Law On Line
August 8, 2005 | Filed Under Technology, New Services
Technology works for lawyers when it is easy to use and right for the task. Technology works for clients when it is both of these and therefore less expensive in the long run.
One person who understands this is fellow law.com network member Ron Friedmann. Ron helpfully notes a new online legal product from British firm Eversheds.
A demo of this product, which allows preparation of HR-related documents for new employees, can be viewed here (requires Flash 7).
I can’t tell from the firm site or from an article by Richard Susskind what the pricing model for this service is. The firm seems to limit some of such services to existing clients.
One can imagine old-line firm partners reacting to a presentation of potential online legal products, maybe going something like this:
You want to allow clients to what? Prepare documents themselves? Not charge for internal conferences or review? No overnight courier fees? And you want to make partner this year?
I can see enlightened law firms offering more of these online options for clients. They could be priced on a per-use basis (good), offered on flat-fee basis (better), or even free for clients on a retainer scheme for more complex work (perhaps best).
If one of the law firms I use sent me a link to an online solution that could deliver quality work quicker at a lower cost, I would fall out of my chair.
Why? Because it would mean this firm is thinking about solving my problems and not just about raising revenues. With a bit more focus on the former, the latter may be more likely.
First Friday Book Club
August 5, 2005 | Filed Under Organization
Since this humble weblog is on a Monday - Wednesday - Friday schedule, I thought I’d start providing a short review once a month of business-related books I have found interesting.
One book that fits this description was beach reading last summer: The Seven Day Weekend, by Ricardo Semler.
An excerpt courtesy of Inc. magazine is here. Mr. Semler describes his unique company, Semco:
Semco has no official structure. It has no organizational chart. There’s no business plan or company strategy, no two-year or five-year plan, no goal or mission statement, no long-term budget. The company often does not have a fixed CEO. There are no vice presidents or chief officers for information technology or operations. There are no standards or practices. There’s no human resources department. There are no career plans, no job descriptions or employee contracts. No one approves reports or expense accounts. Supervision or monitoring of workers is rare indeed.
(And probably no GC –ed.).
Mr. Semler also praises the concept of down time which seems to be sacrilege in an era of the always-connected knowledge worker:
Freedom is an empty word without “free time.” I don’t mean chore time, errand time, homework time. Free time must be unencumbered by a to-do list. It is epitomized by idleness, otherwise time is not free if it belongs to something or someone else. Robbed of idleness, free time is stripped of its restorative powers.
Work is so intense these days, so all-consuming that it is the arch enemy of free time. It looms like a dark castle on the distant horizon, symbolizing oppression. My workshop question taps an instinctive awareness of that fact and generates an almost romantic longing for free time and a preference to be somewhere else even if it means also forfeiting idleness in the form of a weekend off that is actually a weekend on steroids.
Something tells me Mr. Semler has never wrestled with timesheets or billable hour quotas.
This book provokes thought about work and work life. Many of the ideas about restructuring both can be dismissed as impratical. But if an idea is interesting in the Midwest and in Bangalore, perhaps it’s worth a second look.
Ricardo Semler asks tough questions about central business concepts like management control. He has had the courage to implement change that initially appears risky, but ends up improving the bottom line over the long run.
And since this book runs about 250 pages in a smaller format, it won’t weigh down your beach bag too much as you make your way to that perfect spot.
Rees’s Pieces
August 3, 2005 | Filed Under Organization, Managing
One great thing about the law.com Legal Blog Network family: you may quarrel, but it’s because you care and you still have each other’s back.
One of my cyber-colleagues is Rees Morrison, who directs the law department consulting practice at Hildebrandt. He also authors the excellent Law Department Management weblog–but then you probably already knew that.
Mindful that these posts may be the work of a clever troll, I am unable to resist biting the bait and responding to Brother Morrison:
1. Be wary of GCs who try their hand at consulting.
My view: If I were considering engaging a consultant as a GC (and Rees was busy), the fact that someone had actually played the game would be an important factor. Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are the best coaches in basketball in part because they were players, know the game from the inside out, and therefore have enhanced team credibility.
2. GCs should disclose the compensation (salary + bonus) at each level in their department.
I have an idea: try this at Hildebrandt first and let us know how it goes. My $.02 on the money issue starts with an agreement with Rees on benchmarking and balancing salary and incentive components. That said, too much of a focus on pay can be distracting, and feeds the native concerns of some people who never seem satisfied–even when they are at the top of the range. On a day-to-day level, how you treat people and communicate can be as important to elusive concepts of morale and trust, neither of which is easily benchmarked.
3. Many GCs are “disengaged”.
When you can’t beat ‘em, quote ‘em when they’re on a roll: “I haven’t heard of or consulted to professionally depressed (disengaged) general counsel, but the law departments of this company must have their share, if the Gallup findings are generally valid and hold specifically for the subset of CLOs”. Whoa! I can’t respond to that logic except by noting that I know a goodly number of GCs. And the last thing I’d call any of them is disengaged. If anything, they are too engaged at times, and have difficulty stepping back from situations and reflecting before taking action.
All that said, Rees is extremely productive, always interesting and reliably informative. He’s almost extra-terrestrial in his corporate legal intelligence.
Getting Organized
August 1, 2005 | Filed Under In the News, General
The spin-offs from the AFL-CIO last week might have caused a small sigh of relief in corporate boardrooms across America.
Three words come to mind: not so fast.
The departure of large member unions (including the Service Employees International and the Teamsters) from the AFL-CIO was well-chronicled (see the NY Times view). It was particularly embarrassing for president John Sweeney, since it happened on the eve of the union’s 50th anniversary. Mr. Sweeney was not in a fraternal mood:
“Pulling out of our convention dishonors the founders and the members of my union,” Sweeney said to loud applause. “It is a grievous insult to all the unions who helped us—and to the unions in this hall who came here to discuss and debate the difficult issues and make historic changes.”
Sweeney, 71, was elected to another four year term as AFL-CIO president. He ran unopposed.
So corporate America might stand back and think: “what’s not to like?”
Well, the main reason for the break-up wasn’t a feeling from the departing unions that membership had outlived its usefulness. Rather, it was a view that the AFL-CIO was more interested in political maneuvering than grass-roots organizing. According to the New York Times, leadership of these breakaway unions think that:
Millions of workers, they say, are ripe for labor’s message because of stagnating wages for ordinary workers, declining benefits, growing insecurity on the job, and a sense that the haves are leaving the have-nots further behind. Moreover, workers in the low-wage service sector are disproportionately women, immigrants and members of minority groups that have all been traditionally more open to unionization.
Thus management perceiving AFL-CIO’s troubles as a decline in union influence are probably reading the tea leaves wrong.
Unions flourished over the years for many reasons. But if business today wants their employees to see unions as an historical relic, at a minimum it needs to listen and make worker concerns and communication a priority. Whole Foods Market has done this recently.
Unions may use corporate campaigns (via Hughes Hubbard) or check card recognition (via Brown Raysman) to gain a foothold against an unwary employer. Whatever the strategy, the management distraction and long-term cost are not part of any sound strategic plan. The Economist reports that unionization campaigns against Wal-Mart, Comcast, Clear Channel and Toyota are planned.
When a union gains a new foothold in a business, it doesn’t matter whether it’s AFL-CIO or not.
It’s SNA-FU any way you look at it.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
