Building the legal department of the future
With 22 years as a general counsel soon coming to a close, I felt that this was an appropriate time to speculate on the future of the in-house legal department.
June 30, 2013 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
With 22 years as a general counsel soon coming to a close, I felt that this was an appropriate time to speculate on the future of the in-house legal department. Through the past 22 years, much has changed for in-house lawyers and the clients they serve. Some of the main areas that will challenge in-house departments in the short- and long-term are:
Ethics. The future of the legal department is, first and foremost, dependent on the success or failure of the business it serves. With the Great Recession transforming into a rather lackluster recovery, businesses—particularly those that are publicly traded—try to perform according to the stock market's expectations. The economic viability of any company seems to be tied to short-term gains or losses, rather than its long-term development.
Corporate expediency and resorting to short-cuts will become the modus operandi of the business world. As a result, business people may increasingly expect lawyers to give the answers they want to hear rather than the ones they should hear. We are not just “hired guns.” In-house counsel must continue to advocate that businesses strive to focus on doing the right thing for their employees, their customers, the public and the environment, even if that is not the desired answer. The attorney's ethical role will inevitably come under increased scrutiny by those outside the corporate world as these pressures from the business team escalate.
Legal Costs. There seems to be no end in sight to the increasing pressure to cut costs and improve efficiency. Every legal department will be struggling with demands to reduce headcount, particularly for a department that does not appear to bring in revenue.
The business team will impose the use of metrics on the legal team. Although metrics of a quantitative nature serve a purpose, they do not take into account the qualitative nature and added value of the in-house counsel's work. In-house counsel should be neither defensive nor apologetic when discussing the value they bring to the business.
Technology. The future will bring a continued reliance on technology by attorneys and business people. As companies move their businesses into the virtual realm, in-house counsel will need to be cognizant of advances in the technological world, not just in hardware but in social media and the software and applications used on the hardware. However, having the latest tech toy only benefits the company and its counsel when it is used to enhance the in-house experience.
In some respects, the virtual office environment may work to isolate the in-house counsel from her clients. In-house counsel should never become so immersed in the virtual world that they lose sight of their role as legal advisers to business people. An attorney can avoid this by practicing the art of verbal communication with clients—in person or by telephone. There will never be a technological alternative that functions as well.
Diversity. Due to the increased emphasis on diversity in the law school admission process, the pool of candidates for in-house legal positions will by necessity become more diverse.
Diversity remains an issue in the overall corporate setting that must be focused upon. Lawyers need to be advocates for change in their companies. Diversity requires nurturing on the part of the general counsel, who should act as a role model for the business.
There are some land mines ahead for in-house counsel. However, being aware of them will help to minimize or eliminate any issues that they raise.
Thomas Lalla is SVP and GC of Pernod Ricard USA.
With 22 years as a general counsel soon coming to a close, I felt that this was an appropriate time to speculate on the future of the in-house legal department. Through the past 22 years, much has changed for in-house lawyers and the clients they serve. Some of the main areas that will challenge in-house departments in the short- and long-term are:
Ethics. The future of the legal department is, first and foremost, dependent on the success or failure of the business it serves. With the Great Recession transforming into a rather lackluster recovery, businesses—particularly those that are publicly traded—try to perform according to the stock market's expectations. The economic viability of any company seems to be tied to short-term gains or losses, rather than its long-term development.
Corporate expediency and resorting to short-cuts will become the modus operandi of the business world. As a result, business people may increasingly expect lawyers to give the answers they want to hear rather than the ones they should hear. We are not just “hired guns.” In-house counsel must continue to advocate that businesses strive to focus on doing the right thing for their employees, their customers, the public and the environment, even if that is not the desired answer. The attorney's ethical role will inevitably come under increased scrutiny by those outside the corporate world as these pressures from the business team escalate.
Legal Costs. There seems to be no end in sight to the increasing pressure to cut costs and improve efficiency. Every legal department will be struggling with demands to reduce headcount, particularly for a department that does not appear to bring in revenue.
The business team will impose the use of metrics on the legal team. Although metrics of a quantitative nature serve a purpose, they do not take into account the qualitative nature and added value of the in-house counsel's work. In-house counsel should be neither defensive nor apologetic when discussing the value they bring to the business.
Technology. The future will bring a continued reliance on technology by attorneys and business people. As companies move their businesses into the virtual realm, in-house counsel will need to be cognizant of advances in the technological world, not just in hardware but in social media and the software and applications used on the hardware. However, having the latest tech toy only benefits the company and its counsel when it is used to enhance the in-house experience.
In some respects, the virtual office environment may work to isolate the in-house counsel from her clients. In-house counsel should never become so immersed in the virtual world that they lose sight of their role as legal advisers to business people. An attorney can avoid this by practicing the art of verbal communication with clients—in person or by telephone. There will never be a technological alternative that functions as well.
Diversity. Due to the increased emphasis on diversity in the law school admission process, the pool of candidates for in-house legal positions will by necessity become more diverse.
Diversity remains an issue in the overall corporate setting that must be focused upon. Lawyers need to be advocates for change in their companies. Diversity requires nurturing on the part of the general counsel, who should act as a role model for the business.
There are some land mines ahead for in-house counsel. However, being aware of them will help to minimize or eliminate any issues that they raise.
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
- 1Red Tape, Talent Wars & Pricey Office Space Greet Firms Entering Saudi Arabia
- 2A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Becoming Clerk of the Forum
- 3Pa. Supreme Court Taps New Philadelphia Family Division Administrative Judge
- 45th Circuit Rules Open-Source Code Is Not Property in Tornado Cash Appeal
- 5Mediators for the Southern District of New York Honored at Eighth Annual James Duane Awards
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