In-housers face struggle for specialist talent
Red tape and healthy commercial markets are driving major companies to stock up their legal teams, according to new Legal Week research, with general counsel increasingly hunting for specialist lawyers to beef up their capabilities.
January 31, 2007 at 05:32 AM
4 minute read
Red tape and healthy commercial markets are driving major companies to stock up their legal teams, according to new research, with general counsel increasingly hunting for specialist lawyers to beef up their capabilities.
Fifty-six percent of respondents to this month's The Verdict survey said that they expected to broaden their internal legal teams in the next year, while 42% said that their teams would stay the same size. The Legal Week survey, conducted with Davies Arnold Cooper, found only 2% of corporate counsel foresee their team getting smaller.
However, finding the right lawyers to bolster an in-house team is not getting any easier, particularly for general counsel hunting for talent in high-demand specialist areas.
More than half of respondents said they currently found it more difficult to hire specialist lawyers than general lawyers, including 25% who said it was "a lot more difficult".
One senior in-house lawyer at an international media group said that the current escalation of private practice salaries is making it tough to recruit experienced lawyers.
He commented: "Attracting good quality lawyers, particularly at a higher level, is becoming difficult due to the substantial cut in salary that they would have to take."
Vivienne King, head of legal at The Crown Estate, argued that it takes a particular career focus to want to go in-house. She said: "There's more money in private practice and any lawyer, whether specialist or generalist, has to have a business mindset to want to go in-house."
Some legal chiefs concede that the tight labour market for lawyers is making it hard to attract the small pool of commercially-minded lawyers who typically thrive in-house.
Elliot Laurie, a senior in-house lawyer at heavy building material company Hanson, said: "Lawyers who are in private practice do not necessarily have the right breadth of expertise. Most private practice lawyers tend to specialise at an earlier stage in their career, so it is difficult to find appropriate lawyers for the more general in-house role."
Canary Wharf group legal counsel Martin Potter told Legal Week: "We've recently been trying to recruit a specialist lawyer and have found it much more difficult than in August last year. It is par for the course – people are trying to keep hold of specialists in anticipation of a big run on legal services."
However, blue chips firms with strong brands currently still have access to a considerable pool of talented lawyers who have decided to leave private practice. Likewise, such companies are well able to build up considerable in-house specialist skills.
One respondent said: "In-house used to be for generalists but an increasing amount of specialists are seeing it as a sensible move – especially in big organisations where the legal function is as large and complex as a small law firm and there are defined roles for specialists."
Asked what areas in which they were considering expanding their teams, commercial/contracts was by far the most popular, cited by 75% of all respondents as a key growth area.
Other disciplines which rated highly as areas for expansion were intellectual property (26%), corporate (22%) and employment (19%). Only 5% cited property as a potential growth area.
Regardless of the size of their teams, general counsel remain determined to keep as much of their work in-house as possible. Fifty-six percent of respondents said that they estimate that less than 20% of their workload will be sent to outside counsel in the next year. Twenty percent said that they would send out a significant proportion (up to 40% of their work) and 13% said they would outsource over half of their work. Only one in 10 said they would send out over 60% of their workload externally.
Likewise, the growth in regulation and the impact of set-piece governance legislation like the forthcoming Companies Bill are expected to drive the growth of in-house teams in the coming years.
One respondent summed up the situation: "Regulation will drive the expansion of in-house recruitment in the short term."
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 All'Send These Guys Back to the US': Lawyers on Google's EU Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
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