Cisco: Business Alignment
Business alignment, GC Mark Chandler explains, means seeing the big picture—stepping back and understanding the business purpose of a legal action.
October 25, 2017 at 07:31 PM
4 minute read
Mark Chandler of Cisco Systems.
Mark Chandler, senior vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer of San Jose-based Cisco Systems Inc., was talking with a Big Law firm attorney in New York one recent morning about a project they were working on. Chandler wanted the attorney to see the project from his business standpoint and quipped, “General counsel are from Saturn and outside counsel are from Jupiter.”
The attorney thought the riff on the 1992 book “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” was funny. “But I was serious,” says Chandler, who wants his outside counsel to have a “business alignment.”
Business alignment, Chandler explains, means seeing the big picture—stepping back and understanding the business purpose of a legal action. It means not turning over an endless number of stones in a case to run up costs, but knowing which ones are necessary to turn over regardless of the cost.
“Some law firms, no matter how long you try to articulate the whole picture from a business standpoint, they still don't get it,” he says.
Business alignment also means a focus on the predictability of costs and the timing of those costs. “Even if it's a fixed fee, it is critical that I have alignment on where my budget is and where their costs are, and knowing when it is going to cost is really critical,” Chandler says.
But Chandler's first test for whether to engage an outside law firm is whether the substantive capability of the firm matches the requirements of the work. It could be a large volume of relatively routine work, he says, or it could be a small case requiring a highly specialized skill set.
And the best scenario for Chandler is when both the substantive qualities and the business alignment come together in the same outside counsel.
Chandler explains, “We have a matter before the U.S. International Trade Commission right now, and I am working with Deanna Tanner Okun of Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg,” a small Washington, D.C., firm that specializes in international trade matters. Okun served 12 years on the ITC, including two terms as its chairwoman.
“The reason she is so fantastic isn't just that she knows the agency so well,” Chandler says, “but because she is so good at understanding what we want to accomplish and predicting what we have to work on to get there. She is incredibly knowledgeable, sensitive to our business goals, and targeted in her approach.”
The GC says he has about 20 main law firms that handle over 80 percent of Cisco's outside legal work. The firms include:
• Fenwick & West for corporate, securities and M&A work.
• Duane Morris for a large volume of intellectual property cases.
• Kirkland & Ellis, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr on more specialized IP work.
•Winston & Strawn for general commercial litigation.
• Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe for employment and compensation-related matters.
None of the work occurs on a billable-hour basis, Chandler says. Instead, he uses flexible arrangements, depending on the matter. For example, M&A work is entirely fixed fee, with possible bonuses at Cisco's discretion; while litigation matters are usually fixed fee through the motion stage. Some other cases might be billed at a sharply discounted rate tied to bonuses for different resolutions.
The efficiencies in selecting and paying outside counsel have allowed his budget to shrink, “but not because I'm substituting work by inside counsel,” he adds. Cisco's legal department employs about 240 in-house counsel.
Chandler also has flexibility in his selection process, with price as a consideration but not the main one. “Sometimes we know who we want to work with, and we simply negotiate with them,” he says.
Other times it holds the traditional “bake-off,” with requests for proposals.
At the most recent bake-off, Chandler says two large and two boutique law firms competed. Cisco went into the process thinking it wanted one of the smaller firms, he says. But it was persuaded to hire a large one.
“It wasn't the lowest price,” Chandler explains. “They had a superior strategy, and we didn't think we could export that strategy to anybody else.”
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 AllGC With Deep GM Experience Takes Legal Reins of Power Management Giant
2 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
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