A roundtable discussion: Bridging the gap between in-house and outside counsel
March 31, 2008
By Many law firms spend a great deal of time trying to figure out what in-house lawyers are thinking, and how they can build stronger relationships with them.
And, as many corporations and companies reduce the number of outside firms they work with, these concerns become even more important.
Five local corporate counsel participated in Chicago Lawyer’s roundtable discussion, held late last month. These lawyers spent time working in law firms, but made the switch to in-house during their careers.
They shared their ideas about building stronger relationships, and what outside firms could be doing to improve service. They also talked about what they like, and the skills they must possess to be successful. What follows is a portion of the roundtable discussion.
The participants were:
William A. Von Hoene Jr., pictured above, executive vice president and general counsel at Exelon Corp., has been in-house for six years, and has spent two years in his current position;
D. Cameron Findlay, executive vice president and general counsel at Aon Corp., has been in-house and in his current position since July 2003;
David G. Susler, associate general counsel at National Material, L.P., has been in-house for nine years and has spent 14 months in his current position;
Mary E. Doohan, vice president for legal affairs and group counsel for Morton Salt, has been in-house since 1991, and in her current position since 1997; and
Allyson Bouldon, general counsel for Tegrant Corp., has been in-house for just under 14 years, and in her current position for about a year.
What are the general misconceptions that law firms have about in-house lawyers?
Susler: I think one misconception is they think our work is sort of fluffy. That it’s a nine-to-five fluff job with no real substance, and that we may just be traffic cops, so to speak, which is far from the truth.
Findlay: I think sometimes outside firms think that we do in-house what they do in external firms. And by that I mean that we are looking at legal questions from an intellectual, detailed level when, in fact, what we’re faced with usually are business problems that have a legal component.
And so a lot of times I’ll get advice from law firms that will probably be correct from a sort of intellectual law review perspective, but it’s virtually irrelevant to what I have to do on a day-to-day basis.
Doohan: I also think outside firms think that we function a little more like they do, which is, you get in in the morning, and perhaps you set aside two hours to cogitate how to meet a problem. It’s actually much more rapid-fire than that. Within one hour you might be working on 12 different things. Somebody walked in the door. Someone called you or you picked up the phone and you got scheduled for a meeting. I think your time is much less your own in-house than it is as a partner in a law firm.
Von Hoene: I think there are perceptions among some lawyers that some of the things that we require are not meaningful. For example, the early case assessment kinds of things we do are seen as an annoyance to outside firms. And, occasionally, because of that, they don’t devote the resources to it that we ask. When in fact they are very, very important tools for managing our business and have that element to it that is not always fully appreciated.
Bouldon: In general, it’s also helpful if outside counsel does the initial homework to find out, for example, what our level of expertise is in a given area, because sometimes you will have outside counsel start a dissertation perhaps not knowing that that is an area of expertise that you have; or perhaps to have an understanding that what you’re looking for is a down and dirty — is this something that we can succeed on and or not?
What advice do you have for law firms that want to create a better relationship?
Bouldon: I’m very fortunate in that we have wonderful outside counsel. Some of the things, though, that certain outside counsel can do to distinguish themselves, include delivering the message in a way that is very easy to digest. As Mary already mentioned, we have lot of things going on, and a lot of things competing for our time. I really appreciate it when I get a memo that says, ”Here is your answer, here is the timing, detail follows, but here are your action steps.”
Von Hoene: I think one of the most important things an outside law firm can do is understand our business. Invest the time in understanding it … Oftentimes there’s a misunderstanding or ignorance of the nuances of the business or what goes into the business, how the business prioritizes, how it addresses its problems, what implications a solution of one problem in one way will have for other components of the business.
There is really no substitute for an intimate knowledge of our business in order to be a good legal counsel.
Susler: I agree 100 percent. Practicality is really what I need more often than an academic dissertation.
Findlay: I think outside counsel need to almost put themselves inside the head of the general counsel. If the question comes from an in-house counsel, think about why the in-house counsel is asking that and what their time frame may be, and so forth. Typically, if the in-house counsel is asking a question of a law firm, it’s because they were asked that same question by someone in management, and they need an answer yesterday, basically.
How have you seen your job change from when you first started in-house?
Bouldon: For me the changes have been quite dramatic. I started off in-house as a staff attorney, and am now general counsel. With every level the focus on the business and understanding the business has become more and more important. The actual work in terms of actually doing contract review and in terms of actually managing litigation remains important. But I’m called upon to direct, to lead, to focus, and to tie in all the initiatives of the department to better serve the business and its goals. And that has been a dramatic change.
Comments
Got something to say?