Every general counsel comes to realize that members of the law department are minutely vigilant regarding their every action and word (See my post of Oct. 24, 2006 about rumors.).

A short piece in the Harvard Business Rev., July 2006 at 152, put the scrutiny well: "You can't totally manage the signals your send. Even if your intentions are pure and your performance flawless, don't be surprised when your most innocuous statements are assigned deep, sinister meeting -- or are assigned very different meanings by different people. But if you communicate consistently and clearly, especially in times of crisis, and don't shy away from the tough issues, you'll engender the trust and confidence that you need to succeed." Well said and well to remember during the play.

A professor at the Harvard Business School, Pankaj Ghemawat, researched six key measures of cross-border economic and other business activity. He looked at telephone calls, management research, direct investment, private charity, stock investment, and trade. His conclusion belies the stridency of those who trumpet rampant internationalization: "Most types of economic activity that might cross borders are still largely concentrated domestically," Harvard Bus. Rev., Aug. 2006 at 32.

The percentage of trade, at about 26 percent, was much higher than direct investment (below 10%) and all the others clustered around 10 percent. What this suggests for law departments is that truly international legal work is the exception; by far the largest portion of in half-housework is applying domestic law (See my posts of March 19, 2006 about the modest need for “international” lawyers in US law departments; and April 9, 2005 to similar effect.).

The term "brainstorming" does not mean a group of people conjuring up ideas about something. Rather, according to the New York Times, October 28, 2006 at C5, brainstorming in its true form is a rigidly structured process (See my post of Nov. 28, 2005 on mind-mapping software and brainstorming). That process demands three vital elements.

First, the group needs a facilitator trained in drawing out the best ideas. "Groups using a facilitator come up with 600 percent more ideas that those that don't,” according to Scott Isaksen, founder of the Creative Problem Solving Group.

Second, brainstormers need clear guidelines. "For example, the session will last no more than 45 minutes and criticism or judgment of the ideas that emerge should wait until the session is over."

Third, brainstormers should prepare in advance for the session. You don't just walk into the room and storm your brain. Law departments would do well to follow these recommendations.

"Under more traditional relationships, firms have to pay lawyers retaining fees while they are not using them." This astonishing glimpse into the past comes from Reactions, May 2004 at 3. The retainer fee actually reserved the right to use the law firm even if there was not a need for the firm during the period of the retainer. If at one time this was a customary relationship between clients and law firms, it casts a different light on the meaning of the term "retainer" (See my postsof Oct.30, 2006 for speculation on the difference between “retain,” “engage,” and “hire”; of Aug. 26, 2005 about yawns from law departments on retainers paid quarterly in advance; and of Oct. 14, 2005 on retainers and prompt payment.).).

The article contrasts retainer arrangements with what it terms “outsourcing arrangements,” whereby companies only pay for a lawyer's services when they need them.

A belief that animates many convergence programs is that a large number of law firms and partners can handle much of the legal work. That belief in fungibility s generally well-founded. It is a different matter if the area of law is specialized.

"Specialists for international industrial insurance and reinsurance law across different lines of business (property, casualty and engineering) are extremely difficult to find." This observation, from a poll in 2004 of companies around the world in those industries, cited in Reactions, May 2004 at 3 brings home the point (See my post of Feb. 12, 2006 about how hard it is to find acceptable law firms in some countries.). Sometimes it’s a seller’s market.

The Philadelphia-based firm Duane Morris has an ongoing secondment program with the law department of nearby Icon Office Solutions. Each year a first-year associate works at Icon as a secondee for a one-year stint. According to law.com the firm seconded another associate to Minerals Technologies Inc. for about six months (See my posts of Sept. 21, 2005 on secondees and Oct. 26, 2005 on reverse secondments.).

This tidbit leaves me wanting more, much more. How does Duane Morris select the associate? Does Ikon have any say? How have the returning secondees fared back at the firm? Is there any supervision of their work by a partner? Whose idea was the arrangement?

For years I have shown a slide that lists the top five relationship mistakes law firm partners can make. The worst error on that slide is "patronizing attitude." In-house audiences always titter nervously when I show that slide, but no one disagrees with its statement. Support for it comes from a
poll in 2004 of insurance and reinsurance companies around the world. As quoted in Reactions, May 2004 at 2, one US corporate counsel put the grievance this way: "Recognize that we are the client and stop paying lip service to the fact."

It is politically incorrect to express the residual belief by many outside counsel that if you are in truth a really good lawyer you practice in a private firm. Brains, experience, discipline, and a willingness to work crazy hours distinguish outside from inside counsel. I believe, by contrast, that there are different sets of skills and characteristics that distinguish the two sides, and neither is privileged.

The pedant in me stubbornly insists that English has no exact synonyms, so off to the sophistry of hair splitting I must go. If “retention” carries with it a notion of a retainer – an amount paid each month against which fees are charged, then perhaps an “engagement” is simpler: “We hired you to represent us.” Then, oh readers who enjoy the rabbit hole into verbal Wonderland, what sorts out “engage” from “hire”? The former sounds snootier; hire sounds like day workers.

A poll in 2004 of insurance and reinsurance law departments around the world gave respondents 10 qualities of law firms and asked them to choose the three characteristics they value the most when selecting a law firm. Four qualities were selected the most (shown with the percentage that selected it in their top three in parenthesis): expertise/ability (88%), knowledge of the industry (55%), responsiveness (40%), and "value of money" (30%). These four present no surprises

The fifth quality on the ranking list, however is unusual: “honesty/transparency” (25%). The article that describes this survey and question, in Reactions, May 2004 at 1 www.reactionsnet.com , gave a brief gloss to this quality. It appears to be the willingness of a law firm to confess to its prospective client that it is not sufficiently skilled in an area of law to take on a particular matter. Don't, in other words, except an instruction if your firm lacks “expertise/ability.”

Here are the remaining qualities: “reputation/professionalism” (15%); “promptness,” “efficiency,” and “reliability” (each at 13%); and “long-standing relationship” (8%).

Research reported in the Economist, Oct. 14, 2006 at 86, may explain why in-house lawyers who take part in pro bono programs feel good about it. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) to map brain activity when volunteers decided to donate money.

The part of the brain that activated happened to be the brain's reward center – the mesolimbic pathway – “responsible for doling out the dopamine-mediated euphoria associated with sex, money, food and drugs.” Thus the warm glow that pro bono service lights may have a neurological and physiological basis (See my post of Feb. 12, 2006 on the amygdala’s powers; May 30, 2006 on neuroscience and leadership; and Aug. 16, 2006 on another aspect of brain physiology.).