From Inside Counsel to Consultant
For inside counsel seeking new options, the most rewarding--and difficult--move may be to the other side of the desk.
December 07, 2008 at 07:00 PM
3 minute read
When you are sitting in the general counsel's chair, you hear from them all the time. Sometimes you want them. Sometimes you wish they would disappear and let you get back to work. I'm talking about consultants from companies with services tailored specifically for corporate legal departments. Just a few examples include legal process outsourcing firms, matter management systems, benchmarking consultants, search firms and electronic discovery providers.
If you have ever attended the InsideCounsel SuperConference, or the Association of Corporate Counsel annual meeting, then you know many of these companies as conference sponsors, or as “vendors” with display booths. I put the word vendor in quotes, because I've never cared much for the term as it applies to professional services. Webster's Dictionary offers this cold definition of the word: “one who vends; SELLER.”
A consultant, on the other hand, is defined as “one who gives professional advice.” The difference between consultant and vendor is more than mere semantics. For inside counsel seeking job options in a rough macro-economic environment, an honest discussion of these words may help you decide if this path makes sense for you.
But first, let me offer a very partial list of companies that hire former inside counsel for consulting roles: Hildebrandt, Navigant, DataCert, Kroll Ontrack, Huron, Epiq Systems, RenewData, Anacomp and many others. If you have managed an in-house legal department, then you have the expertise and imprimatur that these employers seek. I have a term for positions with these employers: “lawyer non-lawyer jobs.” My own job fits this category. And I often recruit talent for employers like the ones listed here.
So, is a lawyer non-lawyer job right for you? The answer lies in the difference between consultant and vendor. Successful consultants view themselves as solution providers who are contributing something important to Company XYZ. They are motivated by new challenges, financial reward and a love of independence. The best can sit comfortably on the other side of the general counsel's desk or conference table.
There are some excellent job opportunities right now for inside counsel who want a lawyer non-lawyer job. Consulting services that offer a cost-savings benefit, such as legal process outsourcing, may be growth opportunities in 2009.
However, many inside counsel fail in these roles. They begin to think of themselves as vendors. It happens when the consultant does not believe strongly in the service his or her company provides. It also happens when ego gets in the way and you can't help but think, “I'm on the wrong side of the desk.” When meetings get rescheduled, or when a former colleague treats you differently at a conference because your name tag reads “sponsor,” your self-image might take a hit. The moment you stop viewing yourself as a professional with valuable advice to offer, you are finished. That's when you become a salesman with something to vend.
Success in a lawyer non-lawyer job is not based on your credentials. Nor is success assured if you have a fabulous rolodex. However, a solid inside counsel network is a very helpful place to start. The shared traits of consultants who make it include self-confidence, persistence, and a fire in the belly. For self-motivated inside counsel who want to explore options, this alternate path can be lucrative, and even fun. Just be honest with yourself. Do you have what it takes to succeed as a consultant? If not, I guarantee you will be miserable as a vendor.
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 AllCompanies' Dirty Little Secret: Those Privacy Opt-Out Requests Usually Aren't Honored
Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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