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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

General Counsel with Power? 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary of Key Findings.............................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Size and Shape of the Legal Department................................................................. 4 Size of Legal Departments ........................................................................................................................... 4 Shape of Legal Departments........................................................................................................................ 5 Legal Budget Control ................................................................................................................................... 6 Externalizers and Internalizers..................................................................................................................... 6 Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 3: Convergence, Panels, and Legal Networks............................................................. 9 Panels........................................................................................................................................................... 9 Convergence .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Online Bidding............................................................................................................................................ 11 Legal Networks .......................................................................................................................................... 12 Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 4: A Production-line Approach to Legal Work.........................................................14 A ‘Production-‐line Approach’..................................................................................................................... 14 Objections to the Production-‐line Approach ............................................................................................. 15 Litigation Tasks .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Intellectual Property Tasks: a Case Study .................................................................................................. 18 Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 5: What Lawyers Do in a World of Multi-sourcing .................................................19 Sourcing Criteria: Labour Arbitrage vs Process Efficiency.......................................................................... 20 De-‐lawyering in Legal Product Lifecycle .................................................................................................... 20 Who Manages the Reassembly?................................................................................................................ 21 What Do General Counsel Do? .................................................................................................................. 22 Summary.................................................................................................................................................... 23 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................................24 Afterword: The Future for General Counsel .............................................................................26 References ............................................................................................................................................29 About the Authors..............................................................................................................................30 Appendix: Research Methodology................................................................................................31 1 Said Business School | University of Oxford
Executive Summary of Key Findings General Counsel with Power? 2011 Size and shape of legal departments • In-‐house legal departments reflect the structure of businesses. Some in-‐house legal functions are centralized at the corporate headquarter, whilst others are decentralized to a varying degree to business and geographic units. • In-‐house legal departments’ reliance on external legal resources varies enormously. This study identified a range from 12% to 93% in the proportion of external to total legal spending. • There are four types of general counsel with respect to their make-‐or-‐buy decisions, namely Externalizer Type I, Externalizer Type II, Mid-‐ranger, and Internalizer. Externalizer Type II (proactively managing legal networks) and Internalizer (in-‐sourcing actively) are the ones with an appetite for change in legal services. Convergence, panels, and legal networks • Panels mean different things to different general counsel due to differential emphasis placed on competition and collaboration in managing a panel. • On convergence, GCs who believed in competitive selection for a panel followed by close collaboration reduced the number of law firms more rigorously than those who wished to retain competition within a panel. • Online bidding for legal work was used selectively both within the panel and to identify new providers. • The most collaborative form of a panel took the shape of ‘legal networks’, in which the general counsel facilitated lateral collaboration amongst the law firms to deliver services as an extension of the in-‐house legal function. A Production-line approach to legal work • A production-‐line approach to delivering legal work consists of three steps: disaggregation and standardization, process flow management, and project management. • Many general counsel found a variety of reasons to reject or delay the wholesale adoption of this production-‐line approach. • In practice, the general counsel adopted either a craft approach, an automation approach, or a process flow approach. Internalizers tended to lead in implementing a combination of automation and process flow approaches. What do lawyers do in a multi-sourcing world? • Multi-‐sourcing – the use of multiple sources of legal service delivery – is likely to change the contour of global value chains in legal services. • Value migration away from the traditional corporate client – law firm transactions is more likely due to three factors: (a) the more the motive for offshoring and near-‐shoring goes beyond mere labour cost arbitrage to the implementation of a production-‐line approach, (b) the more lead is taken by the in-‐house legal function in project management, and (c) the higher up the priority list the general counsel places the issue of efficient legal service delivery. 2 Said Business School | University of Oxford
Page 1 and 2:
Date: April 12, 2013 Topic: The Shr
Page 4 and 5:
PROGRAM AGENDA & ROOM LOCATIONS The
Page 6 and 7:
Things to do in Washington, D.C. Wa
Page 9 and 10:
The Shrinking Pyramid: Implications
Page 11 and 12:
III
Page 13 and 14:
DRAFT IN PROGRESS—PLEASE DO NOT C
Page 15 and 16:
legal services based upon data aggr
Page 17 and 18:
on a consistent, sustained basis. T
Page 19 and 20:
the marketing concept or market(ing
Page 21 and 22:
Technology and online access democr
Page 23 and 24:
portion of their curated informatio
Page 25 and 26: in the United States and Britain, a
Page 27 and 28: whether some activities traditional
Page 29 and 30: Without the necessary systems or pr
Page 31 and 32: While net promoter score is not a p
Page 33 and 34: Today, LegalZoom offers a broad por
Page 35 and 36: 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11
Page 37 and 38: Clementi submitted his report in De
Page 39 and 40: experience, skills and competencies
Page 41 and 42: away disk drive space. The question
Page 43 and 44: Riverview’s high-end services are
Page 45 and 46: need of an overhaul. These “new k
Page 47 and 48: These are exciting times for those
Page 49 and 50: The introduction of a new technolog
Page 51 and 52: Before turning to our main quantita
Page 53 and 54: H2: Wider document download pattern
Page 55 and 56: Independent variables Technology us
Page 57 and 58: Our research reconciles these two d
Page 59 and 60: REFERENCES Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E
Page 61 and 62: Table 1: Representative Excerpts fr
Page 63 and 64: Table 2: Descriptive Statistics Var
Page 65: Table 4: Results of Individual Fixe
Page 68: There are no materials for this ses
Page 71 and 72: 1 DECONSTRUCTING BIG LAW The Future
Page 73 and 74: The Stanford Law School Research Pr
Page 75: 2011 General Counsel with Power
Page 79 and 80: General Counsel with Power? 201
Page 107 and 108: Resource Co-Specialization and Supp
Page 109 and 110: al., 2009), plural sourcing (Bradac
Page 111 and 112: ely more on R&D resources, advertis
Page 113 and 114: and from transferring best practice
Page 115 and 116: specialized tasks such as complex a
Page 117 and 118: also distinct from economies of sco
Page 119 and 120: In case studies of innovating firms
Page 121 and 122: knowledge. This translates into a r
Page 123 and 124: To be included in our sample, we re
Page 125 and 126: Law firms. In order to measure the
Page 127 and 128:
More specifically, we estimate a st
Page 129 and 130:
of sample means indicate more in-ho
Page 131 and 132:
services. The coefficient for selli
Page 133 and 134:
study design and accounted explicit
Page 135 and 136:
These in-house legal departments ca
Page 137 and 138:
usiness benefits only if resource c
Page 139 and 140:
Dick the Butcher, wishes for lawyer
Page 141 and 142:
Gulati R, Puranam P. 2006. Compleme
Page 143 and 144:
Sako M. 2013. Professionals between
Page 145 and 146:
Table 3. Panel data regression mode
Page 148 and 149:
The Shrinking Pyramid: Implications
Page 150 and 151:
Limiting the Damage of Lateral Part
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?