{"id":15,"date":"2005-11-19T10:34:20","date_gmt":"2005-11-19T14:34:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/amytest\/2005\/11\/19\/chief-legal-officers-speak\/"},"modified":"2012-05-07T15:19:06","modified_gmt":"2012-05-07T19:19:06","slug":"chief-legal-officers-speak","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/2005\/11\/19\/chief-legal-officers-speak\/","title":{"rendered":"Chief Legal Officers Speak"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

1. “I hire lawyers not firms…”
\n2. “Firms who churn their associates are very frustrating to us…”
\n3. “Word of mouth” is most reliable referral source…
\n4. “Cold calling” and “sending brochures” doesn’t work
\n5. “Cross marketing from a trusted partner can work…”
\n6. “Rates aren’t as important as efficiency”
\n7. “No surprises!”
\n8. ” Focus on what I need to succeed”
\n9. “Buy me lunch”
\n10. “Don’t talk to my boss”<\/p>\n

These are the top 10 sound bites (according to me) from CLOs Speak: Obtaining and Creating the Ideal Client Relationship<\/a>,
\nthe Legal Marketing Association – New England Chapter’s pre-conference
\nevent co-sponsored by the Association of Corporate Counsel, November 17
\nin Boston. The panel, moderated by Susan Hackett, the ACC’s senior vp
\nand general counsel, included Barry Nagler (Hasbro), Kellye L. Walker
\n(BJ’s Wholesale Club), and Gant Redmon (Arbor Networks) representing
\nthe array of in-house law departments from small to large. As moderator
\nHackett pointed out, the in-house legal department is subject to myth \u2014
\nthey are not all huge megalithic internal law firms, they are often
\none-person shops.<\/p>\n

From those attendees I talked to this was the standout event of the
\nconference. If you missed it, here are my notes. PLEASE NOTE: This is not a word-for-word transcript… but an accurate portrayal of the discussion,
\noccasionally paraphrased and shortened\/truncated…<\/span><\/p>\n

Meet the panelists<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler (Hasbro): We use outside counsel as a cost minimization
\nstrategy… we have a large in-house department. Three criteria to keep
\nwork in-house: 1) is it core to strategic success of Hasbro? 2) is it
\nan area of law where we have substantial repeat business?… one-offs
\ngo out. 3) what’s fun? We keep the entertainment law and send out the
\nERISA.<\/p>\n

Walker (BJs): We have a small in-house department \u2014 5 lawyers. We
\nhandle all routine work, contracts with vendors in house. We farm out
\nlarge litigation, anything novel, anything highly regulated, high
\nvolume, and anything very complex (real estate).<\/p>\n

Redmon (Arbor Networks): If it has to do with revenue, I handle it. I
\nkeep transactional stuff. I farm out trademark, patents, and HR.<\/p>\n

On the topic of convergence<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler: Litigation is not an area where we narrow down the number of
\nfirms. Engagement of a new law firm is a time intensive process. We are
\nlooking for cost opportunities. Working with a firm on a repeat bases
\ncreates open-mindedness toward alternative billing arrangements once we
\nare known entities. The more your lawyers understand you, the better
\nthey can add value.<\/p>\n

Redmon: I’m not trying to get down to a single firm. I hire
\nindividuals. I actually have two firms serving me for patents, I use
\none for corporate, two for patents, one for trademarks, one for HR and
\none for Internet, for a total of 6 outside firms.<\/p>\n

Walker: We use 35 to 40 firms. Many are for real estate. We’re more
\nanti-convergence. I inherited entrenched firms but then find
\nopportunities for new matters to try new firms based on relationships.<\/p>\n

Moderator Hackett put the panel into a national perspective by offering
\nsome statistics on convergence from the ACC Serengeti Survey<\/a>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Number of law firms used by a medium in-house law department
\n2003 = 25 firms
\n2004 = 10 firms
\n2005 = 8 firms<\/p>\n

Smaller in-house dept. = 5 firms
\nMedium in-house dept. = 10 firms
\nLarge in-house dept. = 15 firms
\nXXX-large dept. = 100s<\/p>\n

On how firms make the list<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Walker: I hire lawyers not firms… what I’m looking for in a firm is
\nhow the relationship partner leverages their pool of talent, and what’s
\ncoming along in the pipeline. I don’t always want to see the senior
\npartner. I want to see how they take care of their people, and I want a
\nteam approach where anyone can answer my question. Of course diversity
\nis very important to me for obvious reasons. I want to see that they
\nare providing opportunity, developing the pipeline. And I want to see
\ndiversity not just on the RFP, but who is billing on my job.<\/p>\n

