11. Efficient Work Methods Include Running a Lean Meeting
Learn how careful planning will make your meetings more efficient and effective in service to your client.
April 19, 2021 at 12:39 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
There is no secret to making meetings shorter and more effective. Just think about the tenets of lean, effectiveness, and efficiency, and then do some planning. (See Lean Meeting Planner.) Plan the work, the roles and the use of each project asset. Let's illustrate the dos and don'ts with a case study. Suppose Lawyer A is a trial partner based at a New York firm. Suppose his client has been sued in Texas. Lawyer A retains local counsel and decides to arrange an in-person case conference in Texas. A meeting like this is an everyday event, but it can still be handled efficiently or inefficiently:
Inefficient Unstructured Meeting |
1. Partner A decides to bring an associate to take notes and carry documents. 2. Partner A briefs associate. 3. Partner A drafts a comprehensive memo with instructions to the local counsel and sends these across ahead of time, with a full document pack. 4. Partner A doesn't send an agenda, but the instructions state that the purpose is to discuss evidence and merits. 5. Local counsel reads everything and prepares the subject widely. 6. The day before the trip, Partner A prepares a short agenda. Meanwhile associate prepares a conference plan. 7. The agenda and the conference plan are similar. The conference plan is much more detailed, but it never sees the light of day. 8. The case conference is unstructured, it doesn't follow the short agenda. 9. After a full day, the case conference ends with a discussion about what has been discussed. Local counsel offers to prepare a note of advice. 10. The next day Partner A asks associate to create a full conference note. Partner A later reviews and edits this and sends it to the client. 11. Two weeks later local counsel sends a note of advice to Partner A, who reviews it and sends it on to the client with a commentary. |
This doesn't look terrible. In fact, you can imagine this trip being narrated on an invoice in a way which appears to justify the expense. The meeting may still be somewhat effective, because in a roundabout way local counsel gets engaged and informed. But it's inefficient. The entire event is blighted by task duplication, wasted effort on non-core activities and lack of focus. All of this creates needless expense for the client which, in turn, is a misuse of funds, which are a vital project asset. This sort of squandering can be avoided by careful planning and assignment of roles. So now let's make it leaner.
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 AllWill Trump Be a Boost to Quinn Emanuel's Fortunes in China?
Pa. Judicial Nominee Advances While Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden Picks
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 2Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 3Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 4Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
- 5Manufacturer Must Provide Details Surrounding Expert’s Livestreamed Inspection, Fed Court Rules
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