mine described it thus: certain IT services are now effectively akin to buying a utility service.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does your electricity provider offer service credits if the mains go down?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will the water company promise service uptime?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will your telco agree to fix a problem with the line within a defined period?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Buying certain IT services, even some critical ones, is just like ordering an extra Sky channel.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">It's obviously wrong to consider the change in landscape solely or even primarily from a lawyer's perspective.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Customer-side CIOs are in a happy place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The tech has improved which keeps the CIO happy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The cost has gone down which keeps the CFO happy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ordering process is easy which keeps the procurement team happy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the customer-side lawyer must just learn to wrestle with the philosophical reality that commoditised utility service contracts aren't really negotiable - which naturally makes us unhappy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>no-one is going to lose too much sleep over that.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Anyone got a solution?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Am I getting it wrong?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Answers on a post-card please.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or even better (out-housers) in an email – put it down to pro bono or biz dev, I promise not to tell anyone.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-64886283480880784412011-08-31T22:10:00.001+01:002011-08-31T22:14:51.895+01:00Did you have a holiday or a worliday?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">As we head out of summer and into what the politicians call <a href="http://www.corporatecounsel-forum.com/">Conference Season</a> my fellow in-house legal bloggers <a href="http://gcseyeview.blogspot.com/2011/08/ethics-and-general-counsel.html">Tom Kilroy</a> and <a href="http://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/a-trip-to-1974/">Legal Bizzle</a> have rushed out of the blogging traps in fine form. I’ve been conscious that it’s a while since I put pen to paper and I’m grateful that my peers have jolted me into action. But why the inaction?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Primarily, because I took two weeks holiday during August (in fact it was a whopping and unprecedented 12 days). Which of course meant that the two weeks prior to holiday were heavily compressed at work and the first week back was a decompression exercise as I came out of the depths of two weeks off. So I’ve had a lack of time to blog.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">During my holiday I read this article, headlined <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0a90578-ba28-11e0-b313-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1WdrisavS">“Switch off and stay on through worlidays”</a> by one of the FT's most popular columnists, Lucy Kellaway (<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14526949">here’s another link</a> if you don’t subscribe to the FT). Lucy is an expert at highlighting the absurdities of corporate life (and beware, <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09630cc6-8e28-11e0-bee5-00144feab49a.html#axzz1WdrisavS">lawyers are not immune from the sting of Lucy’s pen</a>). The nub of Lucy’s article is that most professional workers no longer have holidays, we have worlidays, which is a combination of being on holiday whilst keeping in touch with work. Lucy paints an idealistic picture of the work/holiday combo as involving the odd email by a stream followed by a barbecue.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.com/2011/06/have-you-got-lexfactor.html">I blogged</a>, very much tongue-in-cheek (he said defensively), at the start of the summer about how some of my previous vacations have been plagued by conference calls. Despite that piece, I do actually try very hard to put an emphasis on the holiday part of my worlidays. In fact, to be candid, my two week break this summer has been pretty much all holiday. And I feel better for it.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Lucy writes that these days “hardly anyone sends out-of-office emails at all” and shares an anecdote that she is aware of one media company whose staff are actually forbidden from using the out-of-office tool “on the grounds that they are both pointless and unprofessional”.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I’m glad I don’t work at that media company. I don’t mind staying in touch with the office a bit whilst I’m away, but I don’t like the idea that people emailing me might be supposed to have the impression I’m there when I’m not and actually expect a response. I don’t think it is unprofessional to put an out-of-office message on, in fact I think it’s unprofessional of any employer to tell its employees not to. It might not be very macho law, but I’m happy to say that I think that most of us, yes including but not only lawyers, need time off where we are not on duty and I don’t think a lawyer can do the nuts and bolts of their job effectively from a swimming pool or watching a stream, to use Lucy’s examples. Or even if it can be done effectively, it makes the lawyer less effective when they get back to base.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Law is a job that doesn’t necessarily lend itself to an optimal work/life balance. Legal Bizzle touches on this subject fairly regularly in his tweets about weekend working <a href="http://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/just-me-and-the-elves-a-lawyers-weekend/">and the occasional blog piece</a> on the same subject. Because of this reality of legal life, I think it is important that we do take the opportunity to recharge and to ensure that our holidays are holidays and not worlidays. I took a one week break in May and about 36 hours of it were unavoidably (genuinely unavoidably) tanked by a work issue, and I returned from that break feeling less than recharged and racked with guilt about letting the family down more than a bit.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I’m pretty strict with my team when they go on holiday and make clear that I don’t expect them to be on Blackberry duty whilst they are away. I think that any manager who doesn’t underline that to their staff is not doing their job properly. People need and deserve time off. Not just to recharge batteries, but to spend it with families and friends, who often put up with a lot at other times because the job of a lawyer is not as domestic arrangement friendly as it might be. I’ve even been known to confiscate a Blackberry before one individual’s honeymoon. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">To cite Legal Bizzle’s <a href="http://legalbizzle.wordpress.com/2011/08/23/a-trip-to-1974/">recent post</a>, he has blogged about hoping to avoid a return to the seventies (as an aside, do read this, it is important). With our obsession about work, availability and, let’s face it, a slight macho tendency for some people to enjoy working from holiday, are we in danger of giving the naughties a bad name in quite a different way? Technology is still relatively new to us as a working generation – do we allow its novelty value to cloud our judgment? No-one had a Blackberry ten years ago and corporate life seemed to function just fine (I realise that sounds a little bit luddite, but that’s not the spirit of my sentiment). As technology improves at lightning speed it is only going to make it ever easier to stay in touch with the office. Is that really what we’re inventing new technology for? To make it easier to work? I don’t think so. Perhaps in twenty years time when the workplace is full of people who have known such technology since childhood they won’t see it as a tool which allows them to work whilst on holiday. It might be that those of us who knew corporate life pre-Blackberry have got this all wrong. Or maybe I’m just a bit of a lightweight.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">My holiday strategy this year was to check my emails once a day to ensure no show-stoppers had arrived and then to close it down. It took about fifteen minutes a day. I told my team to call me rather than email me if anything urgent came up, which meant I didn’t have to stress about missing any important emails from them. That worked pretty well, they only called me four times a day on average (joke – two texts in two weeks was it). I also know that if the board or any other senior management needed me urgently then they would telephone, which is of course fine and part of the job. In past years I’ve made the mistake of pro-actively wading in via email into issues that would either resolve themselves or could be sorted by someone else. The risk of that more proactive approach is that before you know it an hour or two has passed and your mind has disappeared from the beach back to your desk – and that is not good for the soul.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I don’t like macho law or macho lawyering for the sake of it. I hope all readers, lawyers or otherwise, have managed more of a holiday than a worliday. If legal teams are well managed and adequately resourced, everyone should be able to have some work-free time off. And if you managed to get a good work/life balance whilst you were away, why not try hard to maintain it, just a little bit, now that you’re back in the office – one way of doing this is NOT to repeat that sickening mantra that “I can barely remember my holiday” – say that too many times and I guarantee you that it will become true.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">If you would like to read a contrary view to my non-macho corporate life view of the world, I recommend <a href="http://marketingconversation.com/2011/08/01/in-appreciation-of-the-worliday/">this interesting blog response</a> to Lucy’s “Worliday” article by Chris Abraham, the President of US social media marketing firm Abraham Harris, who makes the chilling argument that “you’re really not as ambitious as you think you are if you’re not tied to a Blackberry.....taking a couple weeks of work radio silence may be OK with your employer, but is it indeed a good idea for the vacation taker”? On the whole Chris, yes, I think it is.</div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-19398320620457277212011-07-14T12:31:00.000+01:002011-07-14T12:31:18.310+01:00PCC RIP: what next?<div style="text-align: justify;">I remember a lesson from law school that seems apposite in the midst of the phone hacking maelstrom. The lesson was that it is not enough for solicitors to actually be honest and ethical - but that we also need to be seen to be honest and ethical, in order to uphold public confidence in the legal profession. The optics are almost as important as the reality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">For this reason, <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">the PCC</a> is dead. Not because it is dishonest or unethical. But because it cannot recover from the public's perception of it as ineffective and unable to regulate the media’s big beasts. Whether or not that view is fair is irrelevant. The damage is irreparable and the PCC cannot recover from it.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Where do the press go from here? There are two obvious signposts. One is signposted Regulation. The other points to a new form of Self-Regulation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">You are unlikely to find many media lawyers, including me, putting forward the argument for regulation. It runs contrary to the concept of a "free press" and the fundamental right to freedom of expression granted by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Many outside the media will argue that the press has abused its right to enjoy such freedom. But as a lawyer within the media, I disagree with that view. The willingness of elements of the free press – most notably <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/">the Guardian</a>, but also including (vested interest disclosure) <a href="http://www.ft.com/home/uk">the Financial Times</a> and others - to hold <a href="http://www.newsinternational.co.uk/">News International</a> to account, is illustrative of the fact that there are newspapers within the industry who have not abused that right. Indeed, in exposing or condemning phone hacking, those titles have exercised that right and in doing so have exercised a form of self-regulation more forcibly than the PCC was either willing or able to. Phone hacking is horrible. But much of what the quality press does is honourable, important and casts light where otherwise there would be darkness.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Yet now is not the time to put forward an argument for an “as is” self-regulatory replacement for the PCC. We cannot give the same body a new name and expect it to work. If the press exists to inform the public, it needs to regain the confidence of the public. To dress up a sheep in another sheep's clothing will not achieve that.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We need wholesale reform of the self-regulatory system. And we need, paradoxical as this may sound, to "force" the press to participate in the self-regulatory system. From the public's perspective, it is not good enough that organisations such as <a href="http://www.express.co.uk/home">Express Newspapers</a> can choose to <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=Njg3NA==">sit outside of the framework</a>. And let's not stop at Express Newspapers - let's bring the "new press" into the game as well, why should organisations like the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/">Huffington Post UK</a> be any less accountable than, say, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/">The Daily Telegraph</a>? A new system needs to be fit for purpose and fit for a digital age.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Forcing participation in a self-regulatory system requires some form of hybrid model. I am not advocating a system of governmental licensing. But I am advocating that there must be proper consequences for not participating. Perhaps a form of statutory - yes, statutory - levy on advertising revenues for non-participants, with any levies being used to fund the new self-regulatory body. In these days of low media margins, watch everyone queue up to participate. And regular funding for the new body should come from industry, not from government.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The new body needs investigatory powers and it needs proper sanctions available to it. Let's assume for one moment that the PCC had enjoyed the investigatory powers of the SFO or the FSA. I think it is fair to say that the whole sorry phone hacking saga might have played out a little earlier than it has done. As the press, let's agree to give the new body wide powers of investigation. Let's make ourselves transparent and accountable. Let's even agree to an annual compliance audit, the results of which are reported publicly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Let's also agree to sanctions for non-compliance. Real ones, going beyond an obligation to correct inaccuracies. Fines tend to concentrate minds, as also would advertising embargoes as a sanction. And if we want to be really extreme about this, let's pre-pay a portion of those fines in advance into an escrow account held by the new body, from which it can deduct monies if an organisation is fined. Suspension or expulsion from the self-regulatory regime could form the ultimate sanction, with those statutory levies kicking-in as a result.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I don’t hold this up as a perfect blueprint immune from criticism, but as a starting point for debate. But let's ensure that we create a self-regulatory body which looks like a proper regulator, which can act like a proper regulator, which feels like a proper regulator. Because, if we don't, there are two unattractive alternatives. Either the industry fails to regain the confidence of the public because any new self-regulatory system looks like the old one. Or the alternative is that we become regulated by government and lose the privilege we currently have as a free press.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">That privilege has been abused by some - let's not abuse it again by failing to use the opportunity, indeed obligation, that we now have to properly regulate ourselves.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><i>Disclaimer: as always, my post reflects my views and not those of my employer</i></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-48788357114784963442011-06-29T08:41:00.001+01:002011-06-29T08:43:58.446+01:00Johann Hari, quote shifting & the PCC<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">These are not my words, they are set out in the <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html">PCC Editor’s Code of Practice</a>, which is the foundation stone of the self-regulatory framework for the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> press administered by the Press Complaints Commission. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">A mini-Twitter frenzy has broken out regarding the editorial practices of a journalist who works for The Independent, Johann Hari. Mr Hari has admitted to attributing quotes to interview subjects that they did not actually say in the interview in question. Let us be clear though, Mr Hari has not completely made the quotes up. According to a comment piece in The Independent <a href="http://www.johannhari.com/2011/06/27/interview-etiquette">and his personal blog</a>, he has occasionally used words previously written by the interview subject to express an idea or sentiment, as a substitute for what they actually said in an interview to express that same sentiment. Mr Hari's justification for this practice is that his subjects often convey their thoughts clearer in their written word than they do in an oral interview. No doubt this is true, most of us convey our thoughts more clearly when we have time to consider them, and we have more time for such consideration when we write, rather than when we speak.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">This episode raises two questions. Are Mr Hari's practices genuine cause for concern? Or is this a classic case of media enjoying making mischief about other media and making an issue out of a non-issue?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">The wonderful thing about Twitter is the instant reaction to incidents such as this from opinon formers. Hari's own Editor, Simon Kelner, <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/Simon_Kelner/status/85732972615049216">appears to be standing by his man</a>, but also wrote yesterday "What a fiasco!" in a leader piece he penned (on which, see the postscript below). FT.com's editor, Robert Shrimsley, <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/robertshrimsley/status/85784187763834881">finds Kelner's reaction surprising</a>. Times columnist David Aaronovitch takes a more compromising view that Hari has been <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/DAaronovitch/status/85791109535645696">"naive not wicked"</a>. And John Prescott uses the incident t<a href="http://twitter.com/#!/johnprescott/status/85780179959562241">o have a pop at News International</a> about phone hacking.