Nagler: Absolutely, it’s all about the lawyer. Law firms who churn
\ntheir associates are very frustrating to us — we train them and get
\nthe to a comfortable level where they are working at a good quality and value level, and
\nthen they are gone. Is a marquee firm brand insurance for the board?
\nThe board has .01% visibility on what goes on in the legal department.
\nThey are more interested in the budget. Bet the store litigation, maybe
\nthen name brand counts.<\/p>\n

Redmon: New hires come from a general counsel group and an e-mail
\nlist I belong to. It’s word of mouth. Buy us lunch, not downtown but on
\n128. Speak to our in-house general counsel group. Do a ‘try and buy” —
\nI asked someone do it for me for free and I might hire you.<\/p>\n

Walker: We hire on “word of mouth,” former colleagues and personal
\nrelationships. We’ll also ask lawyers that don’t handle a specific area
\nof work to see how they can help us… it’s a way to test and build
\ntrust. Cold calling is out… so is sending brochures.<\/p>\n

Cross marketing from a trusted current attorney?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler: It works one out of every 15 times. The other panelists said they depend on it.<\/p>\n

How does that panel compare to the national numbers? ACC’s survey results on
\nwhat criteria in-house counsel uses to select outside counsel:<\/p>\n

1. Lawyer expertise
\n2. Lawyer reputation
\n3. Past relationships\/successes
\n4. Firm’s noted expertise
\n5. Firm’s reputation<\/p>\n

Then what about cost?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler: Rates aren’t as important as efficiency. You assume the quality
\npiece… so if there are 40 qualified candidates, I can choose the most
\ncost effective. We are billed hourly, but looking at getting discounts
\nand ways to share risk and reward. The most important thing — no
\nsurprises! Need to put yourself in your client’s shoes. If you see
\ncosts going up, say something.. get proactive. It’s very important. We
\nall know stuff happens, but ‘pick up the phone.’<\/p>\n

Redmon: If I get a big bill, I tell them I can pay this, but it will be
\nthe last one I can pay… I asked them what did they think was fair… we
\nworked it out… I prefer it when you call me and tell me how many
\nhours you ate.<\/p>\n

Walker: I try to set expectations and manage the relationship. We are billed hourly.<\/p>\n

Newsletters?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Redmon: I love ’em! I read them. Sometimes I read them and say, “Oh,
\ncrap!” is this something I should pay attention to. I read both kinds
\n(e-mail and paper)… I read newsletters from 4 firms just on HR.<\/p>\n

Walker: I get 1 and a half a day. The subject line is the most
\nimportant thing. If there is a reason for me to read it, I will open
\nit. Rather than mass mailings, a personal e-mail to a specific client
\nwith a note — “Kellye, look at #2” — that has worked.<\/p>\n

Nagler: I also get 1 to 2 a day. I am appreciative… I get 8
\nnewsletters just on patents. However, if you’re going to do it be
\ncontemporaneous and topical… you have to be out front and on top of
\nthe issues…<\/p>\n

Diversity<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler: The only brochures I read are from minority-owned or
\nwoman-owned firms as we are looking to hire — not fire– based on
\ndiversity.<\/p>\n

Kellye: I want to see a true commitment to diversity and the pipeline.
\nIn a convergence situation, yes, diversity would play a role in which
\nfirms I keep and which firms I fire.<\/p>\n

Closing comments<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Nagler: Firms should focus on “what does general counsel need to
\nsucceed?’ Having in-house practitioners in your firm definitely helps.<\/p>\n

Walker: Marketing needs to be customized. Also, don’t say what you aren’t. Don’t promise what you can’t deliver.<\/p>\n

Redmon: Blackberry, good. If your client hires a new GC, get on a plane
\nthat day and take them out to dinner that night. Help me get a job.
\nMake me look good. And, don’t talk to my boss.<\/p>\n

See related post: What Drives Corporate Counsel in Their Relationship with Outside Counsel<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. “I hire lawyers not firms…” 2. “Firms who churn their associates are very frustrating to us…” 3. “Word of mouth” is most reliable referral source… 4. “Cold calling” and “sending brochures” doesn’t work 5. “Cross marketing from a trusted …<\/p>\n

Chief Legal Officers Speak<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":89,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[192],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law-firm-marketing"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/89"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":806,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15\/revisions\/806"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/amy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}