27.04.2014 Views

Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shrinking ... - Georgetown Law

Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shrinking ... - Georgetown Law

Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shrinking ... - Georgetown Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

A third research implication relates to methods. We suspect that the dearth of research<br />

on sourcing decisions in legal services is due to the absence of good data and the difficulty in<br />

making causal inference. Despite their still relatively short time-series (i.e. seven years) and<br />

limited cross-sectional coverage (i.e. Fortune 500 firms), our panel data provide us with<br />

advantages relative to single firm case narratives (e.g. Smith, 2001) or one-time crosssectional<br />

surveys (e.g. Schwarcz, 2008). Most importantly, the panel nature of our ALM data<br />

permit us to use state-of-the-art dynamic panel estimators. In this way, we give future<br />

researchers guidance on how to address challenges of mutual causation in other plural<br />

sourcing contexts where panel data is increasingly available and dynamic panel estimators<br />

increasingly expected.<br />

Implications for practice<br />

<strong>The</strong> findings of this study draw practitioners’ attention to a few, yet important, aspects<br />

of the sourcing decisions in legal services. Some of them may appear paradoxical. First, in<br />

legal circles, the last two decades have seen vigorous debate on the proper size and scope of<br />

work for in-house lawyers. One view championed by the US giant, General Electric<br />

(Heineman, 2010; Smith, 2001), argues for substantially increasing the number of in-house<br />

lawyers and giving them primary if not exclusive responsibility for legal transactions and<br />

litigation cases. In-house lawyers are expected to increasingly play a dual role of being a<br />

lawyer and a business partner (Green, 20<strong>12</strong>). <strong>The</strong> chief legal officer (CLO) is said to be ‘one<br />

of the mightiest figures in the C-suite’ 6 . This is because the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the<br />

2010 Dodd-Frank Act and the 2008 financial crisis have heightened the need for compliance<br />

and risk management, making companies turn to lawyers to prevent corporate bosses from<br />

going to jail and to fend against endless threats of lawsuits. Our study indicates that whilst the<br />

power and status of GC may be on the rise, the resulting trend towards insourcing leads to<br />

6 ‘A guardian and a guide’, Schumpeter column, <strong>The</strong> Economist <strong>April</strong> 7, 20<strong>12</strong><br />

30

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!