Tough times for heads of legal

I know a general counsel who believed, on the strength of discussions with his CEO, that the legal department would be immune from cuts being inflicted elsewhere in the organisation. Within a few weeks he had to tell his staff that there would be redundancies. A bitter pill for all to swallow. The current climate makes more acute the need to focus on best use of resources and encourage the team to perform well.
Richard Norman and I are running workshops next month which are intended to help heads of legal grapple with these issues. For more information http://www.lawyers-in-business.co.uk/inhouse/workshops.html

Managing In-house Legal Services - the book

You are unlikely to find it on the bookstands at airports, but it is available from Thorogood Publishing http://www.thorogoodpublishing.co.uk/title.php?id=342

Now it is time to work on the guide for business people!

In the trenches

You would be forgiven for thinking that I had deserted this blog. One of the adages which bothers me is 'Those who can, do; those who can't teach'. I felt it was time that I showed, at least myself, that I could 'do' and not just at the management level. So for the last 18 months I have been a part-time foot soldier in a large legal department, which has been really revealing on several counts. Firstly it has been fascinating to be a member of a large team and to experience what stimulates and demoralises at first hand. Secondly it has validated a number of approaches I advocate, whilst showing how hard it can be to stick to some of them when under pressure. I am really grateful to the department concerned that it gave me the opportunity. I would like to think that they will derive some benefit from some of the suggestions which I have made.

I have to acknowledge that there was a degree of artificiality to my life in the trenches in that I maintained my other activities within agreed parameters. This provided a powerful antidote to some of the less savoury days. Such an antidote would not be available to most in-house lawyers.

As if this double life was not enough to keep me busy, I rashly agreed to write a report - Managing In-house Legal Services - for Thorogood Publishing, which is being published this month.

Sector silos for in-house lawyers?

There is no doubt that sector familiarity is something which every in-house lawyer needs to acquire. However it is a pity that so much weight seems to be placed on this by the recruiters. I believe that individuals and organisations can benefit hugely from experience gained in different sectors.
If you identify a sector in which you would like to work, put some effort into acquainting yourself with it - there is so much information available these days - and network with others (lawyers or business people) who already work in it. Build your business acumen and personal skills - they are good passports. Give some thought to how you fit in the generalist / specialist spectrum.
Take heart from appointments which show that the silos do not trap you in a sector for your entire career.
Contact me if you would like some more ideas on this subject.

Open plan working for in-house lawyers

Some in-house lawyers (a minority I would say) enjoy working in an open plan environment, others hate it. I have come across legal departments who having been through the valley of open plan have succeeded in making the case to revert to separate offices, or shared by no more than 2 lawyers.

Most organisations apply a regime across the board and find it awkward to allow dispensations for particular functions. The primary arguments of preserving confidentiality and permitting concentration are often discounted as being overly precious or elitist. Actual layout, heights of any partitions and intensity of occupation make a big difference.

If you are working open plan, you do need to have a haven somewhere for concentrated work without distraction - especially reviewing and considering a document. If you are producing something, it is easier to shut out distractions.

One of the supposed advantages of open plan is ready communication amongst colleagues. I have come across departments where there is a lot of banter and others where you could hear a pin drop because nobody wants to disturb anyone else. Proximity of working is no guarantee of good communication - you need to work hard at it, whatever the office layout. A number of in-house lawyers thrive by being located in the hurly burly of a commercial team working in open plan - others regard such an environment as hellish.

Any views about open plan and successful ways of combatting or working with it?

Wish list for a head of legal?

A couple of months ago a head of legal told me that her employer was seeking to dissuade her from accepting a job with another employer and had asked her to propose what personal development programmes would secure her retention. We shared the following ideas:

Funding and time off for MBA or equivalent
Participation in any management programme run for executives
Active memberships of professional associations
Membership of a network, such as the UK based CLO Programme
Attendance at a major international conference once a year

As she already reported to the CEO and attended board meetings, these were not on the wish list. However I did suggest that whilst the invitation had been in relation to personal development it might be appropriate to pursue the following if she felt there was inadequate commitment:

Legal risk management
Involvement of in-house legal in strategy definition
Buy in from management to ‘ownership’ of and responsibilities re legal risk
Support for proactive contribution from in-house lawyers
Adoption of blueprint for level of internal and external legal resource

Resources
Adequate support staff – ratio of 1:3 or better
Adequate training and development budget for legal team
Subscription for the team to an on-line service, such as PLC Law Dept
Support from HR for coherent remuneration packages for legal team

My thought was that whilst this did not relate to her personally, she would undoubtedly be the beneficiary of enhanced team performance.
In other contexts the issues of salary, bonus, equity, annual leave and a sabbatical might come into play!
Did we miss anything?

Title abuse?

My heart sinks when I see a recruiter advertising a wonderful opportunity for a relatively inexperienced (used to be 2 -4 years PQE) lawyer to be General Counsel of a fast moving, fast growing company. General Counsel or General Dogsbody to deal with the stuff which the fast movers do not want to do themselves nor pay outside lawyers to do? I'm sure that there are exceptions, but I have met quite a number of successful appointees who are at the end of their tethers - expected to be expert in all areas and no internal support. Character forming, but not great.
I also have some misgivings about multiple general counsel titles in the one organisation.

All in-house counsel should aspire to make the same contribution as general counsel - sound legal advice and persuasive business acumen - but is title abuse a good idea?