'We are where we are'

How many times have I heard this in a corporate context as an attempt to draw a veil over the bizarre episodes which led there or the less than uplifting behaviour displayed on the way. It’s clear that one must not dwell too much on the cause of the predicament, whilst trying to find a solution, but it is important in calmer times to examine those causes and take steps to avoid repetition.

I am a great believer in taking time to exchange feedback with your ‘clients’ – in this context the principal business managers who mobilised your services - after a major transaction is completed or situation resolved. The prospect of this enables you to defer exchanges which could be heated or more accusatory during the pressure of a deal to a calmer moment. I have used the technique of ‘Let’s talk about this when we have got the deal done’ to put a marker in the ground that I was not happy about something, but did not want to make it the focus of attention.

During the course of a transaction, jot down the problems. A couple of weeks, but no more than a month after completion, summarise on a couple of sheets of paper in as constructive tone as possible:

The problems which were encountered - in closing the deal / resolving the situation - as regards interface between functions
- as a result of particular behaviour
The impact which those problems had on you

What you would do differently – it is important to be frank about any shortcomings you may have had

What your organisation might do differently in a similar situation

Discuss the summary with your boss and immediate colleagues as a health check.

Use the summary for a structured discussion with the other key players.

Recipe for success

Having explored the analogy between vegetable growing and project management (one former colleague has pointed out that vegetables benefit from liberal quantities of manure, which whilst quite common is not always so beneficial in project management), I would like to draw some parallels between drafting commercial agreements and recipe writing. I have not done the latter, but am privileged to enjoy the culinary results of someone who does.

In both cases you cannot predict the aptitude of the person reading what you produce to interpret and act as you expect, so you need avoid being patronising to the sophisticated and unhelpful to the novice. A few thoughts:
Commercial agreements and recipes work best when:
· the prerequisites are clearly set out, including any lead time, sequences or intervals
· the effort to be devoted is defined
· the wording is succinct without being too sparing
· any serious pitfalls are identified so that they can be avoided
· frills and complication are kept to a minimum
reliability is tested, so that they are more likely to stand the test of time.

Sadly there are too many of both which are indigestible!

Speaking up

There is no denying that communication is a vital skill for in-house lawyers and often it gets insufficient attention.
Adopting the technique of talking quietly and diffidently if you are not sure about what you are saying or the reaction it will provoke is less effective than speaking clearly and audibly, if need be qualifying what you are saying. We notice this in workshops. Sometimes a participant will be so softly spoken that one has to strain to hear the comment they are making.
Poor delivery of something which should be heeded does not do it justice.

If you are not confident about expressing yourself, do try to get some coaching on how to increase that confidence. Many years ago I remember being very nervous when called upon unexpectedly to brief a board meeting. It made me realise that this was something I needed to be better at. There is a lot of support available – ranging from books and videos to full presentation skills courses and coaching.

On the other side of the coin, being overly assertive can be a problem. It may be preferable not to interject too rapidly or forcefully in meetings. Often it can be more persuasive to have a quiet word with someone before or after a meeting, rather than making a devastating point at the table.

Although it is a world away from the lives of most in-house lawyers, the revelations at the Chilcot Inquiry about the commissioning and fate of legal opinions as to the legality of war demonstrate how difficult it can be to ensure that legal advice is factored in at the right stage and is not upstaged by apparent imperatives.