Canadian Lawyer InHouse

august 2014 8 INHOUSE news roundup litigation file was managed balancing cost, risk, and results, said Sigurdson. It also increases efficiency for in-house legal departments to monitor, assess, pro- vide instructions, and hold external counsel more accountable to budgets. All of which offers greater predictability. "About 98 per cent of litigated files will settle and we need to drive the files as ef- ficiently as possible to that stage," he said. Legal project management or litigation project management is a topic that requires some demystification, said panellist Ste- ven Rosenhek, a partner with the litiga- tion group at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. "There are many lawyers, both ex- ternal and in-house, who think they know about project management but are afraid of not being sure they really do know it. They want to understand it or use it but are con- cerned it requires more work than is actu- ally required." Sigurdson outlined four pillars of legal project management: • assessment and strategy • budget • communication • case management Rosenhek calls the four pillars "common sense." "As you continue to do work for a com- pany, you get a better sense of what their expectations are," he said. "A plan is meant to be a living document revised after every significant event in the litigation process. At the end of the day there is nothing all in- house counsel agree on except for the fact they want no surprises." Whatever strategy a legal team ultimately agrees on with outside counsel, they need a litigation plan, said Sigurdson. It should in- volve a schedule of deadlines and everyone on both sides commits to the deadlines. "It protects you as internal counsel," said Rosenhek. "There should be no argument on why it is not moving any faster. A sched- ule of deadlines means everyone on the team internally commits to the deadline and everyone from the client side agrees to the deadlines. It protects you as internal counsel and there should be no argument as to why is it not moving any faster." A litigation plan also sets out roles and responsibilities. "It's not done in a vacuum," said Sigurd- son. "It's done between the client and le- gal team working together. The historical problems of lack of strategy and instruc- tions happened because the client would just hand the file over to the [law firm] and say, 'Let me know when you have it resolved.'" The litigation plan will need ongoing revision. It should also include expecta- tions around progress reporting. Sigurdson said he insists on various types of reporting on files including what's happening at discovery, and whenever new informa- tion comes along such as an offer to settle. When things are going slowly he asks for a report every 90 days. As well, budget and expense estimates should be addressed in every report. "Timelines and early assessment are im- portant," said Sigurdson. "In the past, files drifted and then you would get a bill and in-house counsel would be surprised. With budgets you'll never be surprised — you may be disappointed, but you won't be sur- prised and that's key." The budget should do three things: • provide planning • provide approval • provide control for the client Another tool Sigurdson recommends is electronic invoice review. "E-billing is really helpful. When the bills come in through e-invoice, the pro- gram will scrub the bills to make sure that whatever rules you've agreed to — possibly no photocopies, for example, or identifying block billing issues. Then you can compare it to budget and what was agreed to with ex- ternal counsel," he said. "An e-billing system can provide three- to five-per-cent savings in the first year. That was our experience. In our case we have thousands of files to track." IH A return to firm life I t's not often you see in-house lawyers return to the law firm fold, but two recent examples show experienced law- yers are finding new opportunities as out- side counsel. Before joining Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP two months ago, Paul Rand was se- nior counsel at RBC, where he advised the capital markets business and the retail and commercial banking business. He began his legal career as a banking and securities liti- gator and spent seven years at RBC. Last fall, he met Blakes' chairman Brock Gibson at a conference and a discussion took place about what a role for Rand might look like at the firm. "I saw it as a chance to move to a platform I thought would help me grow my career," says Rand. "It was the opportunity to be in a place where there are broader horizons." Some in-house lawyers have quietly said in the last few years, as large legal depart- ments continue to grow, it can be difficult for in-house counsel under the GC level to move into more senior legal roles. Rand agrees some legal groups can be "static" but his interest was more in pursing the practice of law in his specialized area of securities. "I wouldn't call it a conventional move, but a firm like Blakes is really interested in different perspectives," he says. "I think they saw the value in a specialized focus and value in someone with the client's perspec- tive and experience as a valuable offering. For me it was something to jump at." Generally, the longer a person remains in-house, the more challenging it can be to return to private practice, says Carrie Heller of The Heller Group Legal and Executive Search Inc. "At the more senior levels, when a lawyer is attempting to return to private practice, firms will often look for a portable book of business, which is difficult to have if you have been in-house," says Heller. There are, of course, exceptions. In some cases, firms want the expertise, knowledge, and connections gained while in-house. "For example, in-house experience gained at the [Ontario Securities Commis- sion] is often desirable for law firms. As well, in certain cases the corporate work of their former employer may follow the candidate once he/she moves in-house which is also

• Cover