Seminars on Changing the Law
July 8, 2008 | Filed Under Seminars, Law 2.0
What’s really happening in the law? What’s just around the corner?
The Wired GC offers answers to these questions and more with a new seminar series, Wired GC-Off The Meter.
The first edition is next Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. EDT/11:30 a.m. PDT. The subject is “Using Discovery as a Learning Tool” and features leaders in the discovery arena: David Galbenski, Jim Daley, and Gary Hayden. I will moderate the seminars and intend to facilitate real discussion and provoke the occasional debate.
The series available to the legal community without charge thanks to our exclusive sponsor, The Vallex Fund. This is not your typical web-based seminar: each every-other-month installment will be fast-paced, insight-oriented, and short (less than 45 minutes; or about 0.7 hours for our law firm attendees).
Full details are on the dedicated series page; registration is quick, and allows you to attend the seminars live, or view them on-demand after. Also, when you confirm your subscription, you will get a copy of the series white paper: “Changing the Law: Metrics and Milestones.” It gives some hints as to future seminar topics as well.
Take 30 seconds to register; we have a virtual seat saved with your name on it.
The series press release is out and available here.
Do GCs Want Change? A Rejoinder
June 20, 2008 | Filed Under New Services, Managing
My friend Bruce MacEwen swung for the bleachers this week with a herculean post in his Adam Smith, Esq. weblog.
Bruce takes a discussion from Legal OnRamp and puts it out there for all to see (his mention of Paul here refers to Paul Lippe, Legal OnRamp’s CEO). The subject is whether GCs really want change in the legal industry, and Bruce bravely answers “no”:
But I actually have a more subversive suggestion, which falls under “E. Other” in Paul’s schema: I don’t believe GC’s really want things to change, for all their trashmouth game talk. GC’s want their backsides protected by the imprimatur of the Magic Circle, the New York Elite, or the Skadden/Latham brand name. GC’s don’t want “good enough” quality; they want top-drawer quality.
It sure beats your run-of-the-mill “recent developments in trover and replevin” blog post.
I actually agree with Bruce on one level. GCs don’t want things to change. Who does? Change is hard to face and harder still to make work.
Where we part ways is over the conclusion that many GCs use top-tier New York and London firms on major deals and litigation because they don’t want change. It could just be the right tool for the job. And I really disagree about saying this is an exercise in CYA. GCs I know don’t think that way. (Maybe I’m just a hayseed from the Heartland…)
For most GCs, major deals and litigation are a minor part of their budgets, smoothed out over X number of years. In the rest of the spending, I actually see more signs of change, and a desire to change, than ever before.
Any one general counsel can turn a back on change. It may work for awhile, but over the long run, there’s a name for the person who will force the issue. Your CEO? Perhaps. Your CFO? More likely.
Most likely: Your successor.
You really owe it to yourself to pour a glass of cabernet and read through Bruce’s entire post. It’s excellent.
How general counsel can navigate change is a subject that I have been spending a lot of time on recently. I’ve mentioned two projects it in my Wired GC — Select newsletter in the last few months, and I’ll touch on both here shortly.
One thing we can agree on: for the legal market, change makes glaciers look fast. You better stand back at the right moment, however…
Chicago Legal Blogging Seminar
June 16, 2008 | Filed Under Legal Ed
A quick informational announcement for readers in the Chicagoland area…
I will be appearing on a panel entitled “Were You Born to Blog?” next Wednesday, June 25, 2008 in downtown Chicago from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Also participating are Mark Herrmann of Jones Day (blog) and Patrick Lamb of the Ad Valorem Law Group (blog). We plan to pull the veil back a bit and give a real-world view of why legal blogging matters, where it is going and how it can be used by firms and in-house law departments to foster service delivery and collaboration.
And we will share some things that don’t make it into print…
CLE credit is offered through the event sponsor, the Chicago office of Counsel on Call.
Completel program and registration information is here.
Tyco and Eversheds: in Depth (Part II)
May 29, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, New Services
Today, some of my perspectives on the revised Tyco/Eversheds legal services agreement, arising out of a discussion with some of the firms’ principals. Part I is here.
