Inside Straight

Here’s something that never crossed my mind before I moved in-house, but it affects both the nature of in-house legal jobs and outside counsel’s relationship with in-house lawyers.

ParentCo has three business units: Gadgets, Widgets, and Muppets.

ParentCo will have a general counsel. Beyond that, however, ParentCo’s Law Department could be set up in one of two ways: (1) there may be three lawyers, one of whom is the chief counsel for Gadgets, one for Widgets, and one for Muppets, or (2) ParentCo may have a litigation counsel, an M&A counsel, and a contracts counsel, each of whom support all three business units.

In the first situation, the lawyers for the business units are generalists, helping their specific business units with whatever legal matters arise. In the second situation, the lawyers are substantive experts, helping all three business units with matters that fall into the lawyers’ areas of expertise. An in-house lawyer’s work environment turns in part on which structure the corporation’s law department uses, and outside counsel can better serve clients if counsel know how a law department is organized….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: The Structure Of Corporate Law Departments”

Pay attention to the game when you go to the ballpark.

* If anything, baseball stadiums need less netting to prevent fans from catching foul balls. And if your six-year-old gets clocked in the head by a batted ball, it should be a lesson to wealthy fans in great seats to pay attention to the goddamn national pastime instead talking on your cell phone or watching the scoreboard or doing whatever non-baseball activity that distracted you from the 2-2 count with the lefty up at bat. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Pop quiz, law professors. What do you do? [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Here’s a great review of Mark Hermann’s book: Inside Straight, that focuses on Hermann’s use of the commenters in his material. This will provide excellent research for my own project: How I Became An Affirmative Action Walrus. [Simple Justice]

* Don’t you love how the Michigan Law walk-out on Rob Portman is now actually a bit of a thing in the VEEPstakes? [Gawker]

* It’s been a while since I studied commercial paper, but I’m pretty sure SpongeBob Squarepants coins aren’t going to pass muster. [Dealbreaker]

* Ohio tries to further regulate fracking, but efforts to frustrate fracking f**k-ups feel futile. [Fulbright Fracking Blog]

* Morrison & Foerster elects new firm leadership. [Thomson Reuters News & Insight]

The case had been tried (to a judge, in a country outside the United States) in 2008.

The potential exposure was, let’s say, material.

One can’t exactly wait with bated breath for four years, but one can be keenly interested in a judge’s decision.

So one can be slightly disappointed when the “re” line of an email from outside counsel reads (in its entirety): “Statement of Decision in BigCo v. YourCo.”

Did we win? No news yet.

Surely the news is just a click away.

But one could be a tad frustrated to read the contents of the email message that followed . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Did We Win?”

My mother used to tell me: “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Recently, I had an experience with a UK law firm that could have used a conversation with Mom.

The law firm provided legal advice. Moments later, the firm violated its own advice. I’m sure this happens all the time, but rarely is the offense so vivid.

The substantive advice arises out of the new UK Bribery Act, which UK law firms have been trumpeting as a threat to every corporation everywhere (naturally compelling all corporations to hire outside UK counsel). In the words of one law firm’s brochure: “[I]f a Dutch company has a UK branch and engages in bribery in an Asian or African country, the Dutch company will be criminally liable in the UK under the new law and can be prosecuted in the UK.”

Does that get your attention? It sure got mine . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: The Shoemaker’s Children”

A guy walks into a conference room:

He’s wearing a custom-tailored suit and a shirt with monogrammed cuffs. His pocket square matches his silk tie. His cufflinks are diamond-studded, and the watch is a Rolex. How do you react?

Choice one: “My goodness, this fellow is stylish and obviously rich. He must be a great lawyer.”

Choice two: “All hat; no cowboy. If this clown were any good, he wouldn’t have to worry so much about appearances. Who does this fop think he’s fooling?”

I know that the conventional wisdom instructs people to dress for success; I’m only partly convinced . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Dress To Excess”

Here’s a management technique for you to consider for legal (or any) projects: Specify the person whose head will roll if the project is not accomplished.

