Dealing with a High Variety of Work in Legal Departments
The in-house legal department acts as a service provider to many other business functions, making its work requests often unpredictable in both nature…
June 09, 2017 at 09:50 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The in-house legal department acts as a service provider to many other business functions, making its work requests often unpredictable in both nature and volume. For example, the legal team may routinely support the human resources department with advice relating to hiring, firing, contract negotiations, wage disputes and other common matters. However, it also has to be prepared to handle unpredictable mold breakers as well, such as an urgent and immediate threat to employee safety made by a disgruntled ex-employee. A situation like that will turn a typical day upside down in no time.
Since a high variation of work is expected in any corporate in-house legal department, it should be part of a future state value stream design. And therein lies the key: designing lean value streams to deal with the inherent variation so that the team can effectively counsel the business at any time and in any area.
This design process should start with the development of a detailed Service Family Matrixto identify families of similar requests that can be combined into value streams. In a legal department, it would be useful to take a sample of requests to build the Service Family Matrix since there is no way of knowing what will come in next. Over time, the families should be refined in order to make sure they are accurate.
With lean guidelines implemented and flow clearly designed, work will be flowed in families, and attorneys will be able to deal with each family on workflow cycles to achieve guaranteed turnaround times. That means support staff will know exactly when they need to move work forward to attorneys, and also know when they will receive it back, eliminating bottlenecks caused by unpredictable turnaround times of attorneys who may take from 30 minutes to three days to mark up and return a letter, brief or contract.
Since unexpected events are also inevitable, the team must design a value stream capable of handling them. Once flow for normal conditions is established, the team should create a system of visual management capable of identifying abnormal flow that all department employees can see. That way, any potential variance from the design will be immediately visible, such as an excessive volume of requests in a family or a mix of requests with a degree of complexity. When the team identifies the abnormal flow condition, it can implement standard work to deal with the unexpected and maintain turnaround times without management intervention.
Standard work for abnormal flow means there is a Plan B in place (approved by management) which dedicates certain resources (such as an attorney and a paralegal) be allocated to the red-condition problem, while remaining staff know they have to shift to their own Plan B and run longer workflow cycles or pull additional work from other FIFO lanes to keep the work flowing. And all this will occur without any management decision making. As soon as the visual management system indicates the need for a move to Plan B, the team switches its mode of operation independently, enabling all resources to be focused on getting work done rather than managing and checking the output of other team members.
In an environment as complex and variable as a corporate legal department, having a design for handling both normal and abnormal flow without management intervention is crucial to success, resulting in:
- Guaranteed Turnaround Times for attorneys to return work to paralegals
- Significantly reduced lead times when responding to requests for counsel from within the business as well as responding to requests from external counsel
- Ability to set Guaranteed Turnaround times and workflow cycles for interactions with external counsel
- Increased productivity as attorneys spend less time managing who is working on what and more time focusing on providing counsel and guidance to the business
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 AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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