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">On the seriousness scale, phone hacking this is not. And nor, using a more relevant analogy, is this anything remotely akin to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/11/us/correcting-the-record-times-reporter-who-resigned-leaves-long-trail-of-deception.html">the Jayson Blair plagarism scandal which befell the New York Times a few years ago</a>. Any accustions of plagiarism in this context are unfair and wrong.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Mr Hari originally made his own articulate (and not entirely unpersuasive) case for his own defence <a href="http://www.johannhari.com/2011/06/27/interview-etiquette">on his blog</a>. But his defence fails to deal with the PCC issues I refer to above. Has Mr Hari maintained high professional standards? And has he published misleading or inaccurate information? Well, if we accept the crux of Mr Hari's own defence, he has not misled anyone. In fact, the basis of his argument is that his practice gave the reader a more accurate representation of his interview subject's views than a reported account of the interview transcript would have done.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">But that argument ignores the obvious counter-argument. That readers of a newspaper interview might reasonably expect quotes in an interview to have been taken from words said in the interview. The clue is in the word - interview - which means an exchange of views, of comments. An interview is not supposed to be a signpost to earlier stated views, whether or not those previously stated views were of a similar sentiment to the views expressed in the interview itself. On that basis, I do not believe that Mr Hari's actions are consistent with the Editorial Code.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Whatever the intent behind Mr Hari's practices, this kind of practice is a slippery slope for serious news journalism. I am not suggesting for one second that Mr Hari is on a slippery slope himself, his many defenders on Twitter are at pains to argue the case for the excellence of his journalism. And The Independent is a serious, credible newspaper. But I do believe that if serious, credible newspapers make editorial decisions to time shift quotes, that a foot is placed on that slippery slope. Such a practice is a form of reverse censorship. The <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> press believes in a free press. Let it not determine its own definition of what a free press means to suit its own purposes. To me, free means free to say what it wants (within the law) and to be honest and transparent whilst doing it. The time shifting of quotes is not altogether transparent, in my view. Where might that end if taken to the nth degree?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">In fairness to Mr Hari, he has expanded on his original blog post in today's Independent comment piece and apologised for what he calls an error of judgment that he will not repeat. His honesty and willingness to address the issue are commendable. Cynics might say the piece was commissioned by Mr Kelner or the Indie's PR folk. Who knows and so what if it was? The Indie have done well to nip a potentially damaging issue in the bud and allowed their man to exit the storm gracefully with minimal collateral damage. Text book handling of a potential crisis.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">A quick postscript on Simon Kelner's "What a fiasco!" quote above. Well, to be honest he didn't actually write that. Or more accurately, he didn't write it in reaction to the Hari episode. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/i/editor/letter-from-the-editor-consider-the-difference-2303634.html">But he did write those words yesterday, about something else, as you can read here.</a> So, he must also have meant it in the Hari context, mustn't he? Mhmm. Perhaps not. I hope you see my point about slippery slopes, even though I do not believe that Hari was even close to falling down one.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-36067752067456545452011-06-17T09:18:00.000+01:002011-06-17T09:18:21.553+01:00Have you got the LeXFactor?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">Summer can be a painful time for the legal profession.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It's the time of year when most lawyers' partners (the domestic kind) force them to stop working for two weeks and spend time with the family.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This can involve rewarding activities such as applying factor 50 sun cream to a small child covered in sand who then yells at said lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or may require the lawyer to acquire multiple ice creams from a distant kiosque and navigate them across a beach in 30 degree heat before they have melted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Cue more yelling at lawyer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or for those lawyers who prefer a UK staycation, they get to spend time lying to their kids that Stonehenge is near Cornwall and that the fifteen mile tailback they are sitting in will soon get moving and before you know it we'll all be eating overpriced fish and chips at Rick Stein's gaff in Padstow together with the rest of Islington and Clapham.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">What keeps a lawyer going during this awful period are two things. Wifi and 3G coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These holiday essentials allow the lawyer to ensure that during the two weeks quality time with their partner and/or family, they will be able to find some downtime away from their loved ones, involving themselves in non-consequential work matters that someone back at base could easily sort out without them interfering from afar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Canny holiday companies wishing to woo the legal profession would do well to provide an industry recognised symbol in their brochures illustrating excellence of mobile coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Perhaps a judge's wig - the larger the wig, the better the coverage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This holiday criteria is, for lawyers, at least as important as whether one's holiday destination has amentities such as a pool or proximity to the local nightlife or even a working toilet.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">The highlight of any lawyer's holiday is "the holiday conference call".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It allows us to feel superior to the other adults in our holiday destination who clearly are not important enough to don a bluetooth headset whilst sitting on the edge of a rockpool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also allows us, upon our return to work, to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>elicit sympathy from colleagues who know we had to give up our holiday time for that call (any lawyer worth their salt will only jump on a holiday conference call with at least four other participants, anything less is just not worth it in optical importance terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Preferably one of those five will be partner level (outhousers) or board level (in-housers)).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">So with this context in mind, I introduce the inaugural Lawyer Holiday Conference Call Charts (#lhccc).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Straight into the top five go my own personal top five holiday conference calls (one of them was not strictly holiday but it makes it on merit).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I invite anyone related to the profession to enter via the comments section below and see if they can top the charts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have your calls got the LeXFactor?!</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">*Plays Top of the Pops theme tune in background to accompany rest of post and adopts the voice of Bruno Brookes (or *oooh* Gary Davies if you prefer)*</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">5. </span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Location:</span></b> British Airways Lounge, Terminal 5, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">London</st1:place></st1:city> Heathrow</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Callers:</span></b> 4</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">LeXFactor:</span></b> three of us on the call are sitting next to each other in the T5 lounge on Blackberry headsets looking like, well, the proverbial you know whats.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We're on our way to <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:state> to negotiate outstanding issues on an acquisition. The fourth caller is our unfortunate <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> outhouse lawyer who we made get up at 0600 his time to dial into the call.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We couldn't have waited to speak to him in person 6 hours later, oh no, we are very important dealmakers you know.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">4. </span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Location:</span></b> Center Parcs, <st1:place w:st="on">Sherwood Forest</st1:place> (to be precise, in that small hallway bit of the "lodge" between the outside door and the toilet)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Callers:</span></b> 4</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">LeXFactor:</span></b> staying in lodge with another family whose adult members are not lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So when they go on holiday they, erm, stay on holiday.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They don't even have Blackberries for goodness sake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am supposed to be going out for a drink with the bloke adult at 8pm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For some reason, having listened to me on the phone through a thin wooden door for 90 minutes he no longer feels like a drink with me at 930pm and goes to bed in a bit of a huff.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mhmm, who is the unreasonable one here?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">3.</span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Location:</span></b> Dunwich Heath, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Suffolk</st1:place></st1:city> (National Trust thingy)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Callers:</span></b> 3 (rubbish, note to self, never ever again agree to less than 4)</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">LeXFactor:</span></b> we have taken our kids to the heath to participate in a half term Halloween craft workshop run by the National Trust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other parents are helping their children make witches hats and taking nice holiday snaps.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am running around the Heath trying to find a mobile signal and shouting to drown out the howling winds (successfully - yay).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">2.</span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Location:</span></b> a UNESCO World Heritage Site on the small Maltese <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">island</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Gozo</st1:placename></st1:place></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Callers:</span></b> Irrelevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But managed three calls in ten minutes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Macho law in action</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">LeXFactor:</span></b> taken family to the Maltese version of <st1:place w:st="on">Stonehenge</st1:place>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Guided tours a plenty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sun is shining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>History is here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We're going to the beach soon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And Daddy is walking 200 yards behind the family wearing his headphones talking frantically into his iPhone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other tourists look on pitifully.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bah, their not lawyers, what do they know.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">1. </span></b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Location:</span></b> a church porch somewhere near <st1:place w:st="on">Lake Windermere</st1:place></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">Callers:</span></b> zillions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And VIP ones too</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: orange;">LeXFactor:</span></b> Me and Mrs Legalbrat have spent the day cycling in the rain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much further than we intended.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With a toddler in tow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are wet, cold and fairly frazzled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I *have* to be on this call.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We set off to drive back to our holiday cottage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Oh no.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before we get there, we have to cross a lake on a small ferry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is full of cars and we can't get on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Decision time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Stay in car with family and do call with toddler in back?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or leave car, jump on ferry as foot passenger, leave family behind to make their own way back?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a lawyer it is no decision.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Get onto ferry alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reach other side of lake.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Church is only nearby building.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sit shivering in church porch for 90 minute call.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Walk 20 mins back to the house.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A perfect end to the day.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US">So, lawyers, remember your holiday essentials this summer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Family.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Passport.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Currency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Suncream.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Phone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Spare phone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mobile chargers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Laptop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>3G dongle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Map of destination Wifi hotspots.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Check.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Work life balance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No room in luggage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Happy holidays.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-74202523190886889992011-05-05T08:28:00.000+01:002011-05-05T08:28:37.097+01:00One for the students: so, you want to work at Big Law?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So you want to be a lawyer? Have you ever asked yourself why? And you want to work in the City, working for Big Law? Have you really really asked yourself why?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">If you are a regular reader of my blog or follow me on Twitter, you might think I'm a little averse to Big Law LLP or to outhouse in general. I'm not really. It's just a bit of banter with some serious points thrown in. As someone who trained at Big Law (Denton Hall, in the days when it had arguably the best media practice in London) there are many positive things to say about Big Law as a place to train and indeed practice: great training; technically excellent lawyers; sector specialists beyond measure; big brand clients; cutting edge work; big deals (if that's your thing); a certain atmosphere which, like it or not helps instil a sense of discipline and professionalism appropriate to being a lawyer; and let's face reality, it pays law school fees and a decent starting salary.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">So if there is much to be said about training at Big Law, why am I writing a blog post challenging the reader as to whether it is the right thing for you to do?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Thankfully I am not often asked why I became a lawyer. On the rare occasions I am, I'd like to express a passion since birth for the importance of intellectual property to the economy and for freedom of expression, but that would not exactly be true. I knew nothing much about either of these things until well into my training contract. From what I remember of my university cohort I was far from the only student who held such indifference. Like most of my university contempories, I'd decided to read law because it seemed like "a good thing to do" at the time and then towards the end of the second year got swept up in what they used to call (and maybe still do) the milkround. The milkround was my first introduction to City firms, where the glossy brochures and promises of what seemed dream-like starting salaries for a glorified Photocopying Administrator (albeit with the potential for promotion to Processor of Company Searches in my third seat) proved very attractive.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I don't remember much career advice at the time or encouragement from my University to consider alternative routes into law, such as the Bar, criminal work, legal aid practice, niche practices or even alternative careers in business. So it was that in our final year of University my contempories and I would bandy around names like Ashurst Morris Crisp and Simmons & Simmons as if we'd been considering them and other Big Law firms as potential employers since the age of five.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In truth, I had no passion for becoming a lawyer before I joined the profession. To be totally candid, I had no real passion for many aspects of it until I moved in-house, it was only then that I found what sparked my interest and motivated me. I've asked myself since, what would have happened if I hadn't moved in-house, at the right time, to the right employer? Would I still be practising law? And if so, would I be enjoying it? I think the answers are "maybe" and "no".</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I compare my then student and trainee self with bloggers </span><a href="http://garrulouslaw.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Benjamin Gray</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><a href="http://ashleyconnick.wordpress.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Ashley Connick</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> and the anonymous </span><a href="http://lawlifeandotherthings.blogspot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Miss TS</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. Three young people whose passion and interest in different aspects of the law and the legal profession, even at such an early stage of their careers, is such that they are moved to write about it. When I was a student or even a trainee, I wasn't interested in much beyond finishing the next bit of revision\research, having a beer with my friends and playing a bit of football (badly). Don't get me wrong, I worked hard both as a student and a trainee and was very conscientious. It's just that I wasn't much interested in law beyond doing what I had to do as well as I could. The idea of spending non-curricula time writing or thinking about it would not have entered my head. Thankfully that mind-set changed for me when I moved in-house at an early stage of my career.