Is Your Legal Department Ready for the Next Big Crash?
In-house leaders should be assessing their legal departments regularly to find and fix inefficient spending and work habits while also implementing new tech solutions now—before it's too late.
July 10, 2019 at 12:27 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Maureen Harms, associate general counsel at 3M, has been playing out recession-related scenarios in her mind.
She's thought about headcount and being strategic about filling open positions. She's thought about deferring spending, leveraging new technology and reorganising the way in which work is handled. She's considered what the company might do with its offshore legal services centre during the next financial downturn.
"We'd look to optimise them more. What can we document, standardise and then train and shift to them?" she says. "We're trying to prepare ourselves by doing some of these things now."
Continual assessment of the legal department is the new reality for in-house leaders. Or at least it should be.
Cameron Findlay, senior vice-president, general counsel and secretary for Chicago-based Archer Daniels Midland, says an effective legal department should "take stock of everything it does and ask, in a clear-eyed and emotionless manner, whether each item of work creates or protects economic value".
He adds: "If work does not, or if the effort is disproportionate, the legal department should either stop doing that work or figure out a way to do it with less effort or cost."
But with the economy chugging along and memories of the last big crash fading a decade back in the rear view, some corporate counsel might not be quite as focused on keeping their legal departments lean, nimble and recession-ready.
Consider a recent survey from advisory firm Russell Reynolds Associates, which found that 97% of general counsel respondents believed that another recession was looming on the horizon, yet a mere 14% thought they were "well prepared".
|'Opportunities lie outside the rates'
Now is the time to get ready for the next downturn. And what worked back in 2007 and 2008 might not work again.
"During the last recession, a big focus for law departments was on outside counsel spending," says Lauren Chung, managing director of HBR Consulting in New York. "Legal departments were primarily pushing their outside firms to hold or reduce rates. It was a major strategy."
The tactic worked for a while. But those rates have rebounded, which likely means that law department leaders are going to have to be more thoughtful and take a bigger-picture view when thinking about managing costs, according to Chung.
"Opportunities lie outside the rates. Law departments need to think about how legal service delivery is provided much more holistically," she says. "Before even considering rate negotiations, make sure you're sourcing the right work to the right types of firms."
Chung also advises that in-house leaders assess whether their senior lawyers are spending too much time on routine, lower-level tasks, which could be outsourced.
Bridget Deiters, London-based managing director for InCloudCounsel, an alternative legal services provider, argues that it's best to keep a lean in-house staff while "scaling your ability to process legal work by using outside providers", which she says are easier to "walk away from".
"That's what we think will be helpful in terms of making sure your legal department is ready for the big recession," she says. "It's not that we're saying fire everyone… I don't think it's a matter of downsizing right now at all. It's a matter of being conscious about growth."
Law departments are also turning to technology to cut costs and be more efficient. But in-house leaders who have been eyeing tech solutions need to act now, warns Harms.
"When you're in a recession, it's too late to start looking at how you're going to add technology," she says. "It's really tough to get the financial commitment from the company to install something like [artificial intelligence] if you don't already have it in place."
|Smart outside, smart inside
Recession planning should be seen as a chance to think critically about how resources are being used.
Findlay, the GC at Archer Daniels Midland, says "the most important thing a legal department can do to protect itself in the event of a recession is to ensure that everything it does is directly relevant to what its business cares about – creating value or protecting the company from significant legal risks".
He continues: "If the department is lean and efficient, it is less likely to be asked to make sacrifices at a time of cost-cutting."
It all comes back to taking stock of the legal department on a regular basis. Chung of HBR Consulting recommends that assessments be done at least annually, though she says some departments do it quarterly or biannually.
"Doing it every five years is not going to give you a fresh perspective," she notes.
When assessing the efficiency of 3M's legal department, Harms considers feedback from clients through discussions and end-of-the-year surveys. She also looks at metrics for people per sales dollars, though she says that's "not perfect for tracking efficiency". And, of course, she considers outside counsel spending.
"We're looking at what we can do. Maybe that means changing the strategy. Maybe that means taking on more risk," she says. "Maybe that means looking for contingency arrangements where there is more in it for them and if they're willing to do that, you know there's enough in it for us that we should go forward. It's looking at outside counsel as partners and working together to try to reduce outside spend in a way that is more meaningful and more sustainable."
Harms adds that she knows her legal department is on the right track when she sees an intercorrelation between inside and outside spending: when one goes up, the other should go down.
"To have smart outside, you need the smart people on the inside directing it," she says.
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 AllNew Frontiers: Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Launches in Cairo and Abu Dhabi
4 minute readTravers Gives Holiday Bonus, Ropes & Gray Reduces Time Off Allowance
1 minute readJapan’s Mori Hamada Joins Funder LCM for $150M Credit Suisse Bonds Claim
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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