Examining the Disconnect Between In-House Leaders and Legal Teams
"Maybe we're not taking enough responsibility as leaders for the way that we structure our environment or ecosystem within the legal department," said Lori Lorenzo, managing director of Deloitte's chief legal officer program.
December 11, 2019 at 03:46 PM
4 minute read
General counsel and chief legal officers are struggling to engage with other lawyers in their legal departments—even those who are being groomed to take on in-house leadership roles, according to a new report from Deloitte.
"Maybe we're not taking enough responsibility as leaders for the way that we structure our environment or ecosystem within the legal department," said Lori Lorenzo, managing director of Deloitte's chief legal officer program.
The Big Four accounting firm's "Chief Legal Officers and Leadership" report is based, in part, on phone interviews with 101 pairs of predominantly U.S.-based in-house leaders and lawyers that those same leaders identified as rising stars in their corporate legal departments.
The report also examined data from a Zenger Folkman survey of more than 122,000 executives in telecom, hospitality, banking, health care and legal sectors. The survey found that the employee engagement disconnect is far more pronounced in legal departments than in any of the other included industries.
But E. Leigh Dance, a management consultant for global corporate legal departments and president of ELD International, was skeptical.
"I meet with general counsel mostly and I find that their connection to their team is really close and really interactive, by necessity," she said. "Generally, my impression has been that general counsel are very involved one to two levels down."
During the Deloitte interviews, GCs and CLOs were asked to identify their aspiring leaders' top three leadership strengths. In separate discussions, the aspiring leaders were asked to list their own leadership strengths.
Of all the participants, only one pair gave answers that were completely aligned, according to Lorenzo. The primary disconnect, she said, was that most aspiring leaders thought of themselves as strategic business partners, while the actual leaders said the lower-level lawyers still needed to develop that skill.
Lorenzo suggested that the misalignment could be a "matter of perspective and definition. From a CLO's more elevated view, the way a strategic business partnership looks is perhaps different than if you're the head of litigation or the GC of a division."
She noted that top lawyers said in the interviews that their proteges needed to build stronger relationships with leaders throughout the company before they could move into higher roles within the legal department.
Dance, the consultant, said general counsel often want to give the stars of their legal teams the opportunity to present to the board of directors or take on other leadership responsibilities that provide exposure to the C-suite.
"Many of them will try, but a lot of times the director will say, 'No, we want you, the GC,'" she added. "I see deputies to GCs often being overlooked when the top person leaves because they aren't perceived by the executive team as someone who could fill their shoes."
Another disconnect emerged when the interviewees were asked to list the top three areas that rising leaders should be focused on for development. Most of the lower-level lawyers identified technical savvy—a skill that wasn't on the radar of most CLOs.
"I want to do more research about why there is that disconnect," Lorenzo said. "But this is interesting, especially in what I call the age of legal transformation."
Leaders should be looking more closely at legal technology as a way to make legal departments more efficient but also as an opportunity to engage with their in-house lawyers by, for instance, giving them the chance to develop new skills or take on different responsibilities.
"CLOs have a wonderful opportunity right now," Lorenzo said. "We're in a place where we can be thinking differently about what it looks like to work in-house and the types of training we give our lawyers access to and the types of learning, development and practice experiences that we provide."
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 AllHow Amy Harris Leverages Diversity to Give UMB Financial a Competitive Edge
5 minute readDog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
- 2'A Mockery' of Deposition Rules: Walgreens Wins Sanctions Dispute Over Corporate Witness Allegedly Unfamiliar With Company
- 3Call for Nominations: TLI's Pennsylvania Legal Awards 2025
- 4Florida-Based Law Firms Start to Lag, As New York Takes a Bigger Piece of Deals
- 5Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
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