If you’re on a committee of twelve people assigned to a project, the project won’t get done. No one will read the background materials before the committee meets; no one will think hard about how to move the project forward; no one will particularly care if the project concludes. If, months or years later, someone asks why the committee didn’t meet its goals, each member of the committee will point to the others and say, “It wasn’t my responsibility to do anything. We had a committee, and I figured the other guys would do it.”

To avoid this problem, identify the single individual who is responsible for accomplishing each specific task. If everyone knows whose head will roll if the project isn’t finished, then the designated person will take control, move the project forward, and preserve his or her head.

The “whose head will roll” theory of management applies to projects big and small, for lawyers both in-house and outside….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: The Theory Of ‘Whose Head Will Roll?’”

The title of today’s column comes from an e-mail I recently saw. The e-mail read, in its entirety: “Thanks for providing a copy of the statute. Do you have any advice?”

That cracked me up. (I crack up easily.) Doesn’t this e-mail exemplify a recurring problem among lawyers asked for advice? Someone asks a question; the lawyer locates the relevant statute; and the lawyer then sends along the text of the statute as though that answers the question. The lawyer may have provided information, but he almost surely did not actually help the client (which was probably the goal).

I’m not sure whether it’s laziness, cowardice, or incompetence, but something causes many lawyers routinely to transmit information without supplying legal advice.

Here’s another example (which also cracks me up):

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Thanks For The Statute; Do You Have Any Advice?”

I had lunch recently with a guy who’s looking for an in-house job. He was complaining about how tough this is: “Recruiters don’t do you any good. They’re focused almost entirely on moving lawyers between law firms; they don’t know about in-house jobs. The recruiters who get retained to do job searches for corporations are working for the corporation, not you. If you don’t match the criteria the corporation laid out, they don’t want to talk to you. How the heck does one land an in-house job?”

Surprisingly, I’d never thought about this issue. (I wasn’t looking for an in-house job — or, indeed, any job at all — when I landed in my current position.) Because I’d never considered how one obtains an in-house job, I had no idea what the answer was. So — always thinking of you (and searching for blog fodder) — I picked the brain of a headhunter-friend.

How, I asked the headhunter, should a lawyer go about looking for an in-house job?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Landing An In-House Job”

Don’t read this post again! It would be unbearable.

I’m unabashedly doing two things with this post:

First, I’m serving my purpose: My new book has been published! Here’s a link to the ABA Web Store’s page for Inside Straight: Advice About Lawyering, In-House And Out, That Only The Internet Can Provide.

Second, I’m serving David Lat’s purpose: Above the Law becomes more valuable when readers click through links and read multiple pages of text. I’ve therefore hidden the information about Cravath’s summer bonuses (if any) behind this link…

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Cravath Summer Bonuses!?”

Two years ago, my company had to hire a lawyer to serve as our head of litigation for EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa). We weren’t using a recruiter, so we had to locate candidates the old-fashioned way — by putting the word out. I called one of my former partners (a 60-ish corporate partner, who did a lot of work with European clients) and asked if he could spread the word in Europe that we had a position open. He startled me:

“You don’t have to do a job search. I’ll do that job for you.”

“Excuse me,” I stammered. “You do M&A work. You speak only English. You’ve never litigated in a common law country, let alone a civil law one. How could that job possibly make any sense for you?”

“Managing litigation isn’t very hard. It’s really a matter of knowing how to handle the outside lawyers. And given all the time I’ve spent doing deals in Europe, I have that skill down cold. Let me be your head of litigation for EMEA.”

I had forgotten entirely about that conversation until I had lunch last week with a 40-ish litigator at a different Vault 20 firm. He, too, didn’t understand that corporations are different from law firms; at corporations, the specifics of your work experience matter . . .

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Inside Straight: Odd Misperceptions Of Job Qualifications”

Page 11 of 261...789101112131415...26