10. Involve Your Client in Planning
A legal project should be a contact sport — the lawyer needs to involve the client. There are many decisions to make, but who owns which ones?
April 16, 2021 at 06:13 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
"A successful partnership is … like a well-coached soccer team, where each player knows their role and responsibilities, and where all players are focused on the ultimate goal. If our internal and outside counsel can work as a team whose skills and expertise complement, not compete, with each other, we are likely to reach our goal in an efficient, cost-effective manner. " — José Gonzalez, EVP& General Counsel, CNA, USA
A legal project should be a contact sport — the lawyer needs to involve the client. In this lesson we clarify the ground rules for that. There are many decisions to make, but who owns which ones? Maybe these are things we don't discuss enough. But when we do start to unpack this and set out some guidelines, we can see how important it is in obtaining the right outcome.
As we shall discuss, planning is the first stage of our four-stage structure and within the planning stage are six components. Planning should start and end with agreeing on an Anticipated Range of Outcomes with the client. The importance of the words "with the client" cannot be overstated.
The first thing the lawyer should do is understand the client's expectations (see Lesson 1:1 Meeting Client Expectations). If the client is a business owner, then this is a direct conversation. If the client has a legal department, then the point of contact with the client will be the general counsel or a team member. But the conversation is still essential. The lawyer needs to understand the expectations of the client, but we need to remember that the GC will want to manage the expectations of the board.
Work on desired outcomes and required resources should always be scoped jointly by the lawyer and client. But there is one subtlety. When it comes to desired outcomes, the client defines them and the lawyer considers whether to sign up, reposition expectations or decline. But with resources it is the opposite — the lawyer defines what is needed and the client considers whether to make the resources available, negotiate or decline.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGroen Strokoff O'Neill, LLC adds accomplished Trial Lawyer, William "Bill" Coppol.
1 minute readCushman Benchmark Survey (the “Sweepstakes”) Official Terms and Conditions
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250