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Take away strict academic standards which I'm not qualified to write about, my anecdotal experience as a recruiter in the legal market and an observer of legal developments, is that student standards have improved beyond measure since my undergraduate days. I don't mean the academic intelligence of students, I mean emotive intelligence and what you might call world experience. Younger lawyers these days invariably have a list of impressive non-academic achievements as long as your arm and equally impressive work experience to boot. The would-be trainee of 2011 needs far more than a 2(i) from a decent University, being a "member of the Law Society" and a 2 week work experience placement at the high street practice near their school in order to get a job in a City firm or decent set of chambers. They need a genuine interest in law as a career well before that career starts and with that interest comes a far better understanding of what being a lawyer really entails then I expect most of my peers entering the profession had in the early 1990s.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">And this, is a good thing. And it is why, if you are a student reading law and who is only toying with entering the profession because you can and because it seeks the easy thing to do, rather than because you want to, really really want to, that I encourage you to think hard about your choices.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">There are plenty of good and positive things about becoming a lawyer at Big Law. But make no mistake, there are plenty of negative things too: the hours can be rough; you are beholden to the client; a lot of the work can be mundane and repetitive; it is competitive; law firm structures are inherently hierarchical and the hierarchy gets reinforced regularly; the mediocre moments far outweigh the genuine adrenaline inducing high points; and achieving a satisfying work/life balance, particularly if you have a family, is a challenge. If you want to be a lawyer, you should be cogniscant of these things and want to be a lawyer in spite of them, not in ignorance of them.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">If you are a law student or a trainee do you blog about law, write about law, tweet about law, take part in moots or in some other way spend, out of choice, any of your own personal leisure time doing something connected with law, because you want to? If not, I suggest you think very hard about whether a career in the law is right for you. Because let's face it, at interview, you are going to be up against the Benjamins and the Ashleys. And not just at interview either, you're going to up against them when you are training, when you are learning, when you are building your own practice. If they can be bothered more than you can now, won't it ever be thus?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">And it's not just the Benjamins and Ashleys either. It's their equivalents across the world - in </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">India</span></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">, </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">China</span></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">, South America, the </span><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Middle East</span></st1:place><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">. A couple of years ago I was in a hotel in </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">India</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> with a colleague on a business trip. We were discussing how our children were getting on at school. Looking at the Indian business men (and in </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">India</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> for the most part it is sadly correct to say business "men") swanning around the hotel with their various entourages, my colleague said something that stuck with me: "It's not the kids in your kids' class they are going to be competing with for jobs. It's the kids in school in </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">China</span></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> and </span><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">India</span></st1:place></st1:country-region><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> who are the real competition." The world is shrinking by the day.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">In Twitter speak, I'm #justsaying that there are other careers out there to consider. Or at least alternatives to being sucked by default into the commercial world of Big Law. You should consider them, look at them, experience them, and make an informed choice. You want a job that is going to maintain your interest. Look around Twitter, look at the lawyers on Twitter who come across as passionate about their jobs, not many of them seem to come from Big Law. You don't find many securities or real estate lawyers blogging about the joys of being a securities lawyer or a real estate lawyer (</span><a href="http://uklegaleagle.blogspot.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Barry Gross</span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;"> of course being the excellent exception that proves the rule in the case of real estate!). If you want to go and work in Big Law having thought about it, then great, it offers an excellent career. But do it because you want to, not because you turned up to a milkround and it seemed like the easy thing to do. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">Is there a risk that this is all a bit negative and discouraging? Maybe, but that's not my intention. My point is, if you're going to go for law as a career, do it properly. Give yourself a competitive advantage before you apply for jobs. Have a clearish idea of what you think you might be interested in doing. Don't end up at Big Law for the wrong reasons because before you know it you will be qualifying and unsure of how it came to pass that you are now a financial services regulatory lawyer approaching partnership and earning too much to say stop, I want to get off the ride now.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">I was fortunate, in that despite my relative indifference at an early stage in my career, I ended up practising law in a sector I am passionate about, interested in and at a fantastic company. And there will be many others like me for who it all worked out despite such early indifference. And I'm not saying that it's impossible to do it that way today. Just that it is more difficult, there is more and better competition and I think employer's expectations are higher at an earlier stage. Fifteen or so years ago I wasn't competing against students or trainees who wrote, blogged and Tweeted about law. Unfortunately for you, you are. It's game raising time, and it is only worth raising your game if this is what you really want to do.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: inherit;">The totality of legal careers is not Big Law. The totality of potential careers is not being a lawyer. Just think about it. And if you go for it, the very best of luck. The legal profession, including Big Law LLP, can (despite the caveats highlighted above) reward you with a enjoyable, rewarding and intellectually stimulating career.</span></span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-8377101525738076182011-04-28T08:49:00.000+01:002011-04-28T08:49:38.198+01:00"Hello - would you like to buy some legal services?"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">What is the best way for law firms to market their services?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What's the secret to marketing success?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'm not sure why as an in-houser I care enough about this subject to write about it, but for some reason I do. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe it is because a lot of the advice I see given to external lawyers on how to market their services tends to come from people who do not appear to be clients of law firms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don't get me wrong, I'm genuinely sure they have a valuable perspective on this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, without wishing to sound immodest, I imagine that an even more valuable perspective comes from in-house lawyers, the potential clients of outhousers seeking to build up their client list.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">So how should law firms go about winning new clients?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What works and what doesn't?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it the right thing to do at all?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I recently read something suggesting that lawyer’s time is best spent maintaining existing relationships, not on building new ones.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe that is true in strict ROI terms, but that's a defensive strategy and not how to build a successful long term practice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In reality, some time has to be spent as a loss leader in seeking out new people that want to work with you.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Successful law firm marketing means relationship building that results in winning work from new clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are three simple principles which matter:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">1. First impressions count;</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">2. Little and frequent is better than big one-off impact marketing; and</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">3. It’s a long game, not a short one.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">I will explore each of these in turn.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">First impressions count.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Obvious, right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, but so so easy to get wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And to get it right also requires a wider consideration of what constitutes marketing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>About 2 years ago I telephoned the switchboard of a well known <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Silver Circle</st1:address></st1:street> firm I had never instructed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was after core hours, but no later than 7pm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I needed some urgent advice on an issue that a couple of partners at this firm are known to be expert in.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a bit of polite back and forth with the switchboard operator in an attempt to be put through to someone, I was told, "you do know it is after 5.30 sir?".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Massive first impressions count failure.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A reminder for law firms, indeed all businesses, that often front office staff may be the first point of contact with a potential new client.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">The "first impressions" lesson obviously goes far wider than this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a newly qualified lawyer I remember going to an museum exhibition my firm (well, not literally mine) was hosting for clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before we went, it was drilled into us by the partners that if we saw anyone on their own at the event, then we had to go and speak to them, it was unacceptable for anyone to be left alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a newly qualified lawyer with very little to offer in the way of experienced business chit chat I was hesitant to put this into practice, but such was the 3 line whip on it, I did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I still remember how pleased the client I spoke to was that I'd approached him for a chat when he was otherwise milling around the gallery on his own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So much so, that he later mentioned it to my department head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, obvious right?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But now I am client side, I can recall events I've been invited to where I've felt it is incumbent on me to introduce myself and even on one or two occasions where I've been the one left milling around the room on my own (could be my lack of sparking conversation I guess).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you invite someone to something, make them feel welcome when they get there and make sure that your colleagues do too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your invitee will have a better time and a better recollection of the event they went to.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">On the same theme, outhousers, if you are ever on the other side of a transaction or a dispute to an in-house lawyer, do regard this as an opportunity to make a good first impression, to show them what you are good at, you never know, you might win some work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I've instructed someone in the past who was on the other side and did a pretty good job at making our life miserable but in a very nice way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I've also got a small mental list of firms I will never instruct because of the impression I got of them when being on the other side of the table.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can do the best job for your client whilst impressing a potential client at the same time.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">First impressions count massively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'm of the cynical mindset that law firms love potential clients more than they love clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I don't feel happy after a first meeting when a firm is seeking to win my instructions, my view is that I'm inevitably going to feel less happy if I ever instruct the firm (and for that reason, I'm not ever going to do it).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">When I think of the occasions that I have instructed a firm I've not worked with before, it tends to be outhousers I have known for at least 12 months, usually more, and who I have met a few times for an hour or so at a time - maybe a breakfast, lunch or even (preferably) just a quick coffee.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I don't seek out regular corporate beanos from external lawyers and I don't believe that big high impact marketing, for example <st1:place w:st="on">Wimbledon</st1:place> tickets, results in very much other than stress at keeping up with the Blackberry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So whilst such occasional days may be all very nice, I don't think they achieve more in successful law firm marketing terms than a simple cup of coffee can.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few coffee meetings over the course of a year or so is far more likely to ensure that a particular lawyer is front of mind when an issue arises, than a single "big ticket" corporate event where inevitably you are mingling with a number of different people, not just the lawyer who would like the in-houser to instruct them.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Long or short?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, it is a long game.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I will say this to outhousers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A lack of instructions over even a period of months or longer does not mean that those instructions will not come and that you are wasting your time trying to gain them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is likely that an in-houser will only agree to meet more than once if they like you and are considering working with you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it might be a year or two and several meetings later until a matter comes up that leads to an instruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I will say this to in-housers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don't waste your time or that of our private practice cousins by playing out this form of dating game if you have no intention of ever going on a proper first date, even if you are not sure when that date might arise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To do so is, in my view, unprofessional and unfair.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Marketing external legal services is difficult.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Outhousers are slightly damned if they do (or at least are damned if they market them in anything approaching a hamfisted way) and damned if they don't.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clients and potential clients like to feel wanted to some degree, like to feel that their lawyers and would-be lawyers are interested.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But they don't want to feel bombarded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Treading that fine line between too little and too much contact is hard.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think most sensible in-housers recognise this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we're looking for is simple, because in reality there are not many differentiators between the top 50 or even arguably top 100 firms. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">We're looking for people we like, who we can see ourselves working with, who display an interest in our business, and who are prepared to get to know us over time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It's no more complex than that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And by way of proof, earlier this year when I needed some urgent advice, I did pick up the telephone to an outhouser who had been in touch with me on the above “occasional coffee” basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We chatted and exchanged a few emails and eventually I was able to fix the problem without his help.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And better, he did not send me a bill for the half an hour or so he'd spent trying to assist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which of course means that next time there is a fire drill, he is even more likely to get a call from me.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, if any outhousers disagree and think that big bang one-off marketing plays do work, then I'm happy to test the theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I tentatively suggest having a chat about it in an executive box at the European Cup Final at Wembley in May as an appropriate test-bed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All in the interests of research, naturally.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-68309847199945486372011-04-08T13:15:00.002+01:002011-04-08T13:35:06.310+01:00Grand National Tweepstake<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Thank you for entering the Grand National Tweepstake.<br />
