In-house counsel have a hard time dealing with their work backlog. Here's a system that focuses on what matters
By Richard Stock
I RECENTLY CONDUCTED a survey of 10 legal departments to find out how their lawyers dealt with work backlogs. Not surprisingly, when it comes to client-driven strategic work, departments always made their deadlines, regardless of any backlog. They burned the midnight oil, postponed other work and called in external counsel when needed — but they were never late.
By contrast, the delays for non-strategic work averaged three days. That, however, was just the average. A little more probing reveals that some individual lawyers were chronically 10 days backlogged.
It is possible to isolate four factors that make legal departments more effective than others. The first is that they are more proactive and less reactive. More than half of in-house counsel operate as if they are captive law firms, responsive to client demands. They have no system to triage service requirements. In fact, they rarely say no. There are no guidelines in place for business units to know when to call legal. The result is an ever-expanding amount of work, much of it of little value.
By contrast, a “proactive” legal department meets quarterly and annually with each business unit to quantify and qualify the demand for legal services from both internal and external counsel. They make sure this work aligns with corporate priorities whenever possible. They also work to reduce the dependency that business units have on the legal department. Some even set formal targets to reduce the demand to make room for value-added work.
The second factor that makes a department more effective is a sense of urgency. Time is the most precious resource for a legal department, but fewer than one in 20 legal departments have explicit targets for turnaround applied to different types of work. Without solid work-intake and allocation protocols, clients expect instant turnaround and blame the legal department for holding things up. Routine work lends itself to formal turnaround standards: 24 to 48 hours. More complex work lends itself to legal project management with phases, tasks, planning assumptions and resource allocation. But too few in-house counsel have any training in this sort of project management.
Sometimes corporate culture is what precludes a sense of urgency. Legal departments must often consult broadly, but business units balk at being accountable for decisions about matters. In-house counsel, furthermore, seldom have the lead in large, multi-disciplinary projects. Sales, marketing, engineering or procurement departments are significant clients. Yet they are often much less analytical and clear than they should be in defining the scope of their legal requirements. Effective legal departments do not go with the flow of work. Instead, they work with their clients to define both the scope and schedule of work.
The third factor essential for effectiveness is leadership in the legal department at both the general counsel and associate general counsel levels. That requires a focus at the top. It has been only in the past four years that we have begun to see significant interest in performance indicators, targets and scorecards for legal departments.
The GC of one global petrochemical company with more than 200 lawyers explained that it has only been in the past two years that young lawyers have been taught to systematically question whether the work they are doing should be done by themselves, others in the legal department, by the clients or not at all.
At the same time, GCs and AGCs are actively monitoring the practice mix of each of their lawyers. Surveys still show that more than 35 per cent of their time is spent on matters that average two hours; 40 per cent on matters that average 15 hours; and only 25 per cent on matters requiring more than 25 hours. It is difficult to add value with this kind of high-volume practice for lawyers with more than 10 years experience.
The last factor essential for effectiveness is interesting work. General counsel have been struggling for years with how to put challenging work in front of their lawyers. The challenge goes beyond living with a 50-hour week. It extends to work that matters to the company strategically, work that is intellectually stimulating, and work that will be recognized beyond the legal department. Interviews reveal that in-house counsel are “punching below their weight” three days out of five.
In summary, effective legal departments are proactive, they have a sense of urgency, strong leadership and search out interesting work. That requires focus, making choices and acting on them.
Richard G. Stock, MA, FCIS, CMC, is a partner with Catalyst Consulting, the CCCA's Preferred Provider for Legal Department Consulting. He can be reached at (416) 367-4447 or [email protected].
By Richard Stock
I RECENTLY CONDUCTED a survey of 10 legal departments to find out how their lawyers dealt with work backlogs. Not surprisingly, when it comes to client-driven strategic work, departments always made their deadlines, regardless of any backlog. They burned the midnight oil, postponed other work and called in external counsel when needed — but they were never late.
By contrast, the delays for non-strategic work averaged three days. That, however, was just the average. A little more probing reveals that some individual lawyers were chronically 10 days backlogged.
It is possible to isolate four factors that make legal departments more effective than others. The first is that they are more proactive and less reactive. More than half of in-house counsel operate as if they are captive law firms, responsive to client demands. They have no system to triage service requirements. In fact, they rarely say no. There are no guidelines in place for business units to know when to call legal. The result is an ever-expanding amount of work, much of it of little value.
By contrast, a “proactive” legal department meets quarterly and annually with each business unit to quantify and qualify the demand for legal services from both internal and external counsel. They make sure this work aligns with corporate priorities whenever possible. They also work to reduce the dependency that business units have on the legal department. Some even set formal targets to reduce the demand to make room for value-added work.
The second factor that makes a department more effective is a sense of urgency. Time is the most precious resource for a legal department, but fewer than one in 20 legal departments have explicit targets for turnaround applied to different types of work. Without solid work-intake and allocation protocols, clients expect instant turnaround and blame the legal department for holding things up. Routine work lends itself to formal turnaround standards: 24 to 48 hours. More complex work lends itself to legal project management with phases, tasks, planning assumptions and resource allocation. But too few in-house counsel have any training in this sort of project management.
Sometimes corporate culture is what precludes a sense of urgency. Legal departments must often consult broadly, but business units balk at being accountable for decisions about matters. In-house counsel, furthermore, seldom have the lead in large, multi-disciplinary projects. Sales, marketing, engineering or procurement departments are significant clients. Yet they are often much less analytical and clear than they should be in defining the scope of their legal requirements. Effective legal departments do not go with the flow of work. Instead, they work with their clients to define both the scope and schedule of work.
The third factor essential for effectiveness is leadership in the legal department at both the general counsel and associate general counsel levels. That requires a focus at the top. It has been only in the past four years that we have begun to see significant interest in performance indicators, targets and scorecards for legal departments.
The GC of one global petrochemical company with more than 200 lawyers explained that it has only been in the past two years that young lawyers have been taught to systematically question whether the work they are doing should be done by themselves, others in the legal department, by the clients or not at all.
At the same time, GCs and AGCs are actively monitoring the practice mix of each of their lawyers. Surveys still show that more than 35 per cent of their time is spent on matters that average two hours; 40 per cent on matters that average 15 hours; and only 25 per cent on matters requiring more than 25 hours. It is difficult to add value with this kind of high-volume practice for lawyers with more than 10 years experience.
The last factor essential for effectiveness is interesting work. General counsel have been struggling for years with how to put challenging work in front of their lawyers. The challenge goes beyond living with a 50-hour week. It extends to work that matters to the company strategically, work that is intellectually stimulating, and work that will be recognized beyond the legal department. Interviews reveal that in-house counsel are “punching below their weight” three days out of five.
In summary, effective legal departments are proactive, they have a sense of urgency, strong leadership and search out interesting work. That requires focus, making choices and acting on them.
Richard G. Stock, MA, FCIS, CMC, is a partner with Catalyst Consulting, the CCCA's Preferred Provider for Legal Department Consulting. He can be reached at (416) 367-4447 or [email protected].
