How Brexit and the Pandemic Have Complicated Life for In-House Recruitment in Europe
Jerry Temko and Lisa Owens, managing directors of Major, Lindsey & Africa and members of the recruiter's EMEA in-house counsel practice, spoke recently with Law.com International about the challenges legal departments in Europe are facing from these two trends.
February 01, 2023 at 02:44 PM
8 minute read
International - United KingdomThe original version of this story was published on Law.com International
Employers of legal talent throughout Europe have seen their recruitment and retention efforts buffeted over the past three years by two strong forces: the exit of the U.K. from the European Union, and the tilt toward remote working brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Jerry Temko and Lisa Owens, managing directors of Major, Lindsey & Africa and members of the recruiter's EMEA in-house counsel practice, spoke recently with Law.com International about the challenges legal departments in Europe are facing from these two trends.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Q. You both work frequently with life sciences companies. Why has Brexit been a particular challenge for these companies in their recruitment of in-house legal talent in Europe?
Temko: The major hubs of life sciences companies are in the U.K. and Switzerland, and there has often been a shuttle of people between the two countries. That is obviously challenged now, thanks to Brexit, and due to changes in the Swiss cantonal system, which restricts the number of non-Swiss nationals that can be hired in senior roles.
So, there isn't quite the fluidity or flexibility that there once was, and companies are having to become more creative in terms of tapping into top talent.
At some point, though, the question of a longer-term commitment will come up. And we are also seeing an increasing trend toward remote working, especially for certain kinds of legal roles. And that is adding to the complexity.
Q. Which in-house legal roles lend themselves to remote working, and which require more presence in the office?
Temko: It depends a lot on the risk profile of the company. If you are a lawyer in the privacy sphere, you pretty much can set out training, policies, monitoring, and delivery of remote advice more readily than you might in a role that requires more rapport and leading face-to-face. For example, the nature of a compliance officer's role really requires someone to spend the time getting to know the business and the people and developing "followship."
Transactional lawyering, which puts more of an emphasis on drafting and negotiation, can be done through SharePoint and by other tools that enable one to get the job done.
Q. How have companies' attitudes changed toward letting their in-house legal staff work remotely?
Owens: The trend toward people working remotely is increasing, but generally within the country in which they're employed. At the beginning of the pandemic, there was an assumption that if remote working continued, you could go and sit on a beach and do your job from anywhere. And that hasn't translated into reality. There's not much appetite to hire someone for a role in Switzerland who wants to sit in their holiday home in Spain.
I think it's still evolving. I don't think it's a settled picture yet.
Q. What solutions do you suggest to your clients who want to build a cross-border team within these constraints?
Temko: In cases that Lisa and I have worked on, we tried to find areas where companies could set up a temporary secondment, within a three-to-six-month period where this was allowed by local law. That's one way to promote cross-pollination of ideas and team building within a given department.
Another area is contracting a permanent hire through a local affiliate, provided that this individual was not identified as a key decision-maker, which might cause issues from a tax and a permanent establishment perspective.
And then, in terms of further creativity, it is worth trying to enhance managing a remote, and geographically dispersed team through frequent video conferences, offsites, or other ways to keep the linkage working.
Q: What has been the response of companies you work with?
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 AllTrump Win Ignites Global Legal Market: Lawyers Prepare for High Demand and Uncertainty
GC Who Helped Fanatics Pull Off Growth Tear Joins Acquisitive Provider of Live Event Logistics
NFL Deputy GC Exits, Adding to Intrigue Over League's GC Search
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Disease-Causing Bacteria': Colgate and Tom’s of Maine Face Toothpaste Class Action
- 2Trump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
- 3Armstrong Teasdale's London Creditors Face Big Losses
- 4Texas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
- 5Quinn Emanuel Has Thrived in China. Will Trump Help Boost Its Fortunes?
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