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: xx-small;">Ts&Cs: Remember, no cash, it is just for fun! Runners and riders are below, horses were allocated on a who replied to my Tweet in what order basis based on the list I also tweeted. First place only wins, and the prize (which naturally is non-transferable although no doubt has great monetary value in terms of Twitter ROI) is that all losers agree to give the winner a belated #ff after the race. No other prizes whatsoever. Performance of the horses, jockeys and spectators invading the course are all outside of my reasonable control :-) Have fun and good luck! Oh yes, and my decision is final and binding if there are any disputes (a lot of the entrants are legal types so it is more than possible there will be). By entering the Tweepstake you agree to these Ts&Cs. You also agree to assign to me all of your worldly goods at the end of the race free from all liabilities and encumberances, thanks. The last sentence was a joke in case anyone was half-thinking about withdrawing their entry out of caution.</span></span><br />
<div><br />
</div><div>Horse/Tweep</div><div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Don’t Push It/mark_hague</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Tidal Bay/pencil_case1</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What a Friend/janeclemetson</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Vic Venturi/ghconnor</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Majestic Concorde/elainemacg</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Or Noir De Somoza/legalbizzle</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Dooneys Gate/vicmoffatt</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Big Fella Thanks/tetchypear</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Tother One/simonjuden</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Ballabriggs/kriegs_recht</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Midnight Club/lawyermageurope</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Niche Market/daniel_barnett</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Silver By Nature/ljanstis</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Backstage/jezhop</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Chief Dan George/jodiesue</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Calgary Bay/employmediator</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Killyglen/lindacheunguk</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Oscar Time/madelineallen</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Quinz/peter_daly</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">BecauseIcouldntsee/ashleyconnick</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Comply or Die/lawgirl247</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Quolibet/vigornian</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Grand Slam Hero/creativetymes</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">State of Play/london_eagle</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">King Fontaine/legalchap</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In Compliance/dylanwhite</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Hello Bud/lau_lau1987</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on">West End</st1:place> Rocker/shevvs</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Santa’s Son/notguilty1</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Bluesea Cracker/vanessabarnett</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That’s Rhythm/padams06</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Surface to Air/LBCwisecounsel</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Piraya/davidmerson</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Can’t Buy Time/legalcostsnet</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Character Building/jonbloor</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Ornais/dpturney</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Arbor Supreme/ben_hoff</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Royal <st1:place w:st="on">Rosa/helenups</st1:place></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Skippers Brig/connectegrity</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Golden Kite/justgodirect</div></div></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-6582451729950981452011-03-31T06:19:00.000+01:002011-03-31T06:24:24.255+01:00Cowsourcing: let's share nicely children<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Anyone with responsibility for looking after small children in either a personal or professional capacity will know that life becomes easier for both the carer and the child once they learn how to share, in particular how to "share nicely" out of choice rather than compulsion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Eventually this develops into a desire to swap as well as share.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I currently observe this with my own childrens' obsession in trading Match Attax cards (other brands of football cards or stickers are available).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And heading straight into the lazy, simplistic but true analogy, life is easier for lawyers too when we share with each other.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I know a law firm partner who told me he'd moved firms because in part he was fed up with the "eat what you kill" mentality of his old firm.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or, in schoolboy terms, his partners were not sharing nicely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Which is a shame, because an advantage that Big Law has over in-house is the ability to share knowledge on a large scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Big Law has: professional support lawyers; vertical industry specialists of all flavours; online precedent banks covering all areas one can imagine; hundreds of years of combined legal experience on the shop floor; and the best firms even have on-site shirt dry cleaning pick-up and return services.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In-house has: thinly stretched transactional and contract lawyers who have to professionally support themselves; precedents that support the company’s core business but probably do not cater for much outside of the core franchise requirements; and for everything else there is a tendency to turn to </span><a href="http://ld.practicallaw.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">PLC</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can't afford to dry clean our shirts in-house (cue sympathy) so the lack of that service isn't a problem.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The FT subscribes to PLC and I think it’s a pretty decent resource otherwise we wouldn’t pay for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I’m not the only one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A few months ago, Melanie Hatton, General Counsel at Latitude (aka </span><a href="http://twitter.com/#!/in_house_lawyer"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">@in_house_lawyer</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">), conducted </span><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=1912317&type=member&item=34257591&qid=72d4458b-ce09-44b3-bafc-7817c48f28ac"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">an ad hoc survey via LinkedIn</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> regarding the online tools used by in-house counsel, and the survey respondents gave PLC<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a resounding thumbs up.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But there is a resource that’s even better than PLC.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s called talking to people; networking; sharing; or - to use a buzz word - crowdsourcing.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I’m not a frequent participant on the legal conference circuit, but I will generally go along to one or two a year which focus on in-house lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I go because these give me what day-to-day in-house lawyering cannot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The opportunity to speak to lawyers working across different sectors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The chance to stress-test ideas with peers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To hear what issues others are facing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To understand how they are dealing with those issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For reassurance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a nudge that maybe there’s something I haven’t focussed on which someone else has and which I ought to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In-housers are generally good at sharing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no competitive background to our conversations (at least when we’re talking across sectors) and at the same time there is an unspoken trust.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has the potential to be a very powerful network.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Maybe this is underplaying it, perhaps it already is powerful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it certainly has the potential to be far more powerful.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that in-house lawyers can leverage the power of crowdsourcing to a far greater degree than we currently do, even to the extent of being able to completely change the legal landscape in information and knowledge management if we want to and can get ourselves organised.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">As a lawyer working in the media sector, I make no apology for drawing an analogy from the media to make my point and recommend </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/mar/30/digital-media-crowdsourcing-crowd-sourced-journalism"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">this article by the Guardian</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> highlighting the power of crowdsourcing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The article highlights how the media, not least The Guardian, has used crowdsourcing with its readership to help reveal police involvement in the death of Ian Tomlinson and also in the investigation of MP’s expenses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Very impressive stuff.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I believe that there is scope for large,scaleable and technology driven crowdsourcing within the in-house community to help us move beyond the conference networking circuit and staple in-office diet of PLC.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Indeed, the first formulaic signs of legal crowdsourcing are visible even now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are three examples:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.quora.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Quora</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> describes itself as “a continually improving collection of questions and answers created, edited and organized by everyone who uses it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[It aims] to have each question page become the best possible resource for someone who wants to know about the question.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quroa is not a service designed for lawyers, but don't worry, we're quite capable of spoiling the party and bending it to our own uses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are many legal questions being asked on Quora and I’ve saved some of them which you can see at </span><a href="http://www.quora.com/Tim-Bratton"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://www.quora.com/Tim-Bratton</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> if you are interested to see how people are using it.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. </span><a href="http://spindlelaw.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Spindle</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is a service for lawyers and describes itself as “[organizing] the law into a tree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each branch is an area of law that grows narrower branches for topics and rules.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can browse through topics, rules and cross-references.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It’s a US creation and so the focus is US law and contribution appears open to anyone, like a Wiki.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is one to kee an eye on, however, although I’m reluctant to criticise what looks like a great idea, the user interface and search capability clearly was not designed by an Apple or Google alumnus.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. Twitter/LinkedIn, well we know what these are and they can work well as a quick crowdsource piece of the “Does anyone know?" variety.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.boyesturner.com/person.html?id=30"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Laurie Anstis from Boyes Turner</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (who Tweets as @ljanstis) was kind enough when I mentioned to him I was writing this blog post to send me a couple of links (click </span><a href="http://t.co/WbTYoe5"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and </span><a href="http://t.co/8mIIqz4"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">here</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">) illustrating how </span><a href="http://www.burness.co.uk/people/david-morgan"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">David Morgan from Burness</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> (who Tweets as @davidmorganllb) has used<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>crowdsourcing to research the approach being taken by employment lawyers when advising clients on the new default retirement age.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Interestingly, both Laurie and David are private practitioners, so perhaps it’s wrong of me to have focussed this blog post on the benefits to in-house lawyers of crowdsourcing.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">That reference to private practice is a nice if clumsy segue way into the inspiration for the title of this blog post to which I must attribute all rights (at least as between me and them, go after them for any third party claims please) to Field Fisher Waterhouse (FFW) partner, </span><a href="http://www.ffw.com/people/all/b/simon-briskman.aspx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Simon Briskman</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> and senior associate, </span><a href="http://www.ffw.com/people/all/b/huw-beverley-smith.aspx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Huw Beverley-Smith</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Simon and Huw were kind enough to visit the FT’s Legal Team a few weeks ago to demonstrate a legal wiki they are developing internally.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their presentation included an introduction to the theory of crowdsourcing, that is </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the illustration of the wisdom of crowds by reference to the crowd at acounty fair accurately guessing the weight of an ox when their individual guesses were averaged</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simon and Huw’s example referred to the weight of a cow rather than an ox, hence their coining of the phrase cowsourcing – very clever, I thought (and certainly cleverer than the averaged guesses of the FT’s lawyers which managed to disprove the whole wisdom of crowds theory, but therein lies another story about a certain Australian lawyer who thinks that cows weigh the same as people, you know who you are if you’ve tuned in.....).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">What I particularly liked about FFW's wiki is the equality of voice which the firm has encouraged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simon and Huw showed us examples of how the wiki has grown using contributions ranging from newly qualified solicitors to senior partners, each building on the last contribution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Commentary on, for example, the use of indemnities in practice, gives the wiki potential to be far more than just another intranet resource which might only define "what is an indemnity".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The idea of allowing all lawyers to contribute on an equal basis will result in a far better resource than the traditional doling out of annual objectives to create firm precedents.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Encouraging the less senior lawyers to publish in this way will improve them as lawyers by forcing them to practice their own quality assurance before publishing something with their name on it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The wiki looked like it will be far more than just a precedent bank, and includes intelligent commentary on issues and specific client hubs focussing, for example, on the issues pertinent to particular clients and how they like their advice delivered.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I had a discussion wih Simon and Huw on the pros and cons of FFW making the wiki available to clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To me (the FT is not a client, although other companies within the Pearson group are) it is a no-brainer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Make it available to clients, ask clients to contribute, and the product will improve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To the firm, whilst it sounded like this has not been ruled out, it is not such a no-brainer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>FFW are (understandably) questioning the potential optics around quality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The downside of the egalitarian approach the firm has taken to internal contribution, means that the accuracy and quality of material on the wiki may not always be to the same standard the firm would put on its own letterhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>FFW are considering whether a publicly available sub-perfect product, however innovative, could result in collateral brand damage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a fair concern and wherever FFW end up with their wiki I applaud them for undertaking some innovative product development.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Those concerns highlight the difference between law firms and, say, Google.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.googlelabs.com/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Google Labs</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> is the place on Google where it makes its not-quite-ready-for-market products available for testing by the geeks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is product beta land, where Google actively seek feedback from the user community, allowing them to finesse their services before formal launch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Although no doubt Google Labs services go through an internal QA prior to launch in the lab, the whole point of the lab is that the services available within it are not perfect and have scope for improvement.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Google approach is not for everyone (contrast it with the Apple approach to perfectdom before any product release).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But why couldn't it work for certain law firm services?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In-housers: put your hand up if you would like to access an innovative law firm service, such as FFW's wiki, even if it is not perfect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Put your other hand up if you'd be prepared to use that service even without the usual law firm guaranteee of quality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both hands up?