InsideCounsel, Aug. 2007, at 50, brings out a structural attribute in the law department of $4 billion SunGard. In the past few decades, the article states, the company has acquired more than 100 companies. That is legal work enough, but even so it is widely acknowledged that for every acquisition consummated, there are others that go part of the way and yet require legal work.

The law department of SunGard may have one or more M&A specialist lawyers, given that volume of deals, but the article only says that "the legal department assigns each business unit a specific lawyer who becomes familiar with that segment of the business." According to a senior lawyer for the company who is referred to in the article, those generalist commercial lawyers, who understand well the issues of the various business units, work on the acquisition deals that involve their units.

I still believe that business unit lawyers should be generalists, they should not handle major lawsuits (See my posts of Nov. 30, 2005 and five references cited; and June 20, 2007 on the mistaken view that inside counsel are “generalists.”) or acquisitions.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation for in-house brains. TMS translates electric signals into a magnetic field that passes through the skull and into the brain. The magnetic stimulation can control certain brain activity and has promise for treatment of depression, migraines and post-traumatic stress disorder. Sounds useful for in-house counsel (See my posts of June 20, 2007#3 for more neuroscience; and July 10, 2007 on generalizations and neuroscience.).

Remember this tidbit on memory. The α2b-adrenoceptor, found in the amygdale – a part of the brain involved in processing strong emotions such as fear – promotes memory formation – but only when it is stimulated by adrenaline. So the rush you felt when you stood up in moot court helped vividly carve that nervous moment in your memory. Some of us are genetically predisposed to have more of that adrenoceptor. So much comes from the Economist, Aug. 4, 2007 at 68. What I recall best about the article, however, is its reference to “a memory-enhancing drug called yohimbine.” When will lawyers turn to neurological aids, the steroids of the mind (See my posts of Aug. 20, 2006; and today.)?

Non-US law firms easier to find in some areas. "Common-law countries like Canada, the UK, Australia and Singapore, and northern European countries are relatively easy [when searching for law firms]. South America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia are quite challenging because the reporting capabilities are very limited. There is no published information readily available." This quote comes from a report by ALM on how US companies select international counsel (See my post of Feb. 12, 2006 about the difficulties of finding competent counsel in some countries.).

Upcoming conferences for law department leaders that will have management topics. Here are three that have crossed my desk. (1) Northwestern Law School’s 46th annual Corporate Counsel Institute, Sept. 27-28, 2007 in Chicago and Nov. 29-30, 2007 in San Francisco. (2) PLI’s Corporate Counsel Institute 2007, NYC Sept. 25th with a live webcast. (3) The 4th Annual General Counsel West Coast Conference, Nov. 15-16, 2007 in San Francisco.

The Scientific Atlanta legal department includes 30 people, its general counsel Michael Veysey said in an article interview: 14 attorneys, seven contract managers and legal assistants. According to reporter Katheryn Hayes Tucker, of the Fulton County Daily Report, July 23, 2007, some of the contract managers are lawyers, some are not, but they have the authority to negotiate standard contracts up to $5 million.

My view has been that contract administration should not reside in the law department (See my post of May 5, 2006 and references cited.). If it does remain there, however, it makes sense to have specialists to handle the bulk of the contractual matters. My further view is that after some period of gaining experience, lawyers and non-lawyers are on the same footing in terms of judgment and effectiveness.

If a General Counsel is so inclined, opportunities abound to speak at conferences (See my posts of May 21, 2007 about the internal risks of publicity for the department; June 11, 2007 on publicity generally and 11 references cited; and Aug. 19, 2007 #3 on conferences.).

When you speak at conferences, you inevitably pick up ideas from fellow presenters, consultants, and audience members. You also strengthen your network of people whom you can call for advice. It may also be a good career move to be seen and heard; you never know when you might be looking for a new position. Finally, there is the ego gratification of applause, praise, and your name and photo in the brochure.

In the latest issue of InsideCounsel, Michael Baroni, the general counsel of BSH Home Appliances, quotes 11 passages from the Bible that he suggests should inspire small law departments, because lawyers in small departments "typically don't get the moral guidance and inspiration that a large legal department can provide."

Well, I will pass on comments about the greater rectitude of large departments.

Somewhat fearful to go where angels tread, I hope it is not sacrilege to draw from five of the biblical passages some wisdom about how to manage a law department.

