Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50895
COVERSTORY KREBS: Again, it is the amount of information, the commu- nication age that you mentioned, the amount of information that comes across, and just sorting through that things are changing. It is the pace of change that is happening, and then keeping up with everything and those challenges with, in most instances, static resources or only slightly growing re- sources in order to try to keep up. And so, that fear of "What am I missing?" because of just the sheer volume of material that comes across my desk. Th at is a challenge. [ ON EXTERNAL COUNSEL ] INHOUSE: I would just like to know a bit about your relationship with your external law fi rms — what are you looking for from them, and are they providing it? ARMSTRONG: Well, we deal principally with one large external legal service provider. And what I need from them is full service. I need depth and bench strength, and I need national and international reach. We do deal with some smaller boutique fi rms for highly specialized work. Our labour work is with a labour boutique fi rm, and I don't need the same kinds of things from them. But, you know, one of the diff erences that you appreciate when you cross the line from a fi rm to an in-house practice is that, from the in-house perspective, the quality of the work that you expect to receive from a major national fi rm is tak- en for granted. It is not a diff erentiator. When you are practising in a fi rm, you oſt en have the impression that the harder you work on a fi le, the higher quality work you produce, the happier your client will be, and the client really doesn't care if you return that phone call by the end of the day, or if you return that BlackBerry message by the end of the day. It is not true. Th e quality of work is taken for granted, and what you really need is service. You need a fi rm that is prepared to turn themselves inside out for you when you really need it. MELENDY: Yes. I mean, obviously you want the usual sus- pects: quality of ser- vice, quick response times, bench strength. I think what is more important to me is that the law fi rm is al- 18 OC T OBER 2008 C ANADIAN Lawyer INHOUSE most like an extension of our legal department, and that there is a true partnership. So, I want them to give me practical advice, not just a strict legal answer. I want them to know my organization and un- derstand the constraints that I am un- der and the issues that I am facing, and act as my partner and not just a service provider. KREBS: I would note the quality is the price of entry. I mean, that is a given. But, in a broader context, what we have heard and frequently seen is there is a level of, at times, dissatisfaction with what has been provided by the external fi rms. And sometimes the level of dissatisfac- tion results from a service aspect. Th e quality is good, but they are not get- ting it in the right way. Sometimes it is a quality factor, but most frequent- ly it is a cost factor, it is a value factor. And one of the most common com- plaints that we hear is that the fi rms don't, or seem to be [unable to], understand the value that the particu- lar project, the particular fi le, whatever it happens to be, and what that is worth to the company, as opposed to what the fi rm wishes to charge for. ARMSTRONG: I have believed for a long time — I believed it when I was in private practice, and I believe it today from the perspective that I now occupy — that the large-fi rm business model, large-fi rm North American business model, is broken, and the profession needs to do something about it. I don't be- lieve that docketed time is a measure of anything, and certainly not a measure of value delivered. KREBS: Th e billable hour may be appropriate in some circum- stances, but what we have also seen, though, is it is a safe way to pay. And so, unfortunately, many in-house counsel are quite comfortable with it, and they don't necessarily want to go to other ways, because it has become a safe, conservative way to address things. But the billable hour [creates] perverse incen- tives. However, it is not necessarily bad. I have had counsel say to me that they are more than willing to pay $1,000 an hour for something that is worth $1,000 an hour. But it is when you have associates or you have others that are spending hundreds of hours on something when maybe you should have had the $1,000 [per] hour partner, and have him spend 10 hours and give you the answer that you need, as opposed to four associates spending maybe 30, 40 hours at a lower rate, but ultimately a much higher bill. BRIAN ARMSTRONG executive vice president and general counsel Bruce Power