In-house counsel who embrace change become active business advocates
4 ways Corporate America is different in the post-Great Recession era
February 25, 2013 at 07:00 PM
7 minute read
Members of the legal profession are not always the first to embrace or promote change. Change can sometimes be a struggle for lawyers.
Today, in-house counsel are confronting drastic changes that are not derived from evolving law or legal interpretation. Rather, they are the same changes that any corporate employee faces in this post-Great Recession era. Corporate America conducts its business in a significantly different manner than it did previously:
1. More is expected of employees. It follows then that lawyers, like everyone else in an organization, are being challenged to deliver more output with fewer resources. Management has become immune to the negative impact that this has on employee morale. Moreover, management is often faced with the same demands from those to whom they report.
2. The rewards are being reduced. Raises are not necessarily elevating the standard of living for many corporate employees. The percentage of average employee raises is often less than that of companies' reported profits. A greater percentage of the rewards tends to flow toward those in the income-generating departments. Lawyers are generally not viewed as revenue-generating.
3. Success is measured by short-term results. For publicly traded companies, Wall Street either rewards or punishes a corporation on the basis of the profits or losses of its last quarter. A corporation is not necessarily evaluated on one of the most important elements of its continued success—its long-term strategy. In this type of setting, in-house counsel are focusing more on the day-to-day issues without any guidance from the business side as to the “big picture.”
4. Innovation is today's mantra. Innovation does not necessarily capitalize on the skills that most lawyers bring to an organization. To be innovative, companies must take greater business risks, which bring with them increased legal risk. The risks grow when there is little or no precedent for the innovation. The legal parameters by which in-house counsel advise businesses are either nonexistent or vague. This creates an even greater tension between legal departments and the innovators within marketing.
To come to grips with these changes, in-house counsel must learn to embrace them. In-house counsel should encourage management to articulate the rationale for change and then make it transparent to all employees so it can bring a positive and fresh approach to business.
In-house counsel, in the face of so much internal change, must advise corporate clients in a manner that both demonstrates their embrace of change and provides clients with a legal road map that guides them through this time of transition. There may never be precedent directly on point; however, strong in-house counsel know how to extrapolate relevant advice from prior experiences and those bodies of law in their practice areas.
When you feel the changes have moved off-course, do not shy away from sharing your concerns with your direct superior. Emphasize your understanding of the positive value that the changes bring to the organization, but suggest how, with some modifications, the changes can return to their original purpose. Never should in-house counsel seek to extol the virtues of “the way we always used to do things.” Most of Corporate America has moved beyond being hamstrung by the past.
In-house lawyers who have embraced change can become change agents and active advocates for businesses in advancing the shifting agenda.
Thomas Lalla is SVP and GC of Pernod Ricard USA.
Members of the legal profession are not always the first to embrace or promote change. Change can sometimes be a struggle for lawyers.
Today, in-house counsel are confronting drastic changes that are not derived from evolving law or legal interpretation. Rather, they are the same changes that any corporate employee faces in this post-Great Recession era. Corporate America conducts its business in a significantly different manner than it did previously:
1. More is expected of employees. It follows then that lawyers, like everyone else in an organization, are being challenged to deliver more output with fewer resources. Management has become immune to the negative impact that this has on employee morale. Moreover, management is often faced with the same demands from those to whom they report.
2. The rewards are being reduced. Raises are not necessarily elevating the standard of living for many corporate employees. The percentage of average employee raises is often less than that of companies' reported profits. A greater percentage of the rewards tends to flow toward those in the income-generating departments. Lawyers are generally not viewed as revenue-generating.
3. Success is measured by short-term results. For publicly traded companies, Wall Street either rewards or punishes a corporation on the basis of the profits or losses of its last quarter. A corporation is not necessarily evaluated on one of the most important elements of its continued success—its long-term strategy. In this type of setting, in-house counsel are focusing more on the day-to-day issues without any guidance from the business side as to the “big picture.”
4. Innovation is today's mantra. Innovation does not necessarily capitalize on the skills that most lawyers bring to an organization. To be innovative, companies must take greater business risks, which bring with them increased legal risk. The risks grow when there is little or no precedent for the innovation. The legal parameters by which in-house counsel advise businesses are either nonexistent or vague. This creates an even greater tension between legal departments and the innovators within marketing.
To come to grips with these changes, in-house counsel must learn to embrace them. In-house counsel should encourage management to articulate the rationale for change and then make it transparent to all employees so it can bring a positive and fresh approach to business.
In-house counsel, in the face of so much internal change, must advise corporate clients in a manner that both demonstrates their embrace of change and provides clients with a legal road map that guides them through this time of transition. There may never be precedent directly on point; however, strong in-house counsel know how to extrapolate relevant advice from prior experiences and those bodies of law in their practice areas.
When you feel the changes have moved off-course, do not shy away from sharing your concerns with your direct superior. Emphasize your understanding of the positive value that the changes bring to the organization, but suggest how, with some modifications, the changes can return to their original purpose. Never should in-house counsel seek to extol the virtues of “the way we always used to do things.” Most of Corporate America has moved beyond being hamstrung by the past.
In-house lawyers who have embraced change can become change agents and active advocates for businesses in advancing the shifting agenda.
Thomas Lalla is SVP and GC of Pernod Ricard USA.
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
- 1Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
- 2Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 3A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 4Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 55th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
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