Keys to Creating a Successful Relationship With Outside Counsel
In 2015 BTI Consulting estimated that 60 percent of legal decision-makers had replaced their primary firms in the prior 18 months and the number-one reason for doing so was that they believed they would get better service elsewhere.
December 11, 2018 at 01:25 PM
5 minute read
In 2015 BTI Consulting estimated that 60 percent of legal decision-makers had replaced their primary firms in the prior 18 months and the number-one reason for doing so was that they believed they would get better service elsewhere. It goes without saying that changing outside counsel is frustrating, time consuming and costly. This article provides four keys to creating a successful relationship with outside counsel so that you can be part of the fortunate 40 percent.
Key Number One: Help outside counsel understand your business. One of the biggest complaints from in-house counsel is that outside counsel does not understand their business. In some ways, it is easy to see how this might happen. Outside counsel is often brought in to address a particular problem or to defend a particular lawsuit. Counsel may mistakenly think that he or she is doing the company a favor and saving fees by staying laser focused only on the issue directly in front of them. But really, this approach often proves shortsighted and may backfire.
Both in-house counsel and outside counsel benefit tremendously when outside counsel learns and understands the client's business, how it generally operates within its larger industry, and the hierarchy within the company. Of course there is some learning curve to this, but there are ways to expedite the process. For example, invite counsel to spend a day on site. There are few things that can replace an actual visit to the client's premises, whether it be a large corporate campus or a working facility. Seeing firsthand the business that the client is engaged in and observing the people working in that business is incredibly meaningful. It not only humanizes the company, it connects outside counsel in a way he or she may not be able to otherwise achieve.
➤➤ Stay on top of in-house developments with Inside Track, a weekly email briefing that breaks down the news, flags key issues and keeps track of who's on the move. Sign up here.
Key Number Two: Make sure that outside counsel understands the role of the legal department in the grand scheme of things. One of the most important things you can do is make sure that outside counsel understands that the legal department of a company is a profit drain, not a profit generator. If you have outside counsel that has never worked inside a corporate legal department, make certain they understand this. This will put outside counsel in a position to help you as you interact with your business people.
Key Number Three: Communicate your expectations. This may seem obvious, but clearly it is not given the statistic cited above. A number of years ago one of the authors of this article was in the audience when a panel of in-house and outside counsel presented on this topic. One of the in-house lawyers commented that she did not like receiving emails from outside counsel over the weekend. She commented that she thought the younger lawyers were trying to impress her with their weekend work, and that the weekend disruptions were unwelcome and annoying. The only thing surprising about the comment was that it was clear she was venting to the audience and had never made this known to outside counsel.
In an ideal world, outside counsel should be asking certain questions at the outset of a relationship, but often this gets overlooked. For example, consider telling outside counsel exactly how you like to receive communications: by email or by phone, or does it depend on the situation? If you like receiving emails, do you have preferences? One of the authors once had a client that liked receiving no more than one email per day unless it was an emergency. You may also want to tell counsel your preferred response time. For nonemergency matters, do you require a response in one day, two days or some other timeframe?
If your work with outside counsel involves reviewing drafts of briefs, advise counsel how far in advance of any deadline you need to receive a draft. If outside counsel has not asked you these questions, tell them your preferences up front. So much of the frustration and miscommunication that develops later in a relationship can be avoided by establishing some relationship parameters in the beginning.
Key Number Four: Make a habit of providing feedback to your outside counsel. Again, it is ideal if outside counsel is soliciting feedback from you. After all, counsel should want to make sure they are doing the best job possible and providing the level of service you expect. That said, if counsel is not doing this, consider being proactive. At the end of a project provide positive feedback and identify any areas of concern or places where there is room for improvement. Another great way to do this is to schedule a meeting at the end of the year to evaluate the work that has been performed, again pointing out positives and places where counsel can improve.
Like any relationship, the relationship between in-house and outside counsel needs to be tended to and developed. If left to its own devices, you may well find yourself in that 60 percent looking for new counsel.
Amy B. Alderfer is a partner at Cozen O'Connor where she focuses her practice in the areas of commercial litigation and products liability.
Melinda Lackey is senior legal counsel at Cell Medica in Houston, Texas. This article was prepared by Melinda Lackey in her personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the views of Cell Medica Limited.
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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
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