Economic Woes Alone Won't Help Corporate Legal Sell Innovation
Corporate legal departments have often struggled to create a compelling investment story around innovation, but constructing a more urgent narrative could help them gain employee buy-in.
June 03, 2020 at 03:43 PM
4 minute read
Attempts to drive innovation inside of corporate legal departments have often been hampered by an underlying resistance to change among key stakeholders. Still, the financial hardships many companies are facing due to a COVID-19 economy present a compelling argument to implement tech and other innovative procedures that can help grow efficiencies and defray costs—but will it be effective?
The answer may depend largely on the legal department in question. David Holme, founder and CEO at the legal technology provider Exigent Group, pointed out that many in-house legal teams failed to seize on the opportunity presented by the financial crisis of 2008 to argue for more corporate investment in data-driven practices in technologies. Others may have tried, but failed to create a compelling enough investment story to warrant interest from decision-makers.
"Some of it is genuinely an inability to interact with the modern boardroom. And the modern boardroom requires you to be inventive, excited, creative around what the returns are not telling people that there might be less downside but only if the following caveats apply," Holme said.
Indeed, the way that a change or new initiative is positioned with a legal department or corporation may continue to matter a great deal, whether in the boardroom or at the employee level. Bobbi Basile, managing director in the legal transformation and innovation practice at HBR Consulting, believes that law department innovation initiatives can be more effective in a post-pandemic world, just so long as the word "innovation" isn't bandied about too heavily.
Instead, she pitched that the introduction of tools such as Microsoft Teams be centered around an employee need in the vein of long-distance working. "Even if in the back of our heads pre-pandemic we would have called this an innovation initiative, we're innovating without the title. And in some ways without the shadow side of that innovation title, which in some ways invokes the resistance to change," Basile said.
That resistance, even among minute segments of employees, can be deadly to a burgeoning innovation endeavor. During a webinar held last month by the Corporate Legal Operations Consortium, panelist Jae Um noted that an uneven level of investment among employees can hamper the overall effectiveness of a new initiative.
"When you have pockets of excellence and only pockets of excellence, that gets more intense over time because of some of the hardships, the emotional labor that goes into functioning with a different mindset or a different approach than everyone else in your ecosystem," Um, who is also director of pricing strategy at Baker McKenzie, said.
Creating a more ubiquitous level of investment among employees post-COVID-19 may require legal operations professionals to consider not only the language of their pitch but the context as well. For example, many organizations might be tempted to structure innovation-based initiatives around cost-cutting.
But Frank Gillman, a principal at Vertex Advisors Group, suggested that it may ultimately be more constructive to frame such efforts in the context of generating new revenue rather than eliminating budget lines. "That is not going to stimulate your business. If anything, it's going to potentially negatively affect your culture, because you are going to be asking more people to do more with less sometimes," Gillman said.
However the message is delivered, legal's ability to drive change post-COVID-19 may ultimately be limited to its own department. Holme at Exigent Group argued that in-house teams are ultimately too siloed from the rest of an organization to chart the course for innovation.
"Things like finance and fintech will drive those changes and legal will be swept along. I don't think legal will drive anything," Holme said.
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 AllThe Reason a GC Abruptly Departs May Not Be What You Think
Election Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readLatham, Kirkland Alums Land the Top GC Posts—Here's What It Means for Business Generation
10 minute readAI Gives Legal Departments New Leverage to Demand Speed, Efficiency From Law Firms
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
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