Sun’s CEO on Lawyers
January 15, 2007 | Filed Under The Client Speaks, Managing
Rarely do CEOs speak directly about their in-house lawyers. Rarer still is when they talk about their impact on the business.
But rare is a good description for Sun CEO (and blogger) Jonathan Schwartz. He was interviewed this weekend in the New York Times. Mr. Schwartz was asked about how many companies went astray in the options-dating imbroglio:
Q. Did the Valley get bad legal advice regarding options practices?
A. I’ll give you my view on legal advice. Lawyers are the very core of Sun Microsystems. I mean in essence we’re a company that monetizes intellectual property. There’s a lot of lawyers involved in helping us think through open source licensing arrangements, you know, customer indemnity. These are not simple things. But at the end of the day, when folks inside of Sun come to me and say, a lawyer wouldn’t let me do X or Y or Z, my response is, well, then why don’t I move headcount under the lawyer, because who’s making the decision here — the lawyer or the businessperson? So legal advice is just that, it’s advice.
Wow. That’s refreshing on three fronts. First, Mr. Schwartz gives a nod to the IP underpinnings of the modern tech-driven company. Score one for the lawyers. Next, Mr. Schwartz apparently doesn’t like line executives who impassively act like the lawyers are running things. (This is known in the trade as blame ‘em when things go wrong and ignore ‘em when things go right). Finally, Mr. Schwartz flips the subject over and also notes that legal advice (in general, presumably) is advisory, not mandatory.
Sun GC Mike Dillon apparently has an enlightened (and demanding) client. That’s about all you can ask for.
(Update 17 Jan 07): Carolyn Elefant, writing yesterday at Legal Blog Watch, has a slightly different view:
So while lawyers can add value, at the end of the day, it’s the business folks who run things. And if business doesn’t want to listen to the lawyers, they don’t have to — because legal advice is merely advisory. With that kind of attitude from clients, being a GC can’t be easy …
I actually inferred Mr. Schwartz’s comment this way: in the context of business decisions, legal advice is just that. The business person is paid to be responsible and accountable.
For purely legal matters, I’d bet the GC is similarly responsible, perhaps relying on advice from other lawyers (inside or outside).
The reality for the GC is that many business matters have law mixed in for good measure. It makes the job challenging (and interesting). But, as Ms. Elefant points out correctly, definitely not easy.
But if a company wants a lawyer running the show, make him or her CEO. Hmmm…, sounds familiar.
ACC Survey: More Law Firm Work?
January 11, 2007 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Legal Resources, Managing
Some law firm managing partners may be getting a gift in 2007: more legal work from their favorite GC.
According to the recently released Association of Corporate Counsel 2006 Chief Legal Officer survey, 25% of law departments plan to increase the use of outside counsel. The 2005 survey showed 16% of departments surveyed planned to use more outside services.
The survey itself is here.
Additionally, the survey showed the following mix of work as important to CLOs:
Chief legal officers and general counsel continue to spend the majority of their time on corporate transactional work (65% named it as one of their top three areas of focus), followed by compliance (50%) and board relations (29%). When asked to identify the next “big issue” they will face, respondents identified “international expansion/globalization issues” and “document/records management” as the two most important.
Tomorrow, I’ll dig a little deeper into the survey. But for now you can bet some firms may revise proposed rate increases.
Upward?
(Update : 12 Jan 07): Expect the follow-up early next week; too heavy a topic for a Friday.
Fortune Finds Five Firms
January 9, 2007 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Managing
Finally!
Five law firms are mentioned on Fortune’s 2007 “100 Best Companies to Work For” list. Here’s the complete list; The Recorder has more, noting the following firms (with live links to snapshots and ranking):
1. Alston & Bird (19)
2. Arnold & Porter (26)
3. Nixon Peabody (49)
4. Perkins Coie (64)
5. Bingham McCutchen (94)
I commend these firms for taking work-life issues seriously. Sometimes I wonder whether a high ranking means (a) satisfied workers or (b) having people who are good at following directions (like filling out 57-question surveys).
But there has to be some correlation between happy lawyers and higher-value work product.
I hope…
How a GC Saves a Buck
December 27, 2006 | Filed Under Managing
Here’s one way; shoot ‘em only with a camera:
(Snapped through the window of the Wired GC offices with one of these.)
But is it the GC who is sometimes the endangered species?
Law Firm Rates Going Up - IV (Reality)
December 15, 2006 | Filed Under Law Firm Trends, Managing
Today is the end of the road in the review of the causes of the annual law-firms-raise rates story. Some say the reasons are inflation or talent; I’d argue it isn’t either; profit-motive is a likely culprit.
Whatever; probably a combination of many things.
At the end of the day it’s America. Lawyers can charge what they want. It’s not like law is a guild, after all. (OK, but why do firms fall in line with starting salaries for new associates?)
Regardless of the cause, the GC has a role in this drama. Accepting increased costs will require the GC to defend that approach when time comes for the first budget review in 2007. So the GC will consider a number of options when informed of a rate increase. These will be covered on Monday.
At the outset, however, the reality of increased law firm rates is that it causes the GC to ask a simple question: “What am I getting for my money?”
Considering the way many firms communicate rate increases, the answer to this question would seem to be: “The same thing, costing more.”
That’s one answer. What it really means is that the client is getting less value (if the same services cost more). Giving less value in a competitive marketplace is one strategy. Not easy to see how it is sustainable.
But if a firm doesn’t want to have a client reading a rate increase letter to think “tastes horrible; more filling” then one idea is to send a case of this along…
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
