2020 Vision: A Look Into What In-House Counsel Need to Know for the New Year
Corporate Counsel spoke with multiple general counsel on what they think will impact the legal industry and their work in the upcoming year.
December 27, 2019 at 01:00 AM
11 minute read
To welcome 2020, Corporate Counsel spoke to several general counsel about what they say will impact their work and the legal industry. From outside counsel merging with other law firms to the use of artificial intelligence to keep down legal department costs, these are some of the trends in-house counsel may find themselves dealing with in the new year.
|Chas Rampenthal: General Counsel, LegalZoom.com Inc.
I believe that 2020 is going to be the first year we see some of the Big Four jumping into U.S. markets, like truly jumping into the U.S. legal market. It's a prediction. And those guys are typically a little bit risk-averse, so I could be jumping the gun a little.
But right now you have the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers in at least five different states talking about how they need to change the lawyer ownership rules to allow companies not owned by lawyers to start providing legal services here in the U.S. Look at Utah, where they're saying straight up if you've got a business model that you want to try in Utah you come tell us and we'll let you do it. They've talked to the LegalZooms about it. They've talked with other legal tech companies. And I can't imagine that they're not talking to the Big Four. And I think we're going to see those guys start to take a foothold in doing more U.S. work. Maybe it starts out federal or in one or two states, but after a while it's going to be hard to deny that it's here to stay.
I'm looking at this from a corporate legal department perspective. When you take a look at what the Axioms and the Elevates of the world are doing, they're doing that thing that law firms have been lax to do, which is put tons of legal operations technology and process refinement around the legal service that they're providing, which allows them to do it at such a great rate. But one of the places where they've been unable to go is providing legal services directly to a company.
The business model of law starves innovation because it starves people and money from the traditional law firm setting. These companies, they aren't starved for people or for money in the same way. It's a big if, and I have no inside knowledge, but I just get the idea that the U.S. is on the cusp of accepting some level of new business model when it comes to law. And in doing so I think it's going to unlock the potential of the corporate legal department first.
|D. Cameron Findlay: General Counsel, Archer Daniels Midland Co.
One trend that I see is an acceleration of the consolidation of big law firms into mega law firms. It seems like every week one of our firms calls me and tells me that they are going to announce a merger with another firm or are considering a merger with another firm and so I don't have any statistics to back this up, but it just seems like the wave of consolidation that occurred in the early 2000s just keeps accelerating even more.
In terms of the benefits to in-house counsel, for a big multinational company like ADM, I have to admit that it's nice to know that our principal firms can handle a broader array of matters in a broad array of geographies. It is kind of nice to call up, if you have an investigation that crosses national boundaries, and say, "Can you handle it without hiring other firms in other countries?" But there are disadvantages, too. I am assuming law firms are not doing this to make less money. So they must assume that they're going to get paid more by companies like ours. And unlike when companies merge to gain cost savings, you just don't see that as much with law firms.
It does raise the possibility of conflicts. I've had at least a couple questions that have arisen this year because law firms have merged with firms with which we've had disputes in the past. And so we've had to work through those sorts of things. And I think one of the reasons firms do it is to enable their colleagues to cross-sell with existing clients at the other firm. If you're not careful it can place a burden on in-house counsel as they're asked to meet with the Dubai office or the Shanghai office or the securities law practice of the firm that your firm just merged with.
We've been able to work out those situations, but they can be kind of awkward. And in some cases you're somewhat surprised that the firm didn't figure out the issue before they did the merger. But that's just a fact of life these days.
|James Chosy: Executive Vice President and General Counsel, U.S. Bancorp
Well-being is another topic that has been getting a lot of attention through the [American Bar Association] and the ABA Pledge. It's long past time since the profession paid attention to these dismal statistics.
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 AllGoogle Fails to Secure Long-Term Stay of Order Requiring It to Open App Store to Rivals
'Am I Spending Time in the Right Place?' SPX Technologies CLO Cherée Johnson on Living and Leading With Intent
9 minute read'It Was the Next Graduation': How an In-House Lawyer Became a Serial Entrepreneur
9 minute readRenee Meisel, GC of UnitedLex, on Understanding and Growing the Business
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Does My Company Really Need a Generative AI Policy?
- 2'This Is a Watershed Moment': Daniel's Law Overcomes Major Hurdle
- 3Navigating the Storm: Effective Crisis Management (Part 1)
- 4The Testamentary Exception Does Not Permit a Decedent to Impliedly Waive a Survivor’s Attorney-Client Privilege
- 5Trump 2.0 and Your Career
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