Canadian Lawyer InHouse

3 CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE JULY 2016 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 Associate Editor: Yamri Taddese yamri.taddese@thomsonreuters.com Copy Editor: Patricia Cancilla Art Director: Steve Maver Account Co-ordinator: Sharlane Burgess Advertising Sales Representatives Joseph Galea E-mail: joseph.galea@thomsonreuters.com Steffanie Munroe Tel: (416) 315-5879 E-mail: steffanie.munroe@thomsonreuters.com Kimberlee Pascoe Tel: (416) 649-8875 E-mail: kimberlee.pascoe@thomsonreuters.com Grace So Tel: (416) 609-5838 E-mail: grace.so@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; 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 © 2016 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 By Jennifer Brown Editor's Box SEND YOUR news AND story ideas TO jen.brown@thomsonreuters.com Indexed in the Canadian Periodical Index Making informed choices W hen it comes to legal services procurement, there are still some in the in-house world who balk at the idea that legal services can be procured in the same way as widgets. I get that, but more and more, traditional procurement approaches and tools are being used in large organizations to determine how external legal providers are chosen. It's hard to ignore the effectiveness when you consider the questions asked. In both our 11th Annual General Counsel Roundtable discussion this year (see page 14) and a recent interview I did with Gordon McCue of Shell Canada (page 36), I had some insight into how two companies with historically strong processes for acquiring external products and services have used traditional tools — including reverse online auctions — to come up with a roster of law fi rms for large, repeatable litigation and other big matters. Both Dell and Shell use the process. Dell Canada's Barbara Silverberg has been doing it for about fi ve years and says it can work well. She is quick to note Dell doesn't necessarily go with the lowest bidder because managing litigation is not just about cost, but it's certainly a major one. Other factors kick in but it is about making the fi rms compete. At Shell, the company uses a sourcing tool designed by IBM and used routinely for purchas- ing goods. Legal adapted the tool to suit its purposes. The fi rms were asked a series of questions — such as: Would they commit to working with legal in certain ways such as using project plans, fee arrangements, provide secondees, etc., as well as requests for information on data privacy, cybersecurity, and the like. Armed with that information, Shell narrowed its short list to move to the next stage. McCue says there was "a lot of anxiety" for the fi rms it dealt with, but that's to be expected with such an exhaustive process. I asked a few of the panel fi rms they work with about how they viewed the process, but they declined. Based on what McCue told me, it seemed like the process leaves few stones unturned and quite a few rejected service providers. To be sure, few in-house departments have the resources to use IBM tools and reverse auc- tions to achieve the kind of savings and due diligence that Shell and Dell employ. It does suggest that when the effort is put in by the in-house team, rather than waiting for the law fi rms to create the right formula of staffi ng and fee arrangements based on a vague request, the result is better defi ned to the needs of the business and can be applied over several years before it needs to be reviewed. For some time, law fi rms have been told they aren't delivering what in-house want. Instead of waiting for the dynamic to change, progressive in-house departments are taking matters into their own hands and asking for information to allow them to come up with data they need to make informed decisions. During the roundtable, we also talked about the effectiveness of requests for proposals. It seems to me small departments prefer a happy medium that falls in between the exhaustive ap- proach Shell takes, and one that leaves in-house feeling like they still don't know if they got the best deal. But the real takeaway for me from the Shell approach is when going to the market, know what you want and be prepared to spend the time to evaluate. Otherwise, the end result probably won't be the right result.

• Cover