Is There a Right Way to Handle Table-Top Exercises? In-House Counsel Discuss
For in-house attorneys, table-top exercises offer a valuable tool to stress test a company's crisis response plans.The most effective way to…
September 28, 2017 at 09:14 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
For in-house attorneys, table-top exercises offer a valuable tool to stress test a company's crisis response plans.
The most effective way to conduct these exercises, however, was a point of contention for in-house counsel panelists at the second and final day of Corporate Counsel's 29th Annual General Counsel Conference in New York City.
One approach is to have all relevant people in the room to participate in the simulated crisis. Roughly twice a year, this is what News Corp. does, said panelist Genie Gavenchak, senior vice president and deputy general counsel at the media company. She said the company includes representatives from every department at headquarters that would be “potentially relevant in a situation,” which can include legal, HR, IT, finance, physical security and investor relations.
Not everyone knows what the given scenario is going to be, though, Gavenchak said. For instance, one scenario dealt with in a News Corp. table-top exercise was an explosion in the building. In that case, Gavenchak said she knew the scenario and so did a couple of others in security, but that's it.
The group worked through the response plan based on information that was fed to them throughout the exercise, she said, adding that these can run anywhere from an hour-and-a-half to half a day.
But for panelist Lynn McCreary, chief legal officer, chief compliance officer and corporate secretary at financial services provider Fiserv Inc., having everyone in a room for a table-top exercise doesn't mimic a realistic crisis situation. “We don't put people in the room because that's not how our world works,” she explained. “Nobody's ever in the room, nobody's ever in their office. People are usually in bed or on a boat or on a plane or somewhere you can't get them. So we want to simulate our reality.”
McCreary said she has done a table-top exercise in which everyone was meant to be in the room. But “the important people didn't show up,” according to McCreary, and she doesn't think “anybody really appreciated what we were doing.”
Gavenchak countered that while it's certainly important to “test being able to get people on a line, regardless of whether they're in India or in New York,” her experience has been that it's critical to have people in the room for table-top exercises.
“I understand completely that you have to prepare for people not being in the room,” she said. “But doing it in the room was really important for us and it actually, I think, made people much more nervous about not being prepared than if they had been, you know, just doing something else and were probably on their iPhones while we were having the conversation.”
Another panelist, Estela Valdez, vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary at supply chain management company Browz, said adding the element of uncertainty to a table-top exercise can be very revealing. Crisis management training is done annually at Browz, she said, and it's typically been a planned exercise at which all involved excel.
Last year, however, in an effort to upgrade in certain areas of the crisis plan, the decision was made to do an unannounced table-top exercise on a Saturday, Valdez said. “We failed miserably,” she explained. “And that exposed a host of weaknesses, not just in the crisis plan, but also in how people perceived the crisis, even though they have been trained, even though they have a copy of the plan.”
“When you come prepared because you know you're doing this, your mindset is a little different,” she said. “When you're caught by surprise, you would be surprised at how people manage and react to certain scenarios.”
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 AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal With GOP
Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
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