Canadian Lawyer InHouse

3 CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE MAY 2015 www.canadianlawyermag.com/inhouse Director/Group Publisher: Karen Lorimer karen.lorimer@thomsonreuters.com Editor in Chief: Gail J. Cohen gail.cohen@thomsonreuters.com Editor: Jennifer Brown jen.brown@thomsonreuters.com Staff Writer: Shannon Kari Copy Editor: James Kang Art Director: Steve Maver Account Co-ordinator: Catherine Giles Advertising Sales Representatives Legal Suppliers: Kimberlee Pascoe Tel: (416) 649-8875 E-mail: kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Law Firms: Joseph Galea E-mail: joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Grace So Tel: (416) 609-5838 E-mail: grace.so@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe Tel: (416) 315-5879 E-mail: steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Canadian Lawyer InHouse is published 6 times a year by Thomson Reuters Canada Ltd., One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto ON. M1T 3V4 (416) 298-5141. Fax : 416-649-7870 Web: www.canadianlawyermag.com/inhouse LinkedIn: www.goo.gl/9tytr Twitter: @CLInHouse Editorial advisory board: Sanjeev Dhawan, Hydro One Networks Inc.; Jonathan Lau, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario; Fernando Garcia, Nissan Canada; Lynn Korbak, Morneau Shepell: Joe Bradford, Bradford Professional Corp.; Dorothy Quann, Xerox Canada. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reprinted without written permission. The opinions expressed in articles are not necessarily those of the publisher. Information presented is compiled from sources believed to be accurate, however, the publisher assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions. Canadian Lawyer InHouse disclaims any warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or currency of the contents of this publication and disclaims all liability in respect of the results of any action taken or not taken in reliance upon information in this publication. Publications Mail Agreement #40766500 ISSN 1921-9563 Copyright © 2015 H.S.T. Registration #R121349799 To subscribe or change addresses Call (416) 649-9585 Fax (416) 649-7870 or e-mail Keith Fulford at keith.fulford@thomsonreuters.com RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESS TO: CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT One Corporate Plaza 2075 Kennedy Rd., Toronto ON. M1T 3V4 Indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index By Jennifer Brown Editor's Box SEND YOUR news AND story ideas TO jen.brown@thomsonreuters.com Time to pull together O ver the last year or two, it has been interesting to watch as the dialogue on alternative free arrangements has moved from a push coming from innovative in-house counsel looking to draw law fi rms into the discussion, to now law fi rms championing the discussion as a marketing tool. During a recent Canadian Bar Association webinar fi rms were being advised to "be known as taking steps forward to alternative fees and process management." That signaled that if fi rms didn't get it before, this is now offi cially a client development opportunity. If they aren't already doing it, they are going to be losing ground more than ever before. News fl ash: it doesn't have to mean reduced profi ts. As Tyler Langdon of Cognition LLP pointed out, external counsel's perspective should be that advancing alternatives to the billable hour will: "strengthen relationships, increase market share, improve business opportunities and actually enhance profi t." For the client, it should translate into budget predictability; value added service; and a roster of lawyers who understand the business — all things in-house want. A story in this issue's news section (see page 8) explores the thoughts and ideas put forward by three law fi rms — Borden Ladner Gervais, Gowlings, and Cognition — during that webinar, about the state of the billable hour. The session began with a fairly thorough overview of what all the fee arrangement terms mean and where they can be applied best — one of the better ones I've seen thus far. It also emphasized the importance of properly scoping work ahead of time — this puts the ball both in the court of in-house and external to have a good, "mutual understanding of the mandate." It's an area where parties with good intentions to try new arrangements have failed miserably in the past. Expectations are everything and they need to be managed well throughout the process. The discussions around terms and fee arrangements should not be underestimated — a couple of senior in-house lawyers have told me while they have heard all the buzzwords around AFAs and been to several seminars, they often leave still unclear as to how the different fee structures really work. These are in-house lawyers with signifi cant experience — if they aren't being sold, there's a big problem. What I fi nd interesting is when I think back to some conversations I've had with in-house counsel in small departments — of under three lawyers — they have already been doing this kind of thing for years with overseas, regional, or alternative providers. By necessity they sought out alternative delivery models to get the work done, often in start-up situations. It seems the larger and mid-size departments are the ones with the most work to do in this areas and where the fi rms have the most to gain. Langdon's advice for the fi rms was to be proactive and "start with clients you trust" and come from an agreed perspective of fairness where "nobody gets beat." There's going to be an interesting period where both parties let down their guard a little to allow the new dynamic take hold. He refers to this as the need to "pull hard and pull together" — I think that's the piece that's probably been missing all along.

• Cover