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thought so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not for one second want to give the message that sub-standard law services are okay, they are not, but less than perfect "beta" services are.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If I instruct FFW (or any law firm for that matter) formally, then I want top drawer advice that I can bet the farm on, nothing else.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But if I can use their wiki for free, I'm going to treat that as just another resource and not place disproportionate reliance on it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So I encourage law firms to adopt a Google Labs mentality to this kind of thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Devise, launch, refine, collaborate, improve.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As long as it's clear that it is is a law firm labs project, so to speak, I think the risk of brand damage is minimal and far outweighed by the brand kudos likely to be generated by such innovations.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Back to my idea of in-house crowdsourcing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, there are sticky points to the idea to overcome, most obviously issues of confidentiality, privilege and ensuring there is no risk of transgressing competition laws.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But with the right piece of technology sitting in the middle, allowing contributions to be anonymised etc., then I imagine these objections could be overcome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That does leave the issues of quality assurance and accuracy to navigate, but a combination of peer review and potentially a central "editor" could nail those concerns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yes the technology would need to be pretty funky, intuitive, search-clever and user-friendly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it's just another platform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The content, dear reader, would be up to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the rules?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to share, you have to share.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That's it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A kind of creative commons licence if you will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To use precedents, commentary, war stories, whatever.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A grown-up business social media tool for lawyers, but which allows a greater degree of sharing than currently available platforms.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So if any technology providers are reading and want to discuss more, let me know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And even better if you are a VC with some spare seed capital sloshing around, then I'm sure we can cut a deal (I've seen Dragons’ Den, I know how it works) and then sell for at least a ten x multiple in a couple of years.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But most importantly, lawyers, what do you think?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is this all naive optimistic theory, or could we make it work?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a profession we never underestimate the wisdom of lawyers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the theory of the wisdom of crowds is proven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So let's exploit the wisdom of lawyers in crowds and see what happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Right, I'm off to cancel my PLC subscription.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-73607965119435729042011-03-20T21:13:00.000+00:002011-03-20T21:13:43.294+00:00Hargreaves #2: a response to comments so far<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><br />
It’s great to have had some feedback to my post last week (<a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.com/2011/03/hargreaves-and-call-for-evidence-why.html">Hargreaves and the Call for Evidence: why creating an RCP is easy as 1, 2, 3</a>) and I think it illustrates the challenge ahead for Professor Hargreaves and team. As well as the comments below the original post (see in particular @drycloud's blogged response at <a href="http://www.overthecounterculture.com/2011/hargreaves-reform/">over the counter culture</a>), Emily Goodhand (@copyrightgirl) and @BrightSparkBlog have responded with some comments on Twitter which can be found by searching their @names.<br />
<br />
I’ll respond to some of the points that have been made. But first, a quick caveat. I normally blog as me in my personal capacity, not to reflect the views of the FT (my employer). However, on this issue those views are aligned so I make no apology for the "we" and "our" references in this post and indeed I've partly worded it using these terms to make clear that my posts on Hargreaves do generally reflect a corporate (and personal) position, not simply a personal position. Blogging transparency and all that.....<br />
<br />
To address PDJ Bradley’s (@drycloud) points. I’m not saying that the Pre-action Conduct Practice Direction has not worked and indeed it is well-intentioned. However, it only really comes into play once parties either are litigating or are about to. The RCP is intended as a body that people could turn to before that point in time.<br />
<br />
Although I disagree, I see the rationale behind @drycloud’s argument that the RCP could form a choke-point to be cynically used by rights-owners. I doubt I can convince @drycloud that this is not our intention – but it would require an uber-cynical rights-owner to spend time researching an idea, presenting it to Hargreaves, and to blog on it to gauge views, all with the intention of abusing the RCP if it ever sees the light of day. I do however agree with the point made by @drycloud (and also by @copyrightgirl in her Tweets) that the Panellists should be drawn from a wider constituency than originally suggested, to include academic institutions and non-commercial users. The broader the Panel, the more effective (and objective) it should be, which is in everyone’s interests.<br />
<br />
As for @drycloud’s “revolving door corruption” theory, well yes, the Panel clearly would need exemption from liability for its decisions. But a weak or “bad” Panel would mean an under-utilised Panel which ultimately would mean a non-credible and extinct Panel. Surely if the right mix of credible Panellists were chosen to sit on the RCP, the risk of revolving door or any other kind of corruption would be mitigated? Let me be clear. We are NOT proposing a Panel staffed by rights-owners for the benefit of rights-owners. <br />
<br />
And in final response to @drycloud’s points, the Pearson submission to Hargreaves (publicly available at the IPO website) does focus on DRM as another solution. My Pearson colleague @simonjuden can talk with more authority on that subject than me, but suffice to say, we see that common meta-data standards can only have benefits for owners and users.<br />
<br />
Emily, BrightSparkBlog and Richard Moorhead (@richardmoorhead) all rightly pose questions as to under whose authority the RCP would sit – for example, as part of the IPO or pursuant to some kind of Ombudsman model? Richard also asks whether its decisions could be binding. To be honest, I’m not sure under whose auspices it should sit and others within the IP community will have more informed thoughts than I do on this point. We certainly aren’t trying to create a Press Complaints Commission type model for copyright, because we’re aware that “self-regulatory” models raise suspicion as to their intentions. But neither did we want to recommend a statutory body, as we’re not sure in the current environment that government has time/money to establish and fund a body such as that we’re recommending. We believe the Panel could be more or less self-funding by petitioner’s fees (particularly since the “Panel” would be a reactive body, sitting only to hear petitions; it would not be a body such as say the Advertising Standards Authority that needed a full-time staff to operate it). As for Richard’s binding or non-binding question – we deliberately went the non-binding route for two reasons. First, to suggest something that can be established relatively cheaply and quickly and which can also operate on a cheap/expedited basis. Second and more importantly, to create something that can facilitate deals between owners and users (like CEDR), not something that by its binding nature is adversarial.<br />
<br />
Finally, I look forward to hearing more from @shireensmith if Shireen has the time in relation to why she does not think the RCP would benefit start-ups. I don't know Shireen's exact client base, but I certainly assume Shireen knows the start-up scene far better than I do, so it would be good to know why she believes the RCP may not benefit some of her own clients. Wouldn't there ever be any benefit in a start-up/SME getting an objective and cheap Panel view on whether a new business model might fly or run into legal issues early on?<br />
<br />
I’m grateful for all of the comments – and any more that may follow. It would be boring if we all agreed, wouldn’t it? And it’s only right that any new ideas that anyone has put forward to Professor Hargreaves have their tyres kicked by all sides of the digital marketplace to either improve them or to prove that they are non-starters. I hope the idea of an RCP can be improved with more critical analysis rather than proven to be a non-starter. <br />
</div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-24017043147177527742011-03-16T13:26:00.000+00:002011-03-17T08:17:18.370+00:00Hargreaves and the Call for Evidence: why creating an RCP is easy as 1, 2, 3<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 24px;">However much work you have to do right now, however many unread documents or emails are sitting in your inbox, spare a thought for Professor Hargreaves and his team. On Friday 4th March the broadband network at the Intellectual Property Office must have been creaking for bandwidth as submissions arrived in response to their <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview/ipreview-c4e.htm">Call for Evidence</a>.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial;">IP-watchers will know that Professor Hargreaves was asked to review the existing <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> intellectual property law and framework “to consider how it might be changed in the interest of promoting innovation and economic growth”. He and his team now have the task of reviewing these submissions, making sense of them and reporting to Vince Cable and George Osborne next month.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">The Prime Minister didn’t really do Professor Hargreaves many favours <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11695416">when he announced the review</a>, painting a fairly unrealistic picture that Google, when starting out, could not have made a success of its business in the UK due to its draconian copyright laws. Poor Larry and Sergey had to launch in <st1:place w:st="on">Silicon Valley</st1:place> instead of Shoreditch High Street which I’m sure would otherwise have been their preference.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">All joking aside, the Prime Minister cast a shadow over the review which, in political terms, may have encouraged respondents to take extreme positions. The copyright up against the copyleft as it were. I hope this is not the flavour of the submissions since, as always in business, a collaborative approach between organisations is far more likely to result in change for the better for everyone, both rights-owners and users alike. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;"><a href="http://www.ft.com/home/uk">The Financial Times</a> (FT) is owned by <a href="http://www.pearson.com/">Pearson Plc</a> and we have worked very closely together in preparing the submission made by Pearson to the review team. In doing so, we tried to focus on what Professor Hargreaves had requested – that is, a Call for Evidence; not a Call for Opinion. You should be able to read the entirety of our submission on the <a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview/ipreview-c4e/ipreview-c4e-submissions.htm">IPO’s website</a>, but in this blog post I’d like to talk about one element of it that we believe is original, innovative and could facilitate the growth of the digital economy that the government rightly wants to achieve. And that is, the creation of what we have called a Rights Clearance Panel (RCP).<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">We have recommended the creation of a Panel which “provides both rights owners and users the opportunity, at minimal cost, to petition the RCP for non-binding guidance as to whether a particular use made or proposed by a user of third party content without an express licence to do so from the owner, infringes UK copyright and whether a defence is available if such use constitutes copyright infringement.” Or as we also referred to it in our submission, “an independent intermediary and non-judicial body, which it is cost-effective for petitioners to access, with jurisdiction to hear copyright disputes and issue non-binding guidance in relation thereto.” <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Let’s take a quick time-out. Firstly, why is a content-owner like Pearson proposing the creation of a body that could – gasp – make it easier for third parties to understand whether or not they are entitled to make use of Pearson’s IP? And secondly, isn’t the creation of the RCP just an idea or an opinion, what’s it got to do with the evidence requested by Professor Hargreaves?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">I’ll answer the second question first.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Pearson’s complete submission sets out an evidence based argument why litigation does not assist either rights-owners or would-be users of those rights. It is expensive and time-consuming. We cite evidence submitted to both <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/gowers_review_index.htm">the Gowers Review</a> and stated in the <a href="http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/jackson-final-report-140110.pdf">Jackson report</a> that puts the cost of IP related litigation as in the region of £1million. That is prohibitive to start-ups or SMEs seeking to push the envelope of IP law (too much risk kills innovation) and, believe it or not, also prohibitive to rights-owners wanting to enforce their rights. In addition to being expensive, litigation takes time. Is it worth litigating today’s new business model, when by the time of trial, what looked worth fighting over one or two years ago has ceased to have relevance in a changing market? Often, the answer will be no. The litigation process is ill-fitted to serve a fast technology driven economy.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">So having identified the problem, why do we think the RCP is a solution?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Other than (one) the cost and (two) the (lack of speed) of litigation, a third argument underpinning our recommendation is the evidence-proven fact that low-cost and easy to access dispute resolution processes result in an increased willingness of parties subject to a dispute to use them. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoFootnoteText" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">We studied some existing alternatives to litigation in the non-copyright context. In particular, the <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp.htm">Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy</a> which ICANN requires all registrars of top level domain names to adopt as a dispute resolution procedure for resolving disputes regarding the ownership of domain names. WIPO handle a decent chunk of UDRP cases <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/statistics/cases.jsp">claim to hear and dispose of</a> some 2,000 cases each year and the cost of filing a complaint varies <a href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/index.html">between $1500 to $5,000</a>. We also looked at the analogous <a href="http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/">Nominet Dispute Resolution Service</a> </span><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;"> which can be used by complainant’s at a cost of just £750. In addition, the number of complaints submitted to and dealt with by each of the <a href="http://www.asa.org.uk/">Advertising Standards Authority</a> and the <a href="http://www.pcc.org.uk/">Press Complaints Commission</a> evidence that quick, cheap-to-access complaints processes encourage their use by complainants. The data backing up these assertions is available in the complete Pearson submission. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 27.0pt; tab-stops: 27.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">I think that our fourth and final argument in favour of the RCP is the most interesting and, if we say so ourselves, possibly the most unlikely argument for a rights-owner to put forward. That is, litigation is generally the preserve of the rights-owner, the would-be claimant. A user of third party intellectual property is a potential defendant, who has no means (other than seeking legal advice or an expensive declaration of non-infringement from the court) of ascertaining whether or not a proposed unlicensed use by them of third party intellectual property may lead to legal proceedings being issued against them. Users will usually only find themselves party to a dispute on a reactive basis. There is no proactive objective mechanism available to them to seek to pre-emptively address issues that might only otherwise be addressed once litigation commences.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 27.0pt; tab-stops: 27.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Such potential defendants wishing to make use of third party intellectual property in the absence of a specific licence or other right to do so, must consider whether such use is lawful and permitted in the absence of an express right. Part of the diligence process carried out by such users may involve obtaining legal advice, often at relatively substantial cost, and such advice will often be less than definitive as to whether a particular business model is lawful or not. The cost of such diligence and the uncertainty of its outcome may stifle innovation, particularly by start-ups and businesses operating in the SME sector. The introduction of a RCP would allow otherwise would-be defendants to obtain non-binding guidance on whether an actual proposed activity is lawful, removing to a large degree the uncertainty of whether such activity is likely to lead to a successful claim being brought against them by a rights-owner.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">I work for a rights-owner and I will not pretend that we don’t see benefits for rights-owners too. As stated above, the cost of litigating is a barrier to entry to rights-owners using it as an enforcement tool. Rights-owners would be able to utilise the RCP as a cost-effective way of obtaining non-binding guidance as to whether a particular use made of their rights by a third party is or is not unlawful. And that guidance could effectively become a useful business development tool for rights-owners seeking to encourage reluctant users to strike a deal to formalise any unlawful use of rights.