Conversation Culture
Legal departments should create an environment of dialogue.
June 30, 2009 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
In the corporate world circa 2009, does anyone still communicate by telephone? Do business people engage in face-to-face discussions anymore? Do corporate employees still circulate written memoranda when communicating with other employees?
For all practical purposes, e-mail has replaced the traditional forms of internal communication. While e-mail has its advantages, it is highly questionable whether it has improved the level of dialogue necessary for the business team's success. For in-house counsel, reliance on e-mail as the sole means of communication with the corporate clients may lead to advising them without a full grasp of the facts necessary to form an opinion. Even worse, it perpetuates the isolation from the business team that plagues many in-house counsel.
E-mail can be a helpful tool for in-house counsel when used wisely. It can be very handy when you need to seek or convey information–not necessarily to provide legal advice or opinions. Try to limit the use of e-mail to asking pointed questions rather than open-ended ones where you lose the ability to probe deeper into the facts.
Here are some ways in-house counsel can break the cycle of e-mail dependency:
o Remind the business people on a regular basis that you prefer a phone call, a conference call or a face-to-face meeting on sensitive or fact-intensive issues. If you do not say otherwise, they will assume that e-mail is your preferred means of contact. An “open door” approach is critical to creating the culture of dialogue.
o Depending on the nature of a particular topic, do not hesitate to resort to a written memorandum, which is less likely to be circulated in the same viral fashion as e-mails.
o Pick up the phone and call your clients for information about an issue. If you get an e-mail that requests a legal opinion, assume that you have not been informed of all of the relevant facts. Engage in a discussion either by telephone or in person to explore the facts before giving an opinion.
o Pay a visit to the business people in their offices. The “house call” approach serves a number of different purposes: First, you may be able to resolve the issue faster in a face-to-face meeting; second, you reinforce the important role the legal team has in partnering with the business people; third, you get an opportunity to demonstrate your interest in the business; and, finally, you put yourself in a position to learn about the business team's other initiatives and goals.
o Build a culture of dialogue. The members of the legal team need to learn to speak with one another first before they can expect the business people to do the same. Conduct regularly scheduled meetings with the attorneys and legal staff. Hold project meetings when various members of the legal department are working together on a major project. Include the relevant business people in those project meetings.
o Talk to the business team members about the importance of creating a culture of dialogue. Address the benefits of e-mail as well as the pitfalls that occur when e-mail communication is the only form of interaction among the business team.
o Encourage your executive team to adopt a policy where each employee refrains from sending e-mails to other employees on one particular day of each week.
Practice the culture of dialogue daily. In-house counsel will be in a much better position to provide meaningful legal advice based on a thorough understanding of the facts and business context in which it is being sought.
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 AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
GCs Jettisoning Zero-Based Budgeting in Quest to Be Nimble, More Efficient
3 minute readFoley & Lardner Litigator Joins Brewers Roster as Legal Chief
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
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