Making Change
Simple steps make change management easier for in-house counsel.
June 30, 2008 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
I was taking in a Matlock rerun last week when, amidst hatching a plan to receive CLE credit for watching, I observed a hapless prosecutor on cross-examination asking case-damaging, open-ended and non-leading questions.
This caused me to snap back to a horrid memory of committing the same error in my trial techniques class in law school. My professor's public reprimand rattled in my head: “Mr. Martin, when conducting a cross-examination, never ever, ever ask a question that you don't know the answer to.”
Shaking my head vigorously to escape the bizarre fusion of my professor's harangue and Matlock's sneering superiority, I recalled that as an in-house lawyer, I continued to make a similar mistake.
An effective trial lawyer is required to invest the time and preparation in knowing the outcome of the cross-examination before a single question is asked.
A compelling extension of this principle to the corporate setting involves the change initiatives we facilitate and champion. Like effective cross-examination, successful change management requires dedication to the outcome-assuring prework.
Change happens. Laws change. Regulatory enforcement agendas change. Businesses change. The in-house legal team is expected to respond with appropriate solutions to these changes. Our business partners require a legal team that excels in change management.
The following principles are not my original thinking, but a compilation of formal change management training and best practices of my many mentors who excelled in championing change. You may find them helpful.
These are the basic steps:
1. Identify the need for change. You are constantly monitoring the laws
and regulations that apply to your company. You are expected to recognize the need for change and effectively communicate that need to your clients.
2. Identify stakeholders. Identify the groups and individuals who are impacted by or have a stake in the change. Classify the stakeholders as potential change champions or change resistors.
3. Create a shared vision and plan. Meet with the stakeholders, confirm the need for change and begin enlisting support. Most importantly, identify specific points of resistance and adopt a plan to address them.
4. Ensure the change is durable. More time is spent on the initiation of the change than on its maintenance. For the change to be lasting, ongoing evaluation is required.
Be mindful of the following common errors. First, your role is to demonstrate why the change is necessary. In-house lawyers are subject matter experts, and many clients will not share your vision. You cannot sidestep this influencing step by simply informing stakeholders that the change is mandated by the law and you, as the lawyer, have made the decision. If the stakeholders don't get it, that is your problem.
Second, you need to plan for and dedicate the time necessary to follow these steps.
Finally, welcome feedback. Change is difficult, and this is the perfect time to employ your listening skills.
In-house lawyers continually manage change. Some change is strategic and momentous and other change is tactical. These principles are valuable for any type of change initiative that impacts others.
By applying them to your everyday change agenda, you will ensure that your proposed change will be embraced, even before the project is launched. (Cue my professor and Matlock's approving nods.)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
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