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">So having recommended the creation of the Panel, how do we see that it might work? We suggest that its remit be limited to copyright, to start with at least. That petitioners would be required to meet a baseline criteria in order for the Panel to accept a submission in order to avoid vexatious or nuisance claims. That it adopt a “paper hearings” approach (i.e. written submissions only), with a cap on the length of submissions. It would issue written “decisions”, published on its website, from which there would be no grounds of appeal due to the non-binding nature of the guidance. Finally, a panel of copyright and industry experts would sit on the RCP as potential panellists to hear a petition. We recommend that a suitable mix of lawyers and business executives (drawn from both the rights owner and user business communities) would constitute the optimal combination of individual panellists, ensuring that the RCP is free to adopt a business and commercial emphasis in its pragmatic application of the law.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">The ultimate goal would be to establish the RCP as a best-of-breed model for resolving copyright disputes which could be adopted across the world. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">We recognise the potential weaknesses with a body whose remit is restricted to only issuing non-binding guidance. But we want to ensure that the focus of the RCP is to offer fast and cheap guidance and to encourage parties to discuss their differences in a non-adversarial manner that does not require the parties to incur substantive legal fees. We also believe that our desire for the RCP to take a business-led approach in applying the law and issuing its guidance may be curtailed if the RCP were created as a judicial body. The success of organisations such as <a href="http://www.cedr.com/">CEDR</a>, who claim that over 70 per cent of cases referred to <a href="http://www.cedr.com/solve/mediation/">CEDR Solve for Mediation</a> settle, prove that non-binding models can work. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Nevertheless, in order to give RCP guidance some “bite”, we have also suggested that Professor Hargreaves consider recommending a change to the Civil Procedure Rules, to provide the courts with discretion to make adverse costs orders against eventual litigants who do not utilise the RCP in appropriate cases and who fail to comply with its guidance in circumstances where a subsequent court decision is broadly similar to the guidance issued by the RCP. Over time, as a successful Panel established a credible reputation, perhaps the courts could even consider referring disputes to the RCP as an alternative mediation body.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Professor Hargreaves has been asked by the government to consider how the law and its framework might be changed in the interest of promoting innovation. We have collated evidence which demonstrates that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> courts do not offer either rights-owners or users with a framework for the resolution of disputes or even the answering of questions in a manner which facilitates or encourages innovation. <o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-left: 27.0pt; tab-stops: 27.0pt 54.0pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: -27.0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 0cm 54.0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">We believe that the creation of an RCP would correct this procedural barrier and allow both rights owners and users to innovate even more than they currently do under the current <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">UK</st1:place></st1:country-region> statutory framework.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; tab-stops: 27.0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">To conclude, I’ll answer the first question I posed above – why is a content-owner proposing the creation of a body that could make it easier for third parties to understand whether or not they are entitled to make use of its IP? Readers not familiar with Pearson or the FT might think this is a strange idea for a rights-owner to put forward. Have the copyright turned copyleft?<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">No.<o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Arial; line-height: 150%;">Although Pearson is a business built on intellectual property, it is not an organisation on the copyright, so-to-speak. Pearson is an organisation which states it is “Always Learning” and that strives to be <a href="http://www.pearson.com/about-us/our-way/">Brave, Imaginative and Decent</a>. Corporate guff? We don’t think so and I think our proposal to Professor Hargreaves is brave, imaginative and decent. Yes, Pearson and the FT want to ensure that they obtain a return on their investment in intellectual property. Yes, we will protect our businesses when we have to. And yes, you will find arguments in our full submission as to why, for the most part, we believe the existing statutory framework facilitates that innovation. But we realise that the process for clearing rights could and should be easier, cheaper, better. The RCP could go some way to achieving that. To making it easier for businesses both large and small to achieve certainty. With certainty comes investment. With investment comes innovation. And both Pearson and FT are organisations which support innovation wholeheartedly – whether in Shoreditch High Street or in sunnier climes.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-45122277395287042552011-02-24T10:54:00.000+00:002011-02-24T11:29:17.983+00:00Social media strategies: #musthaves or #mya**e?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">There is, at least in legal social media land, only one real legal issue of the day worthy of attention and debate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Forget the <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Jackson</place></city> reforms, access to justice, prisoner's voting rights, libel reform or whether it is right to require divorcing couples to mediate before they litigate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These issues are but the froth on the top of any Tweeting lawyer's cappuccino.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">The real issue du jour is this: should law firms have social media strategies (SMSs)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are they, in Twitter speak: #musthaves or #mya**e?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">It matters not of the relevance of this issue to the man sitting on the good old Clapham omnibus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What we, the legal Twitterati are concerned with, is what is on the mind of the Rainmaker sitting on his or her antique but refurbished sofa (think Cath Kidson meets Emma Bridgewater but with a bespoke limited edition Johnnie Boden twist) in the comfort of their Georgian Clapham townhouse (detached - natch).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, the issues dominating the thoughts of said rainmaker are not trifling ones such as leveraging PEP, improving associate retention, offering a better work-life balance, assisting on pro bono matters, ensuring lateral hires stay with the firm, to stay domestic or bet international or even about how to make that US takeover, sorry merger, work - these issues are, frankly, for the birds.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">Any decent rainmaker on top of his or her Law 2.0 is a man or woman of focus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Shut out the noise and consider only the following: should my Twitter avatar be photo or logo; what shall I call my blog; how often should I post; how many times can I Tweet the same link; which Tweeps offer the best return on investment in #ff and RT terms; and, the question of all questions: what is the firm's social media strategy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Crack that one and forget the Magic Circle, it becomes a one firm club.</span> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">Thankfully we have as a reference point a historical work that has been described in almost reverential terms as the social media equivalent of <a href="http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/">the Chilcot Inquiry</a> (well, someone made a wry comment along those lines over a drink after #LawBlogs).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I refer of course to <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/BrianInkster">Brian Inkster</a>'s <a href="http://thetimeblawg.com/">Time Blawg</a>. If any reader can stomach yet another mention of Twitteratigate (cue shameless plug for my own blog post on <a href="http://legalbrat.blogspot.com/2011/01/twitter-use-in-uk-legal-sector.html">Twitter use in the UK legal sector</a>, “just in case you missed it" as they say), <a href="http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/01/23/law-firm-twitteratigate-the-whole-story/"><span style="color: orange;">Brian's excellent and comprehensive summary of Twitteratigate</span></a> certainly caught the imagination of the legal Twitterati. Contained in the comments of Brian's blog are detailed snippets of various legal social media strategies used by Brian and the blog's commenter’s. Phrases are used such as "Tweeting in convoy", "the destroyer and the battleships", “segmented streams and sub-brands”, “giving and sharing” and detailed analysis is given to the pros and cons of personal vs corporate logo usage within Twitter. For any true believer in SMSs, this is comment stream nirvana. </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial;">But I must report that not everyone holds these views.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At #LawBlogs the well-known lawyer and <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/writers/david_allen_green">New Statesman writer David Allen Green</a> was asked for his also well-known views on social media strategies. David's response was consistent with his previously Tweeted views on the topic: in summary, that they are misconceived. Also at #LawBlogs, in response to a question I was asked, I used the phrase "brand ambassadors". David made his feelings clear on that phraseology the next day in this Tweet using the hashtag that inspired the headline for this post:</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><a href="http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1219962309/david-allen-green_144x144_normal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1219962309/david-allen-green_144x144_normal.jpg" style="margin-top: 8px; min-height: 48px; width: 48px;" /></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><shapetype coordsize="21600,21600" filled="f" id="_x0000_t75" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" stroked="f"><stroke joinstyle="miter"></stroke><formulas><f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></f><f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></f><f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></f><f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></f><f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></f><f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></f><f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></f><f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></f><f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></f><f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></f><f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></f><f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></f></formulas><path gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect" o:extrusionok="f"></path><lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></lock></shapetype><shape alt="" id="_x0000_i1025" style="height: 36pt; width: 36pt;" type="#_x0000_t75"><imagedata o:href="http://a2.twimg.com/profile_images/1219962309/david-allen-green_144x144_normal.jpg" src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\TIM~1.BRA\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.jpg"></imagedata></shape><b><span style="color: orange;">David Allen Green <span style="color: white;">(</span></span><a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAllenGreen" target="_blank"><span style="color: white;"><span style="color: orange;">@DavidAllenGreen</span></span></a><span style="color: white;"><span style="color: orange;">)</span></span></b><span style="color: white;"><br />
</span><a href="https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/38618524716896256" target="_blank"><span style="color: white;"><span style="color: orange;">18/02/2011 15:19</span></span></a><br />
<span style="color: orange;">There were 29 reliable witnesses last night to @legalbrat using the term "brand ambassador". #MyArse #LawBlogs</span></span></div><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">David does I think sit in the #myarse camp in the answer to the question posed by this post’s headline.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Such views might almost be considered blasphemy by other Tweeps I follow such as <span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://twitter.com/#!/ju_summerhayes"><span style="color: orange;">Julian Summerhayes</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">According to Julian's website, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.juliansummerhayes.com/">Julian is a non-practising solicitor with a passion for excellence in professional practice</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> and who regularly starts his day by Tweeting something along the following lines: "Good morning. Read today's blog post on why lawyers cannot write very clearly, are not very good at social media and need to get better at it.” A tongue-in-cheek summary, but Julian regularly articulates a strong belief in the need for law firms to prioritise social media by adopting a coherent strategy and approach to their use of it. Julian is firmly in the #musthave camp.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"></span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So what do I think? SMSs: #musthaves or, ahem, #myarse? </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Hard though I know it is, forget temporarily the following concepts: the law, law firms and social media. Put to the front of your mind: business, resource and profits.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">This is a truism: most businesses have finite resource and exist to maximise profits. In order to maximise profits, business must work out how best to deploy that finite resource to research, develop and sell its products and services. Doing so requires a variety of strategies: research strategy; development strategy; marketing strategy; sales strategy; customer service strategy; and so on.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Company resource should not be able to approach any of those disciplines in anything other than a co-ordinated fashion. Otherwise that finite resource is not being deployed effectively or efficiently. Any business which does not formalise how it approaches each of these strategies is likely to #fail (or at least be less successful than it might otherwise be). Why should social media be treated any differently? In fact why should SMSs not just be a small part of a company's marketing strategy (apologies to any social media consultants charging a bundle for advice on this stuff)?</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Back to the law and consider any law firm - what are the client-related issues facing it: how to win new clients; how to maintain existing clients; how to win more work off existing clients; how to improve brand presence in certain sectors; how to meet new people; how to build a qualitative network of contacts; how to demonstrate expertise in subject areas; how to look good compared to the competition. The same issues of course face the individual partners and fee earners working in the firm.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">Certainly, sensible use of social media will help individual partners or fee earners achieve any of these aims. By way of example, two partners from media law practices are now Tweeting useful content regularly who were not so visible on Twitter a few months ago: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://twitter.com/#!/markowen1">Mark Owen at Harbottles</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"> and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://twitter.com/#!/rbratby">Rob Bratby at Olswang</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. I've not asked Mark or Rob if Twitter is helping them achieve their aims in some small way, but my bet is that it is, which of course is a good thing for their firms too. And the impact for any firm will be increased for the better if there is a co-ordinated approach of sorts between different fee earners. If *speaking quietly* the firm has a social media strategy.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I’m not a SMS evangelist and disagree with </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://www.juliansummerhayes.com/2011/02/blog-topics-a-few-ideas/">Julian’s assertion in a recent blog post that social media should be the number one priority for all law firms</a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. Any managing partner who has social media at the top of their priority tree is either (a) running the most successful law firm in the world that has solved all of the other pressing issues identified by Julian in his post or (b) in serious need of a rethink about his or her firm’s priorities. But nor am I a SMS cynic.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">The right answer for most firms in my mind lies somewhere in-between these two extremes. Social media strategy is another form of sales strategy. If law firms remember this, focus on what they are trying to achieve through their use of social media, ensure that fee earners act in a more or less co-ordinated manner and with the same aims in mind, then their use of social media is far more likely to benefit their business – and their clients - than if they don’t. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">So yes, I’m in the #musthave a SMS camp. But law firms don’t need to engage McKinsey’s finest to write a forty page methodology on this with interactive charting to boot. Clear and simple guiding principles should do the job equally nicely too.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">I hope, for the sake of the <place w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on"><country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">UK</country-region></place></place></country-region> legal sector and indeed the greater good of the economy in these difficult times, to have shone a light on the answer to what must be one of the most vexing legal issues of modern times. Whilst some might say that this issue is treated too seriously and with no sense of irony, there is no place for such complacency. Law firms: it's time to step-up and sort out your SMSs. Remember, no firm ever survived on expertise, a decent client base, market leading work and a sound business plan. It's time that SMS ROI replaced PEP as any firm's key metric of success. You heard it here first. Next stop, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;"><a href="http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/01/23/law-firm-twitteratigate-the-whole-story/"><span style="color: orange;">The Time Blawg</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Arial; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;">. Thank you and goodnight.</span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-70101616377593469982011-02-10T21:39:00.000+00:002011-02-11T08:17:56.508+00:00DLA and the minimum spend: an investigation (sort of)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So this is an interesting one for any client.