Canadian Lawyer InHouse

Aug/Sept 2012

Legal news and trends for Canadian in-house counsel and c-suite executives

Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/74849

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 33 of 39

LAW DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT THE EVOLUTION OF THE EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIP Why Telus decided to abandon a blended rate and go back to hourly billing with one of its litigation firms. By Jennifer Brown There's been a lot of talk over the years of the importance of law firms stepping up to offer added value, alternative fee arrangements, and better relationship management to clients. What' is how law firms and in-house counsel work, over time, to iron out bumps in the road and change up what works for them and their respective business units as the relationship evolves. When it works well, the law firm and in-house counsel develop critical points of contact. Case s often left out of that discussion Communications Co. in point ment and its outside firm in Ontario, Lerners LLP. Associate general counsel Alan Dabb has been working with the Lerners team since he joined Telus in 2007. Since then he has come to know many of the lawyers at the firm. While it is one of about half a dozen firms Dabb deals with across the country, Lerners manages files in Ontario ranging from small claims items up to the most signifi- cant currently active litigation files. The relationship building with Lerners litigation depart- is the Telus and Telus took an unexpected turn in 2008 when Lerners' senior partner George Glezos died suddenly. Glezos had been the partner who was the main point per- son on the Telus account. Dabb, who was also relatively new to Telus and based in Burnaby, B.C., realized it was up to him to build new relationships with the lawyers at Lerners in Toronto who would be tak- ing over and he put the wheels in motion immediately. "I dealt with George on 75 to 85 per cent of the litigation files Telus had with Lerners. There were other lawyers work- ing on them but I dealt with him on updates and getting them assigned, Dabb, who was at Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP for 10 years before going in-house at Telus. At the firm he practised claims litigation, corporate-commercial, class action, and intellectual property law. After Glezos passed away, Dabb went " says to Toronto and met with members of the Lerners team. "Most of the in-house/ external relationship really turns on the individuals and on how well you work with particular people. I had had a really good relationship with George — he was a good lawyer and a great guy. You get wor- ried when that relationship is gone and you worry about your relationship with the other external counsel, Munro and Pino Cianfarani and they began to build new relationships. "When I came out and met with Lisa and Pino everything seemed to fit very well in terms of personalities and the expertise they bring to the table. They made the transition far easier than I would have expected." He met with Lerners partners Lisa " says Dabb. 34 • AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2012 WWW.CANADIANLAWYERMAG.COM/INHOUSE was the primary contact was that Telus had an individual who understood the relationship, who knew how Telus worked and what its needs were that Telus could access at the higher level. It was important to continue that and recognize the need for one or two individuals to connect with them and then that developed that into the broader practice, "What worked really well when George we went through that process," says Dabb. It served everyone involved well when "I never felt like there was a gap when " says Cianfarani. it came time to review the Telus retainer agreement. For the previous three years the telecommunications company had been working on an arrangement in which they were billed by the firm on a blended rate. But when it came time to review its agreement with Lerners, Dabb decided he wanted to take a different approach. He solicited proposals from three firms including Lerners but he ended up staying with Lerners. He says the decision was based on a combination of considerations. "You look at a number of factors including expertise in terms of subject matter and litigation expertise and what they brought to the table in terms of bench strength and depth and breadth of the department." He also looked at cost. "Costs are INHOUSE

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Canadian Lawyer InHouse - Aug/Sept 2012