Legal Reconstruction
Keeping counsel engaged and the legal department running efficiently is key in the current climate.
October 31, 2009 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
The Great Recession has caused many in-house legal departments to either shrink or, at best, remain the same size. The workload, however, has neither contracted nor remained stable. For many in-house departments, it has increased. Requesting additional resources has not been a realistic option.
The only viable alternative is to redeploy the legal resources in a manner that both reduces costs and motivates the legal team. In any economic climate (but especially before the recovery gets underway), retention of the best members of the legal department should be the goal.
To do so, you must create a challenging environment that keeps the legal team members engaged and involved while maintaining optimal performance and output.
So now is the perfect time for a critical analysis of how your department functions and how it relates to the overall business in which it operates.
Some key questions to ask:
- What kind of services do the in-house attorneys perform now? Are they aligned by business function, by type of legal services or by substantive areas of law? Do you have an accurate gauge of their level of satisfaction with their work? Do you have an accurate gauge of the business people's level of satisfaction with the attorneys' work product?
- Under what types of situations does the company find itself in litigation, either as a plaintiff or a defendant? What are the high-risk areas that lead to litigation as compared to the low-risk ones your company faces? Are there proactive ways in which the legal department can effectively act to minimize the high-risk situations that lend themselves to litigation? This requires a careful analysis of the nature of the company's litigation over the past 24 to 36 months.
- What services do your outside firms perform? This requires a review of legal bills during an 18- to 24-month period. One method of analysis is to categorize bills by business department or function and then by matter or type of matter. Look for trends to see if in-house staff can provide any of these services more effectively in a cost-efficient manner.
- Can routine, low-risk projects be reassigned from senior attorneys to junior attorneys or from attorneys to paralegals with proper supervision? Everyone in the department benefits from handling more challenging work that is suited to their respective abilities.
In constructing your department, attorneys can be linked to certain departments in the company or grouped together by certain types of legal services.
If the attorneys are linked to specific business functions, they will have the opportunity to gain a wide range of legal experience–from contract negotiation and drafting to litigation. Each attorney will theoretically become the legal department's expert in that area of the business to which he or she is assigned. In addition, the clients will benefit from interacting with the same attorneys on all of the issues affecting their function. This builds trust and confidence on both sides.
If the attorneys are organized by type of legal service, one group of lawyers should handle all of the contract negotiation and drafting for the company while another handles all of the company's litigation (and so on), regardless of which business function is involved. Each attorney develops, and thus becomes proficient in, a specific skill set.
Constructing a legal department is a work in progress that requires fine-tuning or even major overhauls from time to time. It is important to seek input from your department. This will add value to the outcome and guarantee that all members of the legal department embrace the goal of providing quality legal services to your client's business in a challenging and motivating environment.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1A Tech-Enabled Approach to Professional Development Is the Path Forward for Young Lawyers
- 2Trying to Reason With Hurricane Season: Mediating First Party Property Insurance Claims
- 3People in the News—Dec. 12, 2024—Pietragallo Gordon, Fox Rothschild
- 4Recent Decisions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District
- 5SoundCloud GC Takes Legal Reins of Condé Nast at Tumultuous Time
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