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/news/2023775/dla-piper-clients-centre-strategy">Legal Week reports</a> that <a href="http://www.dlapiper.com/home.aspx">DLA Piper</a> are going to introduce minimum billing requirements which new clients must agree to before DLA will agree to act for them.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">On the face of it, extraordinary and a bit of a client care own goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And if that's the approach DLA are taking with new clients, how long before a similar rule is introduced for existing clients?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There's a touch of the supermodel "won't get out of bed for less than" mentality about it.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I found this particularly interesting since I instruct DLA. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not in a big way, generally for help where required on lowish level dispute work and we don't have much of that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not enough to move any of their internal financial needles one way or another.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Certainly not enough to feature for quite some time on their occasional nice lunch how is your business doing list.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So where might this strategy leave the FT?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Needing to go elsewhere at some point? I hope not, because they help me out when I need it.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I also have friends and ex-colleagues in the firm, since the department I used to work in at Denton Hall back in the day <a href="http://www.thelawyer.com/dws-left-shellshocked-as-eleven-media/ip-partners-defect-to-dla/112314.article">all upped shop en masse to DLA in 2004</a>. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So for these reasons, I wanted to tread carefully when writing this post.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because, let's be honest, it would be easy to blast off a quick blog about an outhouse client care fail.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You can read a couple of blogs like that <a href="http://lawshucks.com/2011/02/dla-piper-sets-a-cover-charge/">here</a> and <a href="http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_management/2011/02/worlds-largest-law-firm-institutes-minimum-fee-requirements-for-new-clients.html">here</a>.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Instead, I decided to become a "proper journalist" and emailed a couple of DLA partners some questions about the new guidelines, but explicitly in my capacity as a blogger, not a client.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I must be doing an okay job as a would-be journalist because said lawyers put me in touch with the firm's PRs (or maybe on second thoughts I'm doing a bad job as a fourth estater if I'm being palmed off to the PRs) who very helpfully set-up a call with me and even answered my questions, in detail, by email.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, what's the skinny?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, partners have been issued with guidelines to consider about client spend when taking on new clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, this issue featured heavily at a partner's conference held in London last Friday.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, it is possible that similar guidelines could be applied to existing clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, some partners won't like it but that's life. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the guidelines suggest levels of between €25-€100k in fees for the first 12 months of any new relationship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But these are guidelines, not rules.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Well, that's admirably honest and they were not off the record.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So, what's the rationale behind the skinny? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, more honesty here too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Partners are being "encouraged" to consider the strategic direction of the firm when taking on new clients, rather than their individual practice areas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The guidelines are there to assist them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A key reason behind this is to avoid picking up clients which might cast large "conflict shadows" (nice term) and prevent the firm from winning future high profit work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another reason is the reality that all clients cost a certain amount of money to administer and that in certain cases it might not be worth the cost of the administration. That it's about treating the best clients in the best way, and that best will not necessarily mean biggest fee generators, for example the firm recognises the importance of clients with growth potential or (and maybe they had to say this because it was me on the phone) brand value.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Underlying it all is a stated desire to increasingly focus the majority of the firm's efforts on cross-border work for its global clients, rather than mess around too much in, say, the Sheffields or Istanbuls doing local work for local clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That, as the PR put it, it's about finding a balance between evolution and revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or as Sir Nige might put it, about finding a balance between that old small office near city hall on the Leeds Headrow and Wall Street domination.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So what to make of all the above?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I'd say it demonstrates great business judgement by the management at DLA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any non-lawyers or in-housers reading this, consider it from the perspective of your own business. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes sense in any business to focus your efforts on your key customers, to dedicate the resource there rather than allow that resource to get distracted by noise elsewhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bluntly, to maximise profits.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as law firms and their clients increasingly globalise, the risk of conflict shadows must increase, necessitating decisions like the one that has been made at DLA.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mentioned this story to a west coast partner from a US firm I had lunch with this week.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He said that in the US it is quite the norm to "sack" clients who make no money and cause conflict issues (and even claimed to have "sacked" Apple and eBay from his firm's client roster because they spent next to nowt and conflicted out other work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Brave man, if true).</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Say what you like about DLA (and many commentators often do), they haven't got where they are today by pussy footing around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I guess if you choose to work there, you know the culture and either embrace it or leave.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It's not for everyone, but it obviously works.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From a client perspective, they are by far the most (chooses word carefully) assertive firm I work with at billing on time every month and reminding you quite, erm, let's say regularly, if the bill has not been paid on time.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> But from a business perspective, I bet their cash conversion rates are towards the top of the legal tree.</span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">One of the biggest things I take from this is engagement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I placed the firm in a potentially tricky position asking some hard questions as a client but with my blogging hat on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they responded, frankly and on-the-record.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I like that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think their only real mistake in this whole business has not been to assume that the minimum billing guidelines would get leaked and to have been on the back-foot PR wise from the get-go.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Looking after your best clients?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hard to argue with that. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Trying to avoid a situation where earning £10k from Client X prevents you from earning £50k from Client Y?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hard to argue with that too.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In case anyone thinks I've gone a bit native with ex-colleagues from my old shop in writing this piece, I haven't, in fact I rarely see many of them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It's an effort to look at the strategy objectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And my general approval of the strategy (not, by the way, that I think anyone at DLA remotely cares what I think about this) is subject to the following caveat: the in-house community (including me) and many legal commentators like to talk about how law firms need to change, to get better at client care, to be more innovative on billing, to get better at adding value and all the rest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And they do need to get better at that stuff.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But in order to do that, something has to give, the firm needs to maintain profitabiliy whilst enabling the change that the market demands.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">If the FT was a big DLA client, I would therefore be hoping, if not expecting, this focussed approach on working with the best clients to result in something for my business, something tangible for those best clients, and not just increased PEP for the partners who find themselves "encouraged" to follow the new guidelines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let's see.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What next for me and DLA?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Business-as-usual I expect, although maybe we'll have that lunch now. </span></span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Unless, of course, they take me off the client roster first :-)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: xx-small;">A small disclaimer: it's a difficult one writing about a firm you do business with where there are rightfully expectations of confidentiality on both sides. Apart from my comments about billing frequency and lunch (which I don't regard as confidential info), the views in this blog are based on my on-the-record chat with DLA about the subject of this post and my general industry knowledge, and are not based on confidential information I may have learnt as a client which I would not comment on in a blog post. I've also made it clear to DLA that they are very welcome to post a response in the comments section, notwithstanding the client relationship issue.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-90158511300308035202011-02-07T21:20:00.000+00:002011-02-08T09:17:56.159+00:00Why it can be okay for lawyers to just say no<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Whenever we hire an outhouse lawyer into our in-house team, I watch for about 3 months whilst the new hire tries to accomplish everything on their to do list day after day, despite good natured warnings from me and the rest of the team that it is neither necessary nor possible to do. Eventually, within that period of time, the tidal forces of the email inbox prove too powerful and the new in-houser will come and talk to me to say they have more work to do than they can actually manage.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Herein lies a fundamental difference between in-house and outhouse: the ability to “just say no” to a client, or to put it less controversially, the need to prioritise between different clients’ workstreams and communicate to clients where they stand in the prioritisation queue compared to other clients. Whilst for outhousers the idea of being able to tell clients where they sit in the queue might sound like an attraction, getting this right and communicating it in the right way remains one of the hardest skills an in-house lawyer has to develop and master.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Over ten years on, I recall a meeting in my last few months of private practice. 'Twas me, my supervising partner and the GC of a large bluechip. We met, talked about the dog's breakfast of a contract structure and documentation the client was using, agreed to rewrite them, and then came the question that every junior lawyer fears being asked of their supervising partner. "When do you think you can reissue the drafts." At that point all meetings go into super slow-motion, the partner turns his or her head slowly to the junior, smiles in a fairly unpleasant manner (think Jack Nicholson in The Shining), then turns his head slowly back to the client and this time gives a winning white-teeth Hollywood smile (think Cameron Diaz or George Clooney) before saying "I'd say tomorrow or the next day latest. Would that be okay?” Meanwhile a silent but migraine-inducing "Noooooooooooooooooooo" sounds in the associate's head as they calculate all else that needs doing within the same 48 hour period.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Now, there is much that is critical to be said from an outhouse perspective about the above - inadequate associate resourcing, unnecessarily ambitious promises to clients, making unilateral decisions that affect others without pre-discussion, I could go on. However, that is not for now.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">But there is also one very, very positive takeaway from this scenario. Private practice associates get used to promising and meeting tight deadlines, which is an excellent and indeed necessary discipline for any lawyer.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Let's get back to our recenty escaped outhouser, now installed in the emotionally fulfilling, utopian environment that is the in-house team. And explore why the deadline discipline they learnt outhouse, whist laudable and still an admirable goal, is not always achievable in-house. On occasion, it becomes necessary to simply “just say no”.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">There are a few types of bucket of work in-house and which I have designated in approximate priority order:</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">1. Fires. Can arise at any time, especially on Fridays, and need fighting fast.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">2. Business critical or strategically important. Such as an acquisition, something supporting a key element of the business model, or a risk that has materialized which needs closing down.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">3. Other work that has an immoveable deadline for a good business reason. Such as a response in litigation, the launch date of a new product, or a need to switch key suppliers on a particular date.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">4. Work that is urgent simply because it will either make or save the company a reasonable amount of money if done "on time". Such as supplier driven quarter-end contract renewals or extensions.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">5. Business as usual workflow. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">6. Work that is not urgent to the company as a whole, but the instructing business client thinks it is (perhaps because their personal objectives are measured against them delivering a particular project).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">7. Work that is not urgent, and even the instructing business client agrees with that assessment (aka work that will never be done).</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">A critical skill for the in-houser, and particularly for any GC, is working out which bucket each new instruction falls into and ensuring that the work can be flipped between buckets as circumstances change and time passes. The GC has to ensure in particular that the business as usual work in bucket number 5 continues to be churned, even when buckets 1 to 4 are pretty full. The GC needs to have a pretty good idea what buckets each of the in-house team is carrying at any one time and how full they are. And each member of the in-house team needs to do the same for their own individual workloads. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Most difficult of all, the GC has to decide - brace yourselves - what work may actually take a period of weeks to get to and, on occasion, what work will not be done at all.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">This is a controversial and uncomfortable subject for any lawyer or indeed any professional service provider since we are generally a conscientious bunch who realise, in one way or another, that we exist in business to provide a service. To admit that at times the service is slow or may not be forthcoming is difficult and does not sit easily with our general ethos.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">But I take the view that to ignore the reality that there is more work to do than can reasonably be done, is bad business practice. I have to recognise this reality in order to prioritise workloads, resource accordingly and to ensure that the businesses’ legal spend on the in-house team is achieving the best possible return on investment for the company. Whilst the work in the lowest priority buckets could be done quicker if, for example I outsourced it, offshored it or hired another lawyer to do it, the value of that work to the business does not warrant the extra cost – it's all about return on investment.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">The situation is of course different outhouse. Outhousers do not have the luxury of telling their clients that the work might take a few weeks to be done. If the client says Wednesday, generally the work will be done by Wednesday. Hence when outhousers move in-house, it takes them a while to learn how to tackle the in-house prioritising connundrum.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">So how does one prioritise work in-house? I hope the bucket analogy will be helpful, but generally I think there are four major factors that should influence where work sits in the priority queue. Revenue, Savings, Risk and Strategy. Will the legal work required result in increased revenue to the company? Or a significant cost saving? Does it mitigate an unacceptably high level of risk that has arisen for some reason? Or will it support a strategic aim of the company?</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">When I became head of legal at the FT I drew up something rather pompously called the "risk wall" which I intended the team to use as a prioritisation tool. It never really took off, with either me or them, as it was overly formulaic and ignored the realities of the pace of the business day. But at its essence was a weighting score for each of the above factors. For example, if a piece of work would save the company a significant amount of money (e.g. switching from one supplier to another) then it would achieve a high cost saving weighting, and if that supply relationship was also strategic in nature (for example, in our business, an important print-centre), then it would also achieve a high strategy weighting. Two strong weightings would, my theory went, push that work towards the front of the priority queue and help the in-house team justify what work they were doing in what order.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">I've long since learned that quickly applying experience negates the need for a formal "risk wall" assessment, but I believe the four factors I've identified to be critical in making the prioritisation decision.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Of course, there is a risk of the tail seen to be wagging the dog here and as ever, it is all about communication. When I’m involved in managing a client’s expectations in this way, I will try to ensure that the internal client is clear as to why I’m making the prioritisation decision I am, and I also make it clear that I will take no offence if they wish to challenge my decision by escalating it within the business to someone at the same or a higher seniority level than me. As I see it, it is their right to do so and they should feel free to do so, without in some way feeling they have circumvented my decision or offended me. And I also see it as my job, if I’m asking a member of the in-house team to manage a client’s expectations in this way, to make it clear to my lawyer that I’ll take the flak from any decision on their behalf, since ultimately I am responsible for prioritizing the work that the legal team does.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US">Limited resource + more work than the resource can cope with = work that cannot be done in a timely fashion. Whilst deadlines are as important in-house as they are outhouse, to ignore and fail to deal with this reality is a far bigger dereliction of duty for any in-house lawyer, particularly the GC, than to be honest enough to tell a client that, in business terms, their work is low priority and cannot be done within the timescale that they would ideally like. But remember, whilst it can be okay to “just say no”, managing expectations and communicating effectively is key, as of course is making sure that you have put the work into the right buckets in the first place. </span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-28559879408977632982011-01-26T08:59:00.000+00:002011-01-26T08:59:38.071+00:00The talking rolodex<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">If you had asked me a year ago whether I would have considered using Twitter or any social media platform as a medium for hiring a law firm I would have dismissed the idea as ill thought out.<br />