Here we go:
– if firms want to wait until a proposal like this is perfect before doing it, it is never going to happen.
– there clearly is an importance of trust between firm and client before venturing off like this. No agreement, however well conceived and drafted, can foresee all issues that will come up.
– the advantage a first mover like Eversheds gets from this is that after they the sign up Tyco to version 2.0, they are already working on 3.0. Other firms are probably still discussing alternative billing in the abstract. How do you ever catch up?
– if a firm like Eversheds can integrate other smaller and more geographically focused firms on a project basis with technology and consistency, does the law firm of the future need to be in all places at all times? Do mergers or expansions therefore become more targeted and strategic? Note that Eversheds has no offices in North America.
– An arrangement with some of the key attributes of Tyco/Eversheds provides a level of commercial understanding for firm lawyers that is difficult to duplicate otherwise. It also provides these same lawyers with closer client contact that other firms either don’t get or are unwilling to share deep into the service team.
– There is a consistency and quality of service that is an essential part of the DNA of an arrangement like this.
– More firms may have to consider incentives related to preventing disputes if they want to be entrusted with ongoing litigation assignments.
I appreciate the time taken by Stephen Hopkins, Diana Newcombe and Martin Hopkins of Eversheds to talk about the evolving Tyco relationship. I expect more corporate clients to try out some parts of this approach if they want to improve legal services delivery in a way that can be quantified and incentivized.
Tyco and Eversheds: in Depth (Part I)
May 27, 2008 | Filed Under Law 2.0, New Services
I talked with Stephen Hopkins and Diana Newcombe of Eversheds last week; they are two leaders for the firm on the Tyco legal services team (the new agreement’s details are here). Also participating was Martin Hopkins, who oversees Eversheds’ relationship management strategy and deployment for US-based clients.
Some of the major points follow here, I’ll give some of my perspectives Thusday.
Two things impressed me from the outset:
– The Big Picture: This process has been a real learning experience for the firm, and consistently drives home the importance of closely linking legal services and a client’s corporate goals. This is often talked about by law firms in the abstract, but is hard to quantify in practice.
– The Building Blocks: Tyco is certainly a custom-built arrangement, but components of it are finding favor with other clients. Indeed, the approach and the technology involved make it more “modular” than initially thought. A client can pick a few features to start with, and go from there.
A few other items of note:
– The Need for Speed: Getting the right technology in place, FAST, is key, one that facilitates client needs and the control of the arrangement. You can’t always know what it’s going to be like to get matters formerly handled by 250 + firms into a process now being overseen by one until you do it. Indeed, it seems without Eversheds’ Global Accounts Management System, this type of service model simply can’t work. And it’s not something you can go out and buy off the shelf.
– What Quality Really Is: Legal work is about many things: not just the product itself, but when it is delivered, how useful it is for the client, and of course, the cost. The system that tracks such things also gives the ability to measure. These can then be analyzed, forming the basis for an upgraded agreement, which refines the allocation of risks and rewards.
– Innovation Forces Change: The Tyco services agreement is changing how Eversheds is organized and presents itself to the market. The firm can’t help but re-evaluate how matters are staffed and work is sought, sourced, and serviced.
– Alignment is a Motivator: The Tyco experience has pushed people inside the firm (at all levels) to do something new that tangibly (and measurably) helps a client. Having a challenge that requires teamwork and has the interests of the firm and client aligned is invigorating for Eversheds’ lawyers and staff. It also helps extend and enhance diversity initiatives already under way.
– One Firm of Many: since Eversheds will retain other firms to help on matters in certain countries, it has forced a level of consistency and cost control across the EMEA region that is rare when such matters are traditionally “referred out.” Indeed, not all firms want to (or are able to) work with Eversheds this way. They payoff for some firms that agree to work with Eversheds on Tyco matters is a chance to work for a high-visibility international client that they might not have been able to land before.
– Less Work Can Lead to More Work: things like preventative law and litigation avoidance are clearly new opportunities for legal services that are often seen by many firms as putting sources of future work at risk. When incentives for these are combined with more traditional work, you are getting closer to win-win. From this newer perspective, the traditional billable hour model is more like pay-pay.
Part II comes your way on Thursday.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
