Lawyers in Business

The benefits of language skills

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 11:11:00 +0000

When you work for a group which has a parent company in a foreign country, it is worth considering learning the language of that country even if the company has designated English as the language of business. There are 3 main advantages:
– it can give you some additional insights into cultural differences
– it provides the stimulation and hopefully satisfaction of learning something which is not strictly work related
– it should give you the ability to have a converse with colleagues from the head office, even if that is confined to social rather than business topics.

The same applies if you are involved in a significant number of business transactions in another country. Naturally there is more incentive to a language if you might use it outside business as well.

Although primarily related to job seekers early in their careers, this article in Personnel Today highlights the need for us not to be too reliant on the good fortune of having English as a mother tongue! http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/02/25/54404/foreign-language-skills-make-jobseekers-more-employable-during-recession.html

'We are where we are'

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:22:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:29:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:15:00 +0000

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.

Facilities?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:42:00 +0000

I had to visit one of the campuses of a major company recently, where I was staggered by the proliferation of signs about how to use the car park and the stairs. ‘Beware – fragile human beings’ said the banner, which seemed more and more plausible if employees and visitors were subjected to the time taken to find a space, the barrage of advice and regulation, coupled with the dismal performance at reception. I am well used to spelling my name, but less used to having to spell ‘Lawyers in Business’. Having to restate my name to the receptionist when she was on the phone to the person I was visiting, with my name in front of her, did nothing to improve my joie de vivre!
A couple of weeks later I visited the company’s grand headquarters in London to run a session for 6 members of the legal team, 4 of whom had travelled from other continents. Imagine my delight that the session was being held in a stuffy windowless room – the best sort of environment for those suffering from jet lag. What a good idea not to have a waste bin in the meeting room, so that there was nowhere to put sandwich wrappers or other lunch debris. Thank goodness that there was a depiction of the correct method of hand washing above the basins in the toilets. As one of the participants pointed out, at least the depiction did not have also bear the disclaimer which they had seen on the equivalent in a US law firm’s London office.

Consciousness about the environment, safety and health are vitally important, but it is sad when the steps to engender it take on a joke dimension.

In-house lawyer dreads

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:37:00 +0000

From time to time we ask groups of in-house lawyers at different levels to identify anonymously their greatest dread. We do this because:
a) it can be therapeutic to describe something which concerns you and to realise that maybe it should not preoccupy you and
b) in reviewing dreads (without attribution) with the group, we can point to ways in which the dread factor can be kept within reasonable bounds.

Not surprisingly one of the most commonly held is committing a serious professional error – failing to spot an issue which has serious consequences for the organisation. Not getting it wrong is an important objective throughout one’s career, but the dread factor can be kept in check by:
1. Making sure that business people understand the legal risks involved, including an evaluation of getting it wrong
2. Paying sufficient attention to keeping your legal know how up to date
3. Working with colleagues to share and adopt best practice approaches to the work you do.

Other popular dreads include being misled, side-lined or not appreciated by business people. The antidotes to these are relationship building and collegial support, which are best addressed in our workshops.

Gardening analogies

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:02:00 +0000

One of the fulfilling things in my life is growing vegetables on my allotment. As I was tilling the soil the other day, it occurred to me how similar the whole process is to managing a project successfully. At the outset you need to make sure that the seeds are sown in favourable conditions and put effort into nurturing until established. You have to judge whether you will be more successful with something which is more ready made (a bought in plant or an established offering). You then to make sure that unwelcome intruders (weeds or other activities) do not stifle what you have started, by devoting regular attention. You need to be aware of detractors (pests or unconvinced stakeholders) and try to limit the damage they do. External forces (weather or third parties) may retard or accelerate things. Finally the satisfaction of fruition is dependent on good timing and putting what you have produced to good use.
I only wish that some of the projects on which I worked had produced results as tasty as my runner beans.

Tough times for heads of legal

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:11:00 +0000

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 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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:00:00 +0000

You are unlikely to find it on the bookstands at airports, but it is available from Thorogood Publishing http://www.thorogoodpublishing.co.uk/professional/details/managing-in-house-legal-services

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

In the trenches

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:47:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:39:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:06:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:54:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:33:00 +0000

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?

IT packages for in-house departments

noreply@blogger.com (Mark Prebble) — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:48:00 +0000

I am interested in charting the progress and experience of small to medium size in-house departments in using IT packages for matter management / work in progress / contract management. Not long ago there was very little available. Whilst a number of vendors claimed to have in-house variants of what had been developed for law firms, they tended to be over complicated and required customisation which added to costs.
Homespun solutions have been available in the form of spreadsheets or database applications such as Microsoft's Excel and Access. Packages for in-house departments based on them have been developed by Lex Australia. I am not aware of any European outlets.
In conversations with heads of legal, a couple of vendors have received favourable mentions - Amicus Attorney and Iken.
Ascertus have brought to my attention that they provide solutions all sizes of department, not just the large ones.
Any helpful (and non-actionable) comments welcome.