A Diary Page From a GC in 2020
In the future, efficiency and working lean are key.
September 04, 2018 at 07:00 AM
6 minute read
Meet Marjorie “Midge” Dearborn, a fictitious GC of a fictitious automaker. The year is 2020 and here's a typical day from Midge's future diary.
8:00-Tennis. That Wimbledon dream isn't getting any closer. Just a thought.
9:00-Driving in. Listen to mindfulness app “No Mud, No Lotus.” Wow, that's fitting. A few years ago, work was a struggle through mud, followed by near-drowning. Now it's mostly sunshine.
10:00-BRED boards. Weekly departmental catch-up. Our reliable departmental assistant has managed logistics, and the full department is on time, present and prepped. Sounds obvious, but it's important. My role is to manage my managers, supervise my supervisors and protect my processes. We start with our BRED boards. It's an acronym from the Lean Adviser methodology that means “Big Rock Every Day.” Each of us, me included, should have completed five “big rocks” last week. Now for accountability, then planning and commitments for this week. Without prep, structure and discipline, we could've spent 90 minutes. We do it in 30.
Two department members are located with me. They are my first line, an ex-accountant called Wayne County who helps manage budgets, audit committees and governance. Then there's Rosie, our junior. Rosie is an original thinker, that's a key credential. She helps everyone with everything. We haven't figured out her future, but it's bright. That's it. Three of us here, three in the field. The department I inherited was twice the size and half as involved.
My three “station chiefs” are all lawyers. They have great skill sets and mindsets. They leave the floor and go to the businesses where they're located. Just as I expect outside counsel to come here, so I expect my lawyers to go to our clients, sit in their businesses, specialize in them. The business leaders all seem happy to have a lawyer on their teams. These station chiefs are located within Purchasing, Brand Protection and Product Quality, all broad canvasses. For PQ, for example, my station chief sits in the engineering community to oversee certification, quality alerts and recall decisions. The role includes litigation management, so it is supported by a secondee from the law firm which tries or coordinates the bulk of the cases. The secondee's salary and travel costs are transparent to me, and I cover a fair share.
10:30-Email Slot 1: In the bloaty era this was a drag. Insisting on the businesses and external counsel adopting lean comms may be the best thing I've done, and it cost me nothing. Rule 1: mark it FYI or Action Required. Rule 2: “News Before Context” and so on. My first filter is “FYI.” I speed-read and delete. The system has directed a copy to the e-file. My second filter is “Action Required.” I speed-read and reply, forward or carry over for consideration. Third batch, everything else. There should be none, but there is. Delete, block, reply “TLDR” etc.
Time to originate some email. Send email to department: “Any nominations for our 2020 Dean of Lean award? Business folks only, sorry!” Send one to a colleague: “Any joy?” the context being clear from the thread. I do send longer emails, also shorter ones, such as “Thoughts?” “Nope!” “Really?” Someone once called an email from me a “Midge Nudge.” I'm fine with that, which is just as well because it stuck.
11:30-Spare Slot 1. Coffee, carbs and whatever comes up. Today it's comms coaching with Rosie. We discuss a bloated email which we all got from Puffin LLP. Rosie notices they cc'd four others at the firm. Way too many recipients. Rosie will draft an “out of process” rebuke for me to send.
Noon. My big rock for today, Edit RFI packs. These will be a template email about process, then two pages about the project written by the business, background, goals and parameters. I read the (maximum) five pages of core dox, then edit the narrative. 2+5, that's it. When I first told the businesses that, if they can't do that, I won't run an RFI, there was resistance. Turns out they can. When will I read responses? I won't, because there won't be any. All firms are pre-credentialized for: a) sector specialism b) lean c) diversity and d) pro bono. They just have to consider conflicts and then say in or out. Firms hate writing pitch documents as much as I hate reading them. There's a Q+A window for email questions—to the business not me—to clarify the project. Then they attend a workshop pitch. That's usually me, a station chief, a business leader and the fact-holders. One key question: How would you do this? Show us your plan, let's improve it together, then make sure you deliver it within parameters. If you can't, you'll be expected to explain why. This project, like all our projects, will end with a wrap-up event, blunt learnings, authentic accountability.
1:00-Canteen Planned Lunch Meeting.
2:00-Budgets Meeting. Wayne has marked up costed road maps from law firms on upcoming projects, shows me selected pages. Too fat, too tight? We discuss causes, motives and our response.
2:30-Law Firm Meeting. One partner from my “bet the farm” firm, endless institutional knowledge, reliable and trustworthy. Several sensitive topics, not for this diary!
4:00-Voicemails. “Hi there, this is Hector from Shiny Software Solutions we'll be in area next week and …” deleted. “Good day Marjorie, this is …” deleted. If you're calling me “Marjorie,” we never met.
4:30-Email Slot 2.
5:00-Planning. Tomorrow I have the 7:30 board meeting. I'm working on them to move these to lunchtime. I used to go to a variety of 7:30 in-person meetings, with our various groups committees, then I'd send Wayne, then we agreed that 7:30 meetings are just a bad idea, so we won't take them. After a period of adjustment and dismay, our colleagues got used to this. We're all adaptable.
Drive home. Listen to Van Morrison. Surely an Irish guy would sing about a green-eyed girl, no? Just a thought.
Alex Geisler is a London-based litigation partner with Duane Morris and creator of the Lean Law Program. If you enjoyed this article, click here for more information on Lean Adviser Legal, a complete legal process management program.
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 AllNew Federal Pregnancy Regulations: Five Key Takeaways and Five Key Action Steps for Employers
7 minute readLegal Profession's Mental Health Woes Start to Take Root in Law School, Many Attorneys Say
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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