"Avoid foolish questions … contentions and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain" (Titus 3:9). What better motto for a knowledge management system?

"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well as for the stranger, as for one of your own country" (Leviticus 24:22) could be chapter and verse for a law department creating standard forms and documents.
.
"Let judgment be executed speedily upon him" (Ezra 7:26) gives in-house counsel some guidance as to why they should promptly respond to clients and quickly correct wrongdoing.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" (Matthew 7:1-2) speaks wisely about tolerance of various cognitive styles and diverse backgrounds.

"Every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deuteronomy 24:16) may guide general counsel during the time of evaluations.

The general counsel of Simmons Bedding Co., Kristin McGuffey has three lawyers reporting to her according to GC South, July 17, 2007. When McGuffey started in 2001 the legal department of the Atlanta-based company consisted of only herself and one paralegal, but she has added three lawyers, another paralegal, and an executive assistant. As to the four lawyers, "They're also all mothers, juggling the demands of work with the needs of young children."

Lawyers who are mothers of tykes have not shown up so specifically on this blog, but there are references to women lawyers (See my post of May 28, 2007 on Wal-Mart’s diversity and a reference to J.C. Penney; June 6, 2006 on the general counsel of Graham Packaging; and March 1, 2007 on WellPoint’s new female CEO, former general counsel.).

I suspect the working relationships in a law department consisting of all women lawyers with young children differ markedly from a male-dominated department.

A morsel from InsideCounsel, Aug. 2007, at 52, describes a practice that can help bring in-house lawyers closer to their clients. Tamara Joseph, general counsel of Mayne Pharma, makes it a practice to eat lunch with her clients. "Clients are often more relaxed over lunch and talk about business in a way you don't hear in a formal meeting," she observes. You can break through some of the distance of a business relationship when you break bread together. A steady diet of client lunches is an idea worth chewing over.

Exelon’s law department puts law firms in competition for its business “by sending out RFPs every three years.” According to InsideCounsel, Aug. 2007, at 51, firms seeking the utility’s nod answer a questionnaire and "submit to an extensive interview with the law department's leadership team." The primary goal of the law department, according to the article, is to choose firms that offer the deepest rate discounts.

Several points deserve emphasis about Exelon’s practices. A three-year time commitment by a law firm is quite lengthy (See my post of April 16, 2007 on GE and a four-year term.). The amount of time that senior lawyers in the department must spend on this process, given the number of areas of law in which they might be selecting firms, is significant (See my post of Aug. 4, 2007 about bifurcated interviews of associates and partners.). Finally, given all this investment of time and resources, could the law department not seek financial terms more effective than mere discounts (See my post of Nov. 26, 2006 and 18 references to rate discounts.)?

No lawyer wants to confess that some of what he or she does is make-work, not worthy of that person's experience and cost. If asked directly to disclose their low-value activities -- and everybody has some of it -- they hedge and fudge and protect themselves.

To sidestep this difficulty, at least to some degree, ask your lawyers these three questions:

(1) "Among the lawyers in your group, what work do you think has the lowest value?" This question assumes more than one lawyer works on similar matters. It’s effectiveness stems from that fact that It is less incriminating to disclose about others than about yourself.

(2) “If you could invest a modest amount of money right now to improve productivity, what would you spend it on?" This question can smoke out administrative and unworthy activities and possibly some remedies.

(3) “If you could change any corporate policies and procedures to increase productivity, which ones would you change and how?" This question also take aim at the drudge work, dragged in by blind adherence to standard practices, that perhaps can be reduced.

Seemingly trivial topics on this blog harbor important points

Some posts hear deal with seemingly trivial subjects, ones that a general counsel would be excused for passing over quickly (See my posts of Oct. 18, 2006 on shredders; May 4, 2007 on cubicles and architecture; Sept. 21, 2005 on no-hire provisions in secondment agreements; Jan. 24, 2006 on voice training; June 16, 2007 on CLE and tracking it; June 6, 2006 on fingerprint identification systems; and Oct. 18, 2006 on RFID tags.

Of tiny importance these topics may appear, but each one contributes to the effectiveness of the law department, and each one can cause or reduce significant problems. In order they bear on confidentiality, morale, relations with outside counsel, leadership, knowledge management, security and records management. Each topic is a major concern, so the small components have importance.