Efficient Workflow with External Counsel Through Integration Events
For many in-house legal departments, juggling multiple matters with various external counsel is part of the office’s day-to-day chaos. Between ill-timed…
June 09, 2017 at 09:59 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
For many in-house legal departments, juggling multiple matters with various external counsel is part of the office's day-to-day chaos. Between ill-timed phone calls with unbriefed staff to arranging agendas and meetings, the challenges these relationships can present are varied and numerous. But by creating flow between the legal department and its suppliers, both groups will have more predictable interactions, be adequately prepared for meetings, and save time and money throughout the life of any case or matter.
Once the tools and principles of Operational Excellence have been taught and are understood by the corporate legal department team members, they can design robust binary connections with law firms they deal with on an ongoing basis or even design a value stream just for the duration of a single matter that may be used for only for a matter of weeks or months. The design should dictate exactly when the connections between them will take place, establishing cadence and predictability for the team using workflow cycles, and defining how interactions will be conducted using integration event templates.
For example, for an ongoing matter that will require a high volume of interaction, the team should set twice daily workflow cycles during which everyone – internally and externally – will connect. This may sound like a status meeting, but it is not. Instead, it is a session for connecting so team members can pass along the information required to keep the case moving forward. What results is that the legal department will no longer have to call or email external counsel with a request to talk when work is completed because both groups will work to a steady cadence during which they deal with whatever work has been completed at each interaction.
To achieve this result, this workflow cycle should be set up as an integration event. This means there is standard work for the format of requests and for the order of moving through topics or issues, which will help ensure the session does not become a status meeting or discussion. For example, one group gathers its team and external counsel at 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. daily. Prior to these workflow cycles, all questions or queries are entered into a shared spreadsheet in a controlled and predefined format. As the team moves through the list, if any one item takes (or will take) more than three minutes to discuss, it is taken back by the appropriate person to be addressed outside of the meeting. The answer will then be posted and discussed prior to the next event at 4 p.m., or the following day, if necessary.
In this environment, follow-up phone calls or emails are not required; people just wait for the next workflow cycle. By designing how information will flow and knowledge will be captured between an in-house legal department and external counsel, much of the common chaos that arises from interactions between these two groups will be eliminated. Instead, companies will see predictable lead times, have more productive interactions with their suppliers, and realize quicker responses and savings.
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 AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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