Archive for September, 2009

b.leaf from our intrepid embedded 2L correspondent

Monday, September 28th, 2009

Note: Akshara Kannan was a completely great 2009 Brightleaf summer intern.  We miss having her around.  But here’s the next best thing: during the year, she will occasionally share her thoughts here on how contemporary legal education is preparing her for the changing world of legal employment.

When I began my summer internship at Brightleaf Corporation I had just survived the infamous 1L year of lawschool. I knew Rule 12(b)(6), res ipsa loquitor, and all of the other things 1Ls think make or break their careers.  But most importantly, I knew that the economy would pick up by the time I graduated and I would be fine. How did I know this? When I entered law school, they said that 94% of their graduating class had a job within 9 months. The world needed lawyers and I was going to be one. After all, I got good grades, made the National Trial Team and I was in a Clinic. I had big dreams of running down a Manhattan street in my power suit on my way to some major law firm where I would work my way up the ranks. There was no reason for me to worry, right? Wrong.

I came out of my internship with a completely different frame of mind. The idea that I would need skills that law school didn’t give me had never crossed my mind before then. Didn’t they want us to be prepared for our future careers? How had I never heard about the inefficiencies of law firms? How did I not know about the economics of firms?

In trying to answer these questions, one professor came to mind. My 1L Property professor had been the only one who had taken the time to talk to us about things we would need to know. In the “Last Ten Minutes” we would discuss a variety of issues, from interviewing to billable hours. So, I went back and picked his brain one more time.

He had spent years working for a big law firm down in D.C. While he was there, he suggested document automation to his firm and oversaw the implementation. Now, he teaches his Estates class how to use the system to quickly make documents from templates. So, I asked him why other classes or even law firms never discuss that? He responded with another question. What was your major in undergrad? I immediately saw where he was going with this and quietly mumbled “political science.” And there it was. Most lawyers do not have a background in science and are not as receptive to the use of technology as a result.

He also explained that this was the same basic reason as to why many law firms are not managed well. The skills we use as lawyers do not always translate to management skills. Does it really make sense that the lawyer with the most billable hours should end up running the firm? As much as it pains me to admit it, probably not.

Lawyers and law schools need to reevaluate what is important in today’s legal world. The advancements in technology and changing business models are lost on most of us. If we don’t make an attempt to catch up, we will fall hopelessly behind on the curve.

Mini-bleaf: German contracts and efficient drafting…kurz ist nett

Monday, September 21st, 2009

In a meeting last week, an AmLaw 100 partner related to us that he had just completed a commercial transaction in Germany, where, under the German Civil Code, the contract had to be read aloud in the presence of a notary before it could be executed.  While this initially struck us as archaic and inefficient (and about as entertaining as listening to Andy Rooney narrate the changing seasons), that partner continued to point out the convention’s one hidden benefit: brevity.  Because each German drafting party knows that they’ll eventually wind up sitting around a table in Freiberg or Bremen listening to a recitation of their work, there is very little tolerance for hyper-parsing we see so often in our US contracts. 

For example, according to the partner, German representations tend to be very terse: “the seller represents that he or she has no knowledge of any material environmental liability on the premises” rather than, “the seller, and those persons named on Schedule F attached hereto each jointly but not severally covenant, represent, and warrant that they have no knowledge of any material environmental liability on or emanating from the premises, where “knowledge” means not only the actual knowledge of the party making such covenant, representation, or warrant, but also the imputed knowledge of such facts and circumstances which would said party would have perceived if they had undertaken a reasonable investigation of those premises no less frequently than annually, and where “material” shall mean “likely to result in total costs of investigation, remediation, or adjudication in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) USD.”

All in all, an interesting way to force efficiencies into contract drafting.  Increase the pain and expense associated with long-windedness and you tend to get more conciseness.  Maybe if we installed a device here that would jolt our correspondents with 5,000 volts when they exceeded 300 words per bleaf, we could achieve the same effect.

Kurz ist nett (“concise is nice”).

small-tripage

Quote of the week…

Monday, September 21st, 2009

From a very senior partner we work with at an AmLaw 25 firm…

“We now know that we will increasingly need to stop leveraging associates and start leveraging technology…”

The Time-Based They Are a-Changin’

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

 

If you happened to pick up this month’s Corporate Counsel magazine, you would have been struck–as we were–by the fact that it actually had three separate covers.  Each featured a different large-corporation general counsel (FMC Technologies’ Jeffrey Carr; Cisco’s Mark Chandler; Sun’s Mike Dillon) who has become well-known as a  advocate/evangelist/early adopter of change when it comes to how their departments conduct their internal practices and their relationships with outside counsel.  

the early adopters

the early adopters

When it comes to changing the way that corporations deliver and purchase legal services, these guys are very, very well-known: Carr, for the design and implementation of his company’s FMC-ACES legal engagement management model and for driving rigorous process management throughout his department; Chandler, for his early advocacy of technology-based solutions to legal process inefficiencies; and Dillon, for his thoughtful and influential and blog.

So, it was completely unsurprising to see any of their faces (and only a little surprising to see all three) above the lead story title, “IS IT THEIR HOUR? Longtime Champions of Fixed Fees Recruit More Followers to Their Cause.”  After all, the reformation of client-firm economic models has been a familiar theme in their collective speaking and writing for at least a few years now (two years ago, Dillon forecast the traditional model going, “the way of the mastodon“).  If you’re going to write about champions of fixed fees, then these are the faces of your article, right?

Well no, actually.  We were stunned (stunned I tell you!) to open to the magazine’s lead article and find  Benjamin Heinemann and William Lee’s byline affixed to thought piece (re-posted in printer-friendly format here under the title “Getting Your Fix“) that bluntly advocates a rapid move from time-based to fixed-fee billing.

If you don’t know them, Benjamin Heineman is the former SCOTUS clerk to Potter Stewart and Sidley Austin partner who helmed GE’s legal department for the better part of two decades.  And William Lee is the managing partner of Boston’s biggest, oldest, and most prestigious law firms, Wilmer Hale.

These guys are not (not, I tell you) edge-cases or outliers or bomb-tossers or part of the chasm-crossing vanguard.  They’re not known for tilting at the windmills of the establishment.  They ARE the establishment.   And if they are throwing their impeccable reputations behind the Carrs and Chandlers and Dillions of the world, them some fundamental change is underway in the economic relationship between law firms and their corporate clients.

When the old school becomes the new school, things begin to change quickly.

Can law firms continue to make as much money in this new regime?  We think they can actually make more.

How?  Ask us.