Biglaw, In-House Counsel

In-House's Long Kiss Goodbye

Do in-house lawyers have more leeway to make mistakes than their Biglaw peers -- and if so, is this a good thing?

By  
on

It is no secret the world of Biglaw can be ruthless. The hours are long, the path to the top is narrow, and a fall from grace can happen on a whim.

A dear Biglaw friend of mine recently informed me he had been summarily terminated from his job for making a mistake on a client’s account and losing their and his firm’s trust.

He was a first-time offender, so surely, I thought, his mistake must have been severe. A disclosure of trade secrets? A breach of privilege? A salacious affair with the client’s spouse?

Hardly.

Rather, my friend had timely filed a draft version of his client’s response rather than the final version the client approved. Never mind that there were only cosmetic differences between the two versions, in the client’s mind, the damage was done. And after reporting this “grave” offense to his firm, he was dismissed.

Was my friend’s error serious?

Sure, as attorneys we are trained to catch errors like his before they go out the door. But even though we like to think otherwise, we are human after all, and mistakes do occur.

Sponsored

Did my friend’s error merit immediate termination?

I contend that is debatable. While such mistakes may rise to the level of termination in the Biglaw world, I can bet that in most in-house operations, my friend would still have his job.

Whether it is due to working with, or sometimes reporting to, non-legal colleagues, I have noticed my in-house colleagues and I may get a bit more slack on a purely legal error than our Biglaw counterparts. Often our explanation of said error is aided in our ability to overstate the complexity of the matter to a non-attorney, but even when that is not the case, we tend to get more deference than we otherwise should.

And even if we make a grievous and seemingly unforgivable error, I have seen and heard of in-house being reassigned to less prominent roles or departments rather than being outright terminated.

In fact, I know of one such attorney who has been reassigned to several different departments in an effort to “find an area that better accommodates his unique skill set.”

Sponsored

He first started in contract negotiation, before it became apparent the basic elements of a contract escaped him. He was then moved to a risk mitigation role, which required him review patient safety reports to identify potential tortious claims, until his inability to spot a tort became a liability in and of itself. His final stop was the credentialing department, which requires little more of him than to verify that a given physician or nurse actually possesses the credentials they claim to have.

In my humble opinion, after the second or third unsuccessful attempt at finding an area more suitable to an in-house lawyer’s skill set, it may be time to recognize a lost cause when you see one and start fresh with a new hire. Clearly Biglaw gets it right in this regard.

But as someone who hopes my present employer never has to “find an area more accommodating of my skill set,” I would be lying if I said I was not thankful for the culture of second chances. This flexibility has allowed me to approve proposals that may make good business sense, even though legally I would rather be more risk-averse.

And besides, if I ever miscalculate and green-light something I should have declined, I know I have zero-tolerance Biglaw waiting in the wings to help.

Stephen R. Williams is in-house counsel with a multi-facility hospital network in the Midwest. His column focuses on a little talked about area of the in-house life, management. You can reach Stephen at stephenwilliamsjd@gmail.com.

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , ,