Legal value: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a| | {{a|mgmt|{{wmc|Royal-clipper.jpg|Imagine the barnacles on the bottom of ''that'' baby.}} }}{{qd|Legal value|ˈliːɡᵊl ˈvæljuː|highly abstract n|The contribution to an organisation’s bottom line — as often as not rendered by heading off impositions which might otherwise plonk themselves on the [[Middle line|''middle'' line]] — provided by the legal department.}} | ||
The | |||
{{drop|T|he dilemma for}} professional services providers is not ''providing'' value — but ''showing'' it. It is all very well working tirelessly and unobserved in the clammy penumbra of doubt and risk in which your client’s best opportunities are bathed — but if no one ever ''sees'' you, you know, going in elbow-deep to clear that blocked u-bend with your bare hands — how are they to understand the critical difference you make? How is anyone meant know how ''valuable'' you are? | |||
The ordure in which commercial eaglets must grope is certainly grim but most of it, beyond its sheer annoying heft, is harmless enough. This is the dirty secret of commercial legal practice: you have to fish around for a while before finding anything worth reporting. Most days you won’t find much worth remarking on at all. | |||
But this is little moment to a busy client: if she sends her top gun [[lawyer]]s a 90-page [[indenture]] and it comes back unmarked — bar “all fine” scrawled across the front page — yet accompanied by a note of costs, do she ''feel'' she is getting value for money? | |||
Generally, she does not. | |||
====On non-barking dogs and night-times==== | |||
{{Drop|T|his is so}} even though she ''might'' be: [[The dog in the night time|a dog that barketh not in the night-time bringeth no comfort]], even when there is nothing to bark at. On the other hand, no-one wants a yappy mutt who explodes every time a branch so much as scratches against the window. ''Quelle dilemma'': how to demonstrate a positive contribution to the cause without actively ''destroying'' value? | |||
We commercial [[Lawyer|lawyers]] have developed techniques for yowling ostentatiously during hours of darkness in just the way that makes our master feel better: a furrowing of the brow and a sigh: “this is not [[market standard]], you know”. | |||
And so, we lift a leg and sprinkle a little magic on the offending tree stump. We make our [[Form|formal]] corrections, carefully altering no [[substance]] — we don’t want to get in the way of business now — but exuding an aura of thoroughness and diligence that vouches safe our client’s psychological safety. You can spot these parenthetical statements, which we call [[flannel]] in these pages, by their tells: “[[for the avoidance of doubt]]”, “[[without limitation]]...”, “[[whether or not]]...”, or “[[notwithstanding the foregoing]]...”. | |||
Out client can thus put out the night-light and slumber, safe with the knowledge faithful old Rover has pored over the document for her and buffed it to a high, market standard sheen.<ref>It is a [[Ninth law of worker entropy|paradox]] that, however [[tedious]] it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more tedious to insist upon its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards [[barnacle]]-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what [[Douglas Adams]] and John Lloyd would call “[[Clabby conversation|clabby]]” conversations. | |||
Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “[[Clabby conversation|ditherington]]”.</ref> | |||
===Measuring legal value=== | |||
{{Drop|A|ll this presents}} quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity ''cannot'' be measured in [[Time and attendance|billable hours]]. That is, [[Inhouse legal|''in-house'' legal eagles]]. | |||
For those in [[private practice]], it does not matter ''how'' counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding their behaviour is, ''as long as it brings in fees''. Fees, one can measure. Fees, one can ''bank''. | |||
Legal practice management consultants may help by comparing inputs to outputs; devising metrics to predict the ''optimal amount'' of defensible literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns, but this will not work inhouse, where [[Inhouse lawyer|lawyer]]s collect no fees. Here, the putative quest is ''not'' “to produce legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to ''avoid'' generating legal work product wherever it is not absolutely necessary. | |||
In-house legal departments exist to ''throttle'' legal expense. | |||
The problem is, you can’t measure this with [[metric]]s or [[key performance indicators]]. Unavoidable legal process — customer [[contract negotiation]]s, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the [[process]] becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and [[legal]]’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in ''silhouette'': how ''rarely'' is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved. | |||
Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that [[inhouse lawyer]]s cast their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly ''can'' count the ways they are obliged not to: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the boxes they are called upon to tick, the forms they must fill, the aimless formless meetings they must attend and the number of times they must re-advise the business, or other risk functions, on issues it is, fundamentally, their job to know already. | |||
These “[[Key non-performance indicator|key ''non''-performance indicators]]” ''could'' be counted and presented to the [[Opco]] during its weekly stakeholder check in conference call, on an attractive [[slide]], replete with [[RAG status]]es, downward-sloping graphs and Gantt diagrams charting the department’s ascent from formalistic arse-protectionists to a condition of crystal purity, with maximum scope for offering untrammelled, ineffable excellence. | |||
But ''are'' they, in any organisation on the planet? | |||
Are they ''heck'', as the Americans say. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Key non-performance indicator]] | |||
*[[Anal paradox]] | *[[Anal paradox]] | ||
*[[Flannel]] | *[[Flannel]] | ||
*[[In your face]] | *[[In your face]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||
{{nld}} | |||
Latest revision as of 16:51, 6 September 2024
|
JC sounds off on Management™
|
Legal value
ˈliːɡᵊl ˈvæljuː (highly abstract n.)
The contribution to an organisation’s bottom line — as often as not rendered by heading off impositions which might otherwise plonk themselves on the middle line — provided by the legal department.
The dilemma for professional services providers is not providing value — but showing it. It is all very well working tirelessly and unobserved in the clammy penumbra of doubt and risk in which your client’s best opportunities are bathed — but if no one ever sees you, you know, going in elbow-deep to clear that blocked u-bend with your bare hands — how are they to understand the critical difference you make? How is anyone meant know how valuable you are?
The ordure in which commercial eaglets must grope is certainly grim but most of it, beyond its sheer annoying heft, is harmless enough. This is the dirty secret of commercial legal practice: you have to fish around for a while before finding anything worth reporting. Most days you won’t find much worth remarking on at all.
But this is little moment to a busy client: if she sends her top gun lawyers a 90-page indenture and it comes back unmarked — bar “all fine” scrawled across the front page — yet accompanied by a note of costs, do she feel she is getting value for money?
Generally, she does not.
On non-barking dogs and night-times
This is so even though she might be: a dog that barketh not in the night-time bringeth no comfort, even when there is nothing to bark at. On the other hand, no-one wants a yappy mutt who explodes every time a branch so much as scratches against the window. Quelle dilemma: how to demonstrate a positive contribution to the cause without actively destroying value?
We commercial lawyers have developed techniques for yowling ostentatiously during hours of darkness in just the way that makes our master feel better: a furrowing of the brow and a sigh: “this is not market standard, you know”.
And so, we lift a leg and sprinkle a little magic on the offending tree stump. We make our formal corrections, carefully altering no substance — we don’t want to get in the way of business now — but exuding an aura of thoroughness and diligence that vouches safe our client’s psychological safety. You can spot these parenthetical statements, which we call flannel in these pages, by their tells: “for the avoidance of doubt”, “without limitation...”, “whether or not...”, or “notwithstanding the foregoing...”.
Out client can thus put out the night-light and slumber, safe with the knowledge faithful old Rover has pored over the document for her and buffed it to a high, market standard sheen.[1]
Measuring legal value
All this presents quite the predicament to those lawyers whose output and productivity cannot be measured in billable hours. That is, in-house legal eagles.
For those in private practice, it does not matter how counterproductive, petulant or lily-gilding their behaviour is, as long as it brings in fees. Fees, one can measure. Fees, one can bank.
Legal practice management consultants may help by comparing inputs to outputs; devising metrics to predict the optimal amount of defensible literary lollygagging to maximise fee returns, but this will not work inhouse, where lawyers collect no fees. Here, the putative quest is not “to produce legal work product”, nor even “timely, excellent, and great value-for money legal work product”, but to avoid generating legal work product wherever it is not absolutely necessary.
In-house legal departments exist to throttle legal expense.
The problem is, you can’t measure this with metrics or key performance indicators. Unavoidable legal process — customer contract negotiations, things like that — can certainly be streamlined and productionised, but once that is done, the process becomes an operational function, not a legal one, and legal’s contribution to its ongoing success, again, can only be measured in silhouette: how rarely is legal obliged, thereafter, to get involved.
Hence, the best way of measuring inhouse legal value is also by its silhouette: a business may not be able to count the ways that inhouse lawyers cast their magic on its forward health and viability, it certainly can count the ways they are obliged not to: the times they are hindered by the quotidian distractions of the life bureaucratic: the boxes they are called upon to tick, the forms they must fill, the aimless formless meetings they must attend and the number of times they must re-advise the business, or other risk functions, on issues it is, fundamentally, their job to know already.
These “key non-performance indicators” could be counted and presented to the Opco during its weekly stakeholder check in conference call, on an attractive slide, replete with RAG statuses, downward-sloping graphs and Gantt diagrams charting the department’s ascent from formalistic arse-protectionists to a condition of crystal purity, with maximum scope for offering untrammelled, ineffable excellence.
But are they, in any organisation on the planet?
Are they heck, as the Americans say.
See also
References
- ↑ It is a paradox that, however tedious it is to have some cretin add this unnecessary heft to your draft, it is even more tedious to insist upon its removal. Thus, over time, legal forms tend towards barnacle-encrusted, impenetrable mush, courtesy of what Douglas Adams and John Lloyd would call “clabby” conversations. Confronted with such a gambit, even the most sainted, easy-go-lucky types on the other side cannot help falling into a “ditherington”.