Inside/outside counsel relationships: Call me and I’ll call you
Talking with clients often about important current cases or legal issues is not the same as working on the relationships outside and inside counsel have with one another.
April 22, 2014 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
In-house counsel are very busy; there's no question about that. Outside counsel are also very busy. The relationships between the two are significant, and both sides agree that these relationships are important to maintain. For one, keeping the relationship fresh can lead to potential new matters, cases and referrals to other in-house colleagues who may need the same services.
For in-house counsel, it means having necessary go-to resources to tap into for brainstorming, networking and potential career advancement when the need arises. Working on these relationships is even more important during periods between active cases and matters. Strangely, outside counsel often believe that their clients are too busy to meet with them unless there is a specific matter at hand. Not true, say many in-house counsel. The ability to share insights, learn first-hand what is happening in the industry from outside counsel's perspective and to meet new members of their firms are good reasons to connect.
Lon Povich, executive vice president, secretary and general counsel of BJ's Wholesale Club, has some specific thoughts and recommendations about connecting. “I like people to keep in touch. I like them to keep in touch around matters of substance they can share with me that will be helpful to my team and me. It's more of a challenge in the in-house world to stay up-to-date than it is in a firm. So sharing changes in the law and updates for me and my team about areas of the law that impact our business can be very helpful. It's more meaningful and impactful than if it's a newsletter or blog that goes out to the world, which by its nature is not specifically focused on our issues,” Povich says.
Povich adds, “Providing updates to us about our business specifically also shows that outside counsel understand the law, understand our business, that they've thought about the intersection between the legal issue and the business and that they are ready to help.”
How often should outside counsel connect, outside of the day-to-day work? Povich suggests, “In terms of the relationship itself, once a year is enough to keep in touch, and it's helpful even at those meetings that they do something to demonstrate they are focused on our business and our people in addition to being good lawyers and a good law firm.”
Povich summarized his thoughts as follows: “At any 'relationship meeting,' substance always trumps social.”
The senior vice president and general counsel of a major pharmaceutical company had this to add: “I don't care about company or departmental newsletters. I don't care about blogs or anything like that. I base my decisions on experience, expertise and relationships. You can't build relationships through newsletters and blogs. Call me and tell me what my team needs to know; drop by and spend the time to give us updates in person and to connect. Nothing replaces that.”
Talking with clients often about important current cases or legal issues is not the same as working on the relationships outside and inside counsel have with one another. The changing industry provides a good opportunity to stay connected and retain those important relationships with one another.
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 All3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readQuantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
Ten Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Sets April Retrial Date in Sarah Palin Defamation Action Against NY Times
- 2HSF and Kramer Levin Leaders Set Out Merger Timeline, Structure
- 3'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
- 4Doctrine of ‘Practical Location,’ Breach of a Commercial Lease: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
- 5Supreme Court Asked to Review Issues of Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement
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