Wednesday, November 23, 2005
LONG TERM, IN-HOUSE COUNSEL WILL CHOOSE THE LAW FIRM
Opinion by Ellis R. Mirsky
In-House Lawyers Top Out
With few senior spots open, in-house lawyers are frustrated by a lack of advancement opportunities -- but otherwise content
Catherine Aman, Corporate Counsel, November 18, 2005
In this article, ALM reporter Catherine Aman discusses an aspect of in-house practice so often overlooked by outside counsel thinking the grass is greener on the in-house side of the fence -- no where to go, according to almost three-quarters of those responding to a recent survey!
Seemingly at odds with that fact, Ms. Aman reports that 82% of in-house counsel are generally satisfied with their lot, or even happy, according to the last seven years of surveys conducted by Corporate Counsel, an ALM publication.
Curiously, some in-housers say the trade-off is worth the additional time with their families, more interesting work or more control over their schedules. Well, having served 10 years in-house, I doubt that there's a lot more time with families or more control over schedule. The work might be more fun, though, in-house. That I'll agree with.
Ms. Aman calls in-housers "reasonably contented people". I'd take that as an insult. It reminds me of a trade-marked commercial for condensed milk by Carnation. Attorneys need to be developing skills, increasing knowledge and securing their future for themselves and their families. The last thing any client wants is a "contented" attorney.
In-house is a great place to spend a few years, maybe even 10 as I did. But eventually, every in-houser comes face-to-face with the stark reality that retirement looms in the distance, maybe 20, maybe 15, maybe 10 years out. Will the company keep the in-houser on until retirement? Will the job provide for retirement?
There certainly are a few in-housers who've made it all the way, retired from their perches in-house, and lived happily ever after on their pension plans. But is that the story for everyone, or even most in-housers? Certainly not.
Ultimately, the market defines itself in what engineers call a "lowest energy state". That is, the market inexorably moves to eliminate inefficiencies and provide for the delivery of legal services in the most cost-effective manner possible. And the most cost-effective manner in which legal services can be delivered to corporate and insurance company insurers is, by and large, exceptions noted, the law firm. Proof? The proof is in the fact that were it otherwise, most lawyers would be working in-house. The fact is that most lawyers (no numerical data here; just what appears to be self-evident) 99.99% of lawyers work in law firms, not in-house. That fact alone bears witness to the reality that corporations have and continue to prefer to purchase legal services outside, rather than in-house.
Now, some will pooh-pooh that argument citing the mega-in-house law departments that rival or eclipse some of the world's largest law firms. Nevertheless, most in-housers share the same concern for the long-term. And that concern is "how long can/should I stay here?", and "what about the end-game?" I submit that the end-game for most will be a return to a law firm and, the sooner the better.
An attorney starting to develop a client base at age 45 will have an easier time than at age 55. Even if there are college tuitions and a mortgage to pay at the younger age, older attorneys know fewer people in a position to give them work after emerging from their in-house cocoons. Getting out earlier, spreading those wings and flying at a younger age is usually going to be more successful, and successful faster. And it will provide the former in-houser with more time to get a practice going and working for the lawyer long-term.
So, if Ms. Aman's article shows anything, it's that the grass is not greener on the in-house side of the fence, even though on some days it might look so. For sure, on some days, a dark pit might look greener than an outside counsel's daily routine. But in the long run, it's the outside counsel taking vacation, measuring success by PPP, investing retirement funds and generally being "content".
For what it's worth, those are my thoughts.
Ellis Mirsky
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
NETWORK ROLLS OUT 24/7 ONLINE STREAMING VIDEO CLE
For a working demo, click here.
The Network of Trial Law Firms announced at its Fall Litigation Management Supercourse, titled "Excellence in Litigation Management", held November 10-13, 2005 at The Sanctaury Resort at Kiawah Island, South Carolina, that it will soon be providing 24/7 on demand online streaming video CLE consisting of programming previously delivered live at the Network's frequent CLE programs.
"We expect to launch January 1, 2006, if not sooner. We have six hours of programming in the can, taped and being transcribed and readied for delivery, and we just shot another 8 hours, including one hour of ethics material," said Mike O'Donnell, chair of the Network. O'Donnell, who is also chair of the Wheeler Trigg & Kennedy law firm based in Denver, Colorado, was ecstatic about the possibilities for reaching thousands of in-house and outside trial counsel with the Network's unique brand of entertaining, informative and cutting-edge trial-oriented CLE.
"The Network, which is a non-profit organization providing CLE, does not intend to profit from this venture and may not even recoup costs", announced newly elected Network Secretary, David Harris, who is also Litigation Chair of New Jersey-based Lowenstein Sandler. "Our objective is not to make money on this but to reach as many attorneys as possible in the most cost-effective manner and we believe we have the formula to do so."
Susan Artinian, immediate past Chair of the Network and a senior trial lawyer with Detroit-based Dykema Gossett, under whose administration this ground-breaking work was initiated said that she was very pleased to see the system developed to the point where the Network is now in a position to begin sharing its unique style of CLE with counsel unable to personally attend our programs and to do so at their convenience.
Network Vice-chair Joe Ortego, a senior trial lawyer with northeast-based Nixon Peabody, acknowledged that in a few years many firms will be able to offer this service but recognizes that "being out there first, the Network will have a tremendous impact on the market's recognition of the TRIAL.COM mark and its significance in drawing some of the best trial lawyers in the United States and Canada to membership in The Network of Trial Law Firms".
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
PFIZER CONSOLIDATES OUTSIDE COUNSEL -- SELECTS THREE NETWORK FIRMSTo pick its product liability defense team, Pfizer had 103 firms submit to a grueling nine-month examinationEriq Gardner
Corporate Counsel
10-31-2005Three Network firms,
Nixon Peabody,
Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, and
Goodell DeVries Leech & Dann were among 24 firms selected by Pfizer after a 9-month evaluation and consolidation process to handle the company's drug and medical device litigation.
