We started our discussion, which was held in association with recruiters Mlegal, by considering the big picture – how the roles of the general counsel and the legal team have changed, and what are the most compelling pressures currently.
For all of our participants, it was non-legal issues which were the most pressing. Project management was agreed to be fundamentally important for both the head of legal and their team and, increasingly, for outside counsel. Project management was felt to be one of the skills that in-house counsel need to excel in, particularly in an environment where lawyers can no longer sit in a legal department silo, either through their own choice or someone else’s. A number of those around the table shared the view that companies now need ‘lawyers who are not afraid to view legal itself as a business’.
Commercial acumen and risk management are also now seen as skills of primary importance, which ten or fifteen years ago might not have been a part of the in-house lawyer’s talent portfolio – or at least not such a significant one.
One general counsel opined that ‘companies are looking more and more for multidisciplinary teams to solve key strategic problems; lawyers are definitely a significant part of that. In my experience, it’s often the lawyer who ends up leading such teams because we do excel at problem solving.’ Collaboration is therefore counted among the must-have skills for the new breed of general counsel and their teams.
Increasingly, talent management was cited as uppermost in our participants’ minds, mainly because the parameters of the legal role have changed so much, meaning that pure legal acumen is no longer the defining characteristic of a good hire. Most of those present brought the business into the internal recruitment process in some capacity, while the weighting given to the clients’ input varied. One participant mentioned using hypothetical situations as part of the interview process.
In attendance
- Brad Bruner, Mlegal
- Robert Craig, Berkeley Research Group
- Karl Hennessee, HalliburtonJeffrey Kaplan, LyondellBasell
- Kevin McDonald, Marathon Oil Corporation
- Catherine McGregor, GC
- Martin McIntyre, Wood Group
- Josh McMorrow, Weatherford
- Curt Moffatt, Kinder Morgan
- Janet Nussbaum, Greenfields Petroleum Corporation
- Kimberly Phillips, Shell Oil Company
- Marek White, Mlegal
- Cathy Wilde, Mlegal
Interestingly some around the table felt that there was a potential danger inherent in giving the business too much say in legal hiring, as business colleagues would be looking for different qualities. One general counsel pointed out that there was a danger of a new lawyer feeling beholden to a particular client if they felt they had been instrumental in their hiring, which might then interfere with objectivity.
This brought us to a key dilemma for the modern inside counsel. On the one hand, commercial acumen and synergy with the business are increasingly lauded as key requirements. On the other hand, the lawyer is essentially an officer of the court, and the most valuable role the in-house counsel can play in an era of increased regulation is that of company conscience.
How did our Houston-based group navigate this dichotomy? For most attendees, it was through a matrix of competing concerns. One guest outlined the issue thus: ‘One needs to understand the context and the big picture to give proper advice – whether that’s legal, risk-or business-focused. However, we are the lawyers and we cannot lose sight of that role.’
An intriguing argument was that both involvement and objectivity could produce the same results. Looking at the General Motors scandal, it was suggested that the lawyers were too involved and therefore complicit in wrongdoing, whereas in the recent Volkswagen emissions scandal, some submitted that the legal team was too distant.
While the need for lawyers to always remember their fundamental role as officers of the court is still there, the way in which they are working is definitely changing. Our participating in-house lawyers highlighted key changes in working methods, choosing what work gets done by the modern in-house department, and when outside advisers are brought in.
The mantra for those in-house in Houston was innovation, both internal and external. Greater use of boutique law firms (where possible) and project management decoupling were flagged. Allowing for the greatest cost benefits was seen as essential for most in-house departments.
The majority of our attendees came from the oil and gas industry, and there was a definite mood of assertiveness when it came to cost and resourcing. One GC remarked that ‘outside law firms have to step up to the challenge, and lawyers in-house have to act like they are the owner of the house.’ Acting like the owner of the house includes increased adoption of data analytics to track work and spend, and enable wiser use of resources and money. Some of our attendees reported the use of time management systems as being increasingly key in running their departments, but they hastened to add that this type of time management was nothing like that of a law firm and was, rather, a way for general counsel to be better equipped when prioritising resources.
Given that the oil and gas industry has had its fair share of litigation, those around the table were certainly keen to muster as many technology resources to demystify what traditionally used to be a money pit for many companies. For one general counsel, it was all about using the right tools for the right job: ‘Technology is just a new way to explain old ideas, and can often be used to emphasise the context of what is going on, to allow us to formulate the right response – for example, in litigation, to know when to settle and when to fight.’
This resonated with the rest of the room, which agreed that strategic risk management is one of the central skillsets of the 21st century general counsel.