Law Department Management

Confusion of the issue: flexibility and responsiveness from part-time lawyers in law departments and at firms

By contributing author Jane DiRenzo Pigott, R3 Group LLC

I was at an event recently where attorneys from any different firms were in attendance. One of the panels presented had general counsel from four companies talking about client relationship management and business acquisition. During the Q&A session at the end, one attorney in the audience asked the panel how she should approach business development as an attorney who worked a reduced schedule. The unanimous response from the panel was that she shouldn’t mention the fact that she worked part time. The crowd verbally expressed its disapproval of that response.

Why wasn’t that the “right” answer? I hope that it wasn’t due to some entitlement: if a person works a reduced schedule then that obligates clients and potential clients to “respect” that schedule. I also hope it wasn’t due to authenticity issues: a reduced schedule only works if I can tell everyone I meet professionally that I work a reduced schedule. Neither of those rationales makes sense to me.

I happen to have worked a reduced schedule three different times during my legal career. There weren’t many who knew I was doing so. I wasn’t trying to hide it; it just didn’t seem like something most people needed to know, including my clients. Did it matter to them that it took me a couple of hours to return their call because I was at swimming lessons with my two year old instead of because I was in a court hearing? Conversely, should it matter to the attorneys working with an in-house attorney that he/she works a modified or reduced schedule?

The issue isn’t what exact schedule an attorney is working; the issue is the level of responsiveness and commitment. We need to make sure we keep focused on the right issue.

Why hasn’t the diversity Call to Action succeeded more?

By contributing author Jane DiRenzo Pigott, R3 Group LLC

Rick Palmore, the General Counsel of Sara Lee, put out his call to action about a year and one half ago. Many Chief Legal Officers of companies have signed on committing themselves to (1) making decisions with regard to which legal service providers to retain based on, in part, the diversity performance of the organization and (2) refusing to use legal service providers in the future who cannot demonstrate sustained diversity performance. What goal is this call to action intended to achieve?

One possible goal is to allow the CLO to meet his/her company’s vendor supplier diversity goals. Many CLO’s incentive compensation is tied to, among other things, achievement of these goals with regard to its outside legal service providers.

Another possible goal is to ensure that the CLO’s company has access to the best talent at the legal service providers it uses, instead of being treated like just the “usual client.”

Yet another possible goal is to explicitly provide opportunities for both the outside legal service providers and the diverse talent they employed to train, retain and be in a position to promote the diverse group of people they hire out of law school.

Any of these goals is worthwhile and something most people could personally support. Then why hasn’t the call to action worked?

Diversity training needs to be done right or it can harm

By contributing author Jane DiRenzo Pigott, R3 Group LLC

A best practice in the diversity and inclusion world is diversity training. Many law departments conduct diversity training as part of their ongoing diversity efforts. Even so, for a number of reasons diversity training may be disruptive and detract from efforts to improve the inclusiveness of a law department.

First, many law departments just aren’t ready for diversity training. The diversity effort hasn’t yet been expanded to include everyone within the department. Instead, there is a diversity committee normally composed of people who are diverse by gender, ethnicity or race, sexual orientation and disability. That committee is charged with diversity and few others in the department, especially not the able-bodied white straight men, understand the committee’s goals and plans. There needs to be more effective communication at this stage to produce any benefit out of diversity training.

A second reason why diversity training is not only ineffective, but harmful, is that general counsel believe that one session will “inoculate” everyone and create sustained change. That just isn’t going to happen. The only way diversity training can be effective is when it is part of an integrated plan to effectively discuss differences and enhance the department’s ability to value and use those differences.

A final reason why diversity training can be a waste of time and money is that leaders are not strongly and consistently supporting the diversity goals. The first people trained should be the leaders and the leaders need to set the tone with regard to participation in and utilization of the training.

Affinity groups and a justification for non-male groups – new co-author Jane DiRenzo Pigott

I welcome to Law Department Management Jane DiRenzo Pigott, the Managing Director of
R3 Group LLC. Jane, a former partner in a leading Chicago firm, founded its diversity program and over the years developed a leading reputation in the area of law firm and law department diversity. Her periodic blog posts will comment and counsel on issues related to diversity.

By contributing author Jane DiRenzo Pigott, R3 Group LLC

Many organizations, including corporations and legal departments, employ affinity groups as a tool for retention, promotion and recruitment. Without broadly establishing the business case for these affinity groups, they may appear to those not included in an affinity group as favoritism or, worse yet, discrimination. I was at a law firm last week that has a nascent women’s affinity group which that day was hosting a lunch for the women summer associates. What stopped me in my tracks was that the male attorneys had organized an informal lunch for male attorneys for the same day.

How can one gender-specific event (the one held by the women) be encouraged and supported by the firm while the second gender-specific event (the one held by the men) not smack of passive aggressive behavior that underscores a widening gender divide?

The reasoning I’m about to put forward is not going to satisfy everyone. The women’s event is necessary to establish community, which in turn fosters and promotes, among other things, retention. Men in law firms as well as in law departments not only already have community, they are the majority, especially in the most senior ranks. That difference alone makes one event strategic and one event offensive.