Failure to be clear and concise
All the in-house lawyers interviewed by ALB note that it is the ability of firms to offer quality and commercial results that will dictate who gets legal work from companies. The survey reveals that firms who can guarantee high quality work, meet deadlines and be proactive in the running of projects have a good chance of continuing to receive work from in-house clients.
Nonetheless, the consensus opinion is that most law firms struggle to deliver these apparently basic demands. “What law firms need to understand is, compared to when I was a partner at a law firm, I now receive 10 times more e-mails, am looking after 10 times more matters and can be working on projects in four or five different countries at the same time with only a small in-house team. I do not appreciate having to proof read documents and correct typos, major drafting mistakes – this happens all too often,” Flavell says.
Elliot cites similar experiences and notes that some of his external lawyers never fail to disappoint. “Some of them have problems with the basics. I don’t want my external counsel to just play lawyers. I give them work and I get the impression that they give me advice with one eye on their cost agreement. I don’t want wishy-washy advice; I can’t take that to my board.”
In essence, in-house lawyers are looking for their external lawyers to be proactive, to be a step (or two) ahead of the game – but not too far ahead.
“The APAC region can be very difficult and the legal position is often unclear. However, a lawyer who gives me advice along those lines is of no use. I expect firms to give me their ‘best call’ on how they think we should proceed and give me reasons to back up their view – I’m sorry to say this does not happen very often,” Flavell says. “On major projects I want my lawyers to be three or four steps ahead of us taking charge to ensure we get where we need to be. I have found only a couple of lawyers that do this.”
But external advisors need to find the balance between being proactive and doing more than was asked, explains the general counsel at the US-based investment bank. “I really just want lawyers we use to do what we ask – nothing more, nothing less. They shouldn’t do work we haven’t briefed them on, they should just provide the advice.”
“I think it is fair to say that we are looking to reduce the number of firms we use in the APAC region and build stronger relationships with a smaller number of firms”David Flavell, Danone Asia
Be flexible
The efforts of law firms that have been trying hard in this area have not gone unnoticed. One area in which this is most apparent is in relation to fee arrangements where flexibility has become the order of the day. Having said that, all in-house lawyers ALB interviewed noted that there is still some way to go but this does not necessarily mean a massive reduction in fees. Rather, it is the little things that count.
In-house lawyers want some uniformity. “Our external lawyers have been very flexible in terms of offering fee reductions, extended payment terms and holding back on some work,” Ingram says. “They have shown they are willing to be flexible and – this is perhaps most important – they have an understanding that we must work together through this difficult time.”