Inside the rise of law department operations
Beyond the numbers, you know you are winning when you feel the culture shifting, or as Matt Fawcett put it, when you can say welcome to the modern world.
January 26, 2014 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
Five years ago, if you were looking for an example of a business practice “center of excellence,” you would likely not have turned to an in-house legal department. Would you find smart people? Absolutely. But eye-catchingly progressive systems for creating compelling visions and goals, hiring, training and retaining talent, building powerful cultures, operating efficiently and measuring performance? Not so much.
Change, however, is already underway. In a recent statement predicting the biggest trends in the legal industry in 2014, Matt Fawcett, general counsel of NetApp, identified, “The rise of operations in legal departments” as one of those trends. He noted a dramatic increase in the number of legal operations positions created by general counsel in order to “realize the benefits and efficiencies of running the department more like a business.” So what is happening and how do you jump on the bandwagon?
What is the status quo?
Law school is intense and passing the bar is difficult. The key criteria for success are the quality and quantity of output. Great work product (and lots of it) as an associate, senior associate, partner or in-house counsel is the best way to ensure upward mobility. Law firms generally focus on getting great case outcomes, and corporations focus on their core businesses. Legal for many years has “flown under the radar” of effective-business-practice scrutiny.
Why is the status quo changing?
Three “forces for change” have come together:
-
Pressure from the CFO/risk yielding to cost. In the aftermath of the 2008 crash, many internal legal teams suddenly felt pressure and a number of law firms went under. Legal as a “line item” was identified for attention. No longer could the “but we are the guardians of risk mitigation” argument keep the efficiency drive at bay.
-
Tools and resources are here. There is now a suite of relatively effective software for e-billing, matter and information management, project management, reporting and the like.
-
And there are world-class service businesses that have invested in people and processes so that legal departments can effectively combine internal and external build.
How do we know it is a trend?
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, has said, “In God we trust; for everyone else we need data.” And here's proof: five major “CLOC” (Chief Legal Operations Committee) groups now exist nationwide—in New York, Chicago, Houston, Northern California and Southern California—with an estimated membership of over 250. Five years ago, the total number of legal operations professionals nationally was more like 10 percent of this figure. There is also now an increasing number of partnerships between law firm CIOs and legal operations teams.
What is the opportunity, and what are the challenges?
There are two very different roles that can make a big impact—one more strategic, one more operational/change management focused. In some instances, it is two hires. In others, the same person can play both roles.
Chief of staff: Responsible for the strategy of the department, goal setting; policy and process, development and tracking of KPIs (key performance indicators), communications, internal and external; organizational structure, people, department planning/mission/vision/values, and vendor management/tool selection.
Operations director: Responsible for implementation and change management across all key areas. For example, implementing an e-billing system could easily take 12 months plus. This role is “bathed in change management.”
Of course, there are always challenges. The biggest ones are getting buy-in/acceptance and getting information. But the prize is a big one. Beyond the numbers, you know you are winning when you feel the culture shifting, or as Matt Fawcett put it, when you can say “welcome to the modern world.”
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 AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Recent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Wilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
- 2Pass Rate on California's July 2024 Bar Exam Ticks Up to 53.8%
- 3Labor & Employment Firms Expect Demand Surge as Bosses Face Uncertainty Over Rules Changes
- 4Judge Approves Orrick's $8M Data Breach Settlement While Gunster Agrees to $8.5M
- 5Legal Speak: A Convicted Felon is Coming to the White House. What Happens Now?
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