Could you share an example of a time when you came up with an innovation that improved how your legal team works and did not come at a large expense? 

We institutionalise our legal knowledge/learning. That is, we capture it, consolidate it, and reflect it as part of our ongoing ‘knowledge bank’ project. This is a central repository, where we archive and organise our legal knowledge (whether it is internal documentation, legal processes, or external advice received). The result – we now deliver better advice, more promptly, instead of spending time or budget re-learning/re-seeking legal advice, processes, etc. This also ensures our knowledge does not “walk out of the door” when there is a personnel change. So, for example – we have standardised our lease agreements, and our goal is to create a process or SOP to manage potential disagreements with landlords, and any disputes which may result, in each jurisdiction. In addition, our goal is to reflect this legal knowledge on the ‘front-end’ of our processes across the company, and by doing so – we reduce back-end issues (that is, disputes), our time, and spend.   This is a massive value-add I recommend to any in-house team, like knowledge retention at law-firms.  

How do you balance your responsibilities as a GC with your involvement in dispute resolution and M&A matters? 

As a “first principle,” I manage my matters based on the ‘Eisenhower Box’ – i.e., a framework for whether matters should be done, scheduled, delegated, or deleted, based on urgency, importance, and skill set required. Importance and skill-sets requirements are interesting to consider. Importance is set by expected size of claim (claim size * qualitative variables (e.g., reputational risk, relationship value, etc.) * probability), as well as any expected future value (that is, if we can fix this instance, install a process, what is expected future time or money savings). This framework works well for each of my responsibilities as a GC, dispute resolution and M&A matters. Skill sets are nuanced, and gaps can also be opportunities for each team member to develop and shine – so we do value “stretch” assignments. Ultimately however, these judgements are made through the lens of the company’s best interest.  

Can you foresee any key developments to the way general counsel work over the next five years? 

General counsel must educate themselves on the supply-side of legal services, and then reflect that in how they structure their operation/team and buy services. Law firm fees continue increasing, while their incentives and value propositions have largely stagnated. This increasing margin leaves room for competitors to focus on specialising (i.e., niches), innovating and/or driving-down margin pricing. I see a broad market opportunity here and follow certain boutique-firms doing very promising work in the space (e.g., specialising in legal and operations). In parallel with this opportunity and trend, information (e.g., access to vendors, laws, guidance, etc.) is now more freely available to general counsels (and the public at large) than ever before. In view, one of the key opportunities for general counsels over the next few years will be in how they optimise their internal processes, knowledge-retention, software, team structure, etc., legal value chain, and legal procurement – the right options, for the right engagements.