<br />
So why have I just used Twitter to find a law firm to provide a junior lawyer on secondment to the FT?<br />
<br />
The facts: FT lawyer about to go on maternity leave; recruitment process for maternity cover slightly behind where we'd like it to be; fairly urgent need for lawyer to step-into the gap between mat leave and mat cover; and inherent unwillingness to use recruitment agencies.<br />
<br />
Obvious solution: speak to key relationship firms to arrange a short-term secondment. Tried that, no dice for a straight secondment (that's not a criticism by the way, just a fact).<br />
<br />
What next: well, I fancied the idea of a bit of an experiment. I've been fortunate to build a good network on Twitter and for the most part it's made up of lawyers or other professionals working in or with some connection to the legal community. Tweet goes out: "do any law firms want a chat about a secondment".<br />
<br />
Results: good. 6 or so initial chats/DMs/emails exchanged. 3 subsequent Tweet-ups. One firm engaged.<br />
<br />
Analysis: those following Twitteratigate (incidental links, read <a href="http://thetimeblawg.com/2011/01/23/law-firm-twitteratigate-the-whole-story/">The Time Blawg</a> for the whole story, read <a href="http://in-house-lawyer.blogspot.com/2011/01/twitteratigatethe-tide-has-turned.html">in_house_lawyer</a> for the succinct sea change analysis) might think that the above results are surprising. After all law firms don't engage via social media do they? On the other hand, I'm lucky enough to work for a brand and product that is a bit of a draw, so I guessed there would be some interest. But even applying a "discount" for the FT-brand factor, I think the exercise proves that engagement is there, to a degree. Thank you again to those of you that did.<br />
<br />
Risks: although "instructing via Twitter" might sound unusual to the uninitiated, there are no risks in terms of who we have engaged that would not be there if we had found the firm via a law firm directory (bad example, I never would) through a contact or similar. We spoke to the firm we engaged on the 'phone twice, met, chatted, asked questions, liked them. And in any case, it's a well known firm, with a good reputation who I've been aware of for years, but never worked with. But, nevertheless throughout this process I have been conscious there are optical risks finding a firm in this way, primarily for me.<br />
<br />
Traditionalists (or even non-traditionalists) might wonder why the GC of the FT needs to find law firms via Twitter. Surely I'm better networked than that? Is it appropriate for big blue chips to find professional advisors in this way? And in public so to speak? Isn't it just a bit of a new fad gimmick? I can see why people might think that and I asked those questions of myself. Yes, I certainly could have got on the 'phone for an hour or two or three and worked through some contacts, found recommendations, rung them etc. Maybe I could have tried harder with the relationship firms who initially said no. Or talked to other laywers I've met in the past and not worked with who would probably like to work with us. But frankly I didn't have time. And I wanted to work with someone who was both interested in doing this and who could resource it. And yes, a small part of me wanted to work with someone who "gets it" (you know what I mean if you found this through a Tweet).<br />
<br />
Twitter is many different things and in this instance it has been a huge talking rolodex. Ask a question, people see it whether directly or through helpful RTs, and those that are interested can talk, those that are not can ignore, and it means I have not bothered them and wasted their time, nor wasted my own time in doing so. Efficiency personified.<br />
<br />
Caveats: our secondment requirement was non-confidential, non-strategic and with no real sector specialism requirements. I would not use social media in this way for an engagement with any of these criteria. Indeed, I would rightly expect questions asked of me internally if I did so. Those are projects where you most likely already know the person you want to work with, or if you don't, you carry out more forensic due diligence and in confidence. To use Twitter or any other social media platform for an engagement of that nature would arguably be unprofessional, bad judgement and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the legal sector (although I suppose each case would depend on its facts).<br />
<br />
But, for a requirement such as our secondment, it's been perfect and I would certainly do it again. Thanks Twitter for facilitating the subject of Twitteratigate, namely engagement. </div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-576163129774298049.post-34402993889411720302011-01-20T08:44:00.000+00:002011-01-20T09:05:45.412+00:00It's client care, but not as we know it<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">This is a copy of a letter I have not yet received and nor am I sure if it has been drafted yet:</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">“Dear legalbrat</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">In recognition of the excellent relationship Big Law LLP has with the Financial Times, and Big Law’s recognition of how important the FT is as a client, we have decided to provide the FT with access to a dedicated Account Manager. We anticipate, with your permission of course, that your Account Manager will spend up to 90 days a year working directly on site with you and your team at the FT, will continually monitor legal developments that affect your industry and filter them to you in an appropriate manner that works for you, and will ensure that all advice delivered by our firm to you is provided in a manner that makes it instantly usable by you within the business. We anticipate that you will also have your own ideas about how you might wish to work with your Account Manager. Prior to joining Big Law LLP your Account Manager spent 5 years leading the in-house team at Big Client Limited. We are delighted to offer this new service to our key clients such as the Financial Times free-of-charge.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Love from Big Law LLP"</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">First of all, what this is not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not an in-house bleat about what outhouse should do better (don't worry, there will be plenty of those in the future).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is an in-house proposal about what outhouse could do differently and how in-house needs to help outhouse get away from the joint obsession with the concept of the "client relationship partner".</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I think a lot about the relationship between in-house counsel and our external advisors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a critical relationship and the onus is as much on in-house counsel to make it work as it is with external counsel. And whilst it is easy (and of course unequivocally correct) for us in-housers to bleat on about the iniquity of the hourly rate and such, it is also incumbent on us to make constructive suggestions for improvement to the way in which in-house and outhouse work together.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a firm belief of mine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So here’s a suggestion and here is the elevator pitch: law firms need professional account managers in non-fee earning/account management roles dedicated to key clients.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And what's more, ex-inhousers would be ideally suited to those roles.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Why? Okay, here is the conundrum.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Clients want: our outside lawyers to understand our business and indeed our industry (but we’re not going to pay to help them get that understanding coz we’re tight like that); one or two consistent points of contact at partner level who are readily available often at unsociable hours; a move away from the hourly rate; undefined “better value” from our law firms; and to have our cake and eat it which eventually will lead to indigestion.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Partners want: to understand their clients’ business and indeed their industry; their clients to believe that they understand their business and industry far more than they really can be reasonably expected to do; to service many different clients; for each client to believe they are “special” to that partner; the associates in their teams to help them achieve all of this; the associates in their teams to like them, or at least not to hate them; and probably to leave the office from time to time.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Managing Partners want: what clients want; what partners want; oh yes, and higher profits and happier staff, but not at the expense of what clients want and what partners want taking a hit.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It doesn’t add up, does it? This is an equation that doesn’t balance. It is not easy for partners to draft, advise, strategise, make small talk, do the corporate entertainments stuff, be available day and night, understand multiple industries, understand multiple clients, write client newsletters, Tweet (let's not go there again), bill their hours, prepare the invoices, negotiate the invoices (sorry guys), prepare the invoices again, do the law firm politics, win new business, manage staff, keep existing business and keep up to date with the law.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So here’s a question for clients. Why do we expect our main contact at our relationship firms being a partner or other fee earner?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">And here’s a question for law firms. Why do partners have to be the sales team, the account managers and the implementation experts?</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Is there a role in large City law firms for a lawyer who has no billing targets but whose role is to act effectively as an account manager for a small number of major clients? I think there is. But this would only work if it is a real role, it cannot be farmed out to business development or marketing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To succeed from a client perspective it has to be a role undertaken by a lawyer. And to succeed from a law firm perspective it has to be undertaken by someone who is not burdened with hourly targets and all of the other rigmarole that I’ve referred to above. This person’s JD is to “make the firm’s clients happier”.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">So on the plus side of the balance sheet, this is why I think this idea is a flyer:</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">These are the most difficult aspects of my job: prioritising; managing workflow amongst our legal team; not knowing what question I might be asked tomorrow; managing client expectations; keeping our team happy; keeping our internal clients happy; predicting the issues that need to concern us; fighting the fires whilst keeping the BAU flowing. No outside law firm knows how I deal with these issues.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It's very hard for law firms to understand the process flow in an in-house legal team: by this, I mean how we receive our “instructions”; the expectation from our clients in the delivery of our advice, both in method and timing; the business issues in the background; the personalities involved; the decisions we as in-house legal are often expected to take, quickly. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">And here are the reasons why as an idea this could seriously crash and burn:</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">First and foremost, selling the concept of a non-fee earning lawyer to a partnership of fee earning lawyers is not exactly an easy sell, because additional non fee-earning staff = potential for decreased PEP. Yes, I know things are more liberal (in a <place w:st="on">North London</place> Islington-sense of the word) out there in Big Law these days.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example PSLs are taken seriously and not regarded as the couldn’t hack-its they once (unfairly) were and it has even radically become acceptable for lawyers to admit they don't want to be partners (they even get special job titles like Director so the others know who to smile at sympathetically).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Couple this with the fact that many client relationship partners will be reluctant to let another member of the firm too close to their prestige client (aka eat what you kill), and we have a serious barrier to entry. Thirdly, measuring the return on investment would be difficult and (rightly) law firms are all about ROI. </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I am not naively arguing that this new Account Management role should necessarily sit within the equity level of partnership, particularly in remuneration terms. But, equally importantly, for this to work any partnership would need to embrace the new generation of Account Managers as welcome additions to the firm who had clout, influence and something to offer, and not as unwelcome cost centres who are somehow inferior to the fee-earning engine room of the firm.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Whilst I truly believe in the benefits that the role I am outlining might bring, part of me feels my own scepticism as I type this post as to whether it could really work. But those of us interested in influencing the manner and method in which legal services are delivered in the future - and I am - need to take risks. If you don’t buy a ticket, and all that. And why couldn’t it work if delivered in the right way? Wouldn’t any sensible equity partner welcome the idea of an ex in-houser “riding shotgun” with them and frankly taking some of the intolerable pressure off their shoulders and educating them how particular clients like their legal services to be delivered? And at the same time educating clients who enjoy the benefit of the Account Management service on how to get the best out of their firms, which as in-house counsel we always like to say we know how to do, but maybe don’t always get right. And do you know what? If anyone tries it and it doesn’t work out, so what. It leaves a few people older and wiser and not much worse off.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Why am I advocating that only in-house alumni should enjoy these new roles within law firms? Well, like anything else, I’m sure the situation shouldn’t be that binary. I will always recognise the technical excellence of law firms and their ability to deep dive into almost any vertical subject matter and emerge with the right legal answer. That said, however technically excellent an outhouser is, until they have worked in an open-plan environment, with no office door, where the CEO and most junior salesperson have equal and immediate access, and where you have to decide what cannot be done on any given day against what must be done, then there remains a gap between the skills of delivering legal advice and implementing legal advice.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Still need convincing?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Think about it in this context then.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much has been made of the fact that the Legal Services Act will permit third party investment in law firms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imagine that the private equity guys want a piece of the action (and one board level director at a silver circle firm tells me he is convinced that they will).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Will the p/e boys want to see their sweatiest assets (not literally of course) doing as much of the non-chargeable work as is currently expected of the rainmakers?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nope.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ignoring professional services, look at most other industries - IT, construction, financial services, publishing, professional education - do we expect the salesforce to implement the product or service that has been sold; or the account manager to sell; or the implementation expert to account manage?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course not, that would be totally inefficient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Take the most successful IT companies: sell, implememt, manage account - 3 separate workstreams, 3 separate skillsets.</span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">There has been plenty of blogging lately making clear that firms have to do something different to stand out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But as clients we have to help,which in this case means not freaking out if the client partner says "meet your new account manager".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So as lawyers, whether we're clients or law firms, let's work together to see if this off-the-wall idea just might have some legs, and let's prove that there is such a thing as innovative lawyers.</span></span></div></div>legalbrathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08885387966127219569noreply@blogger.com2