Readers might want to know which of the posts on this blog offer the most value. I wish I knew! Meanwhile here are some methods to move toward an assessment of a post’s relative quality.

Each month I look back two months and pick the posts that intrigued me the most. A solipsistic method without question, but at least I try to pick the diamonds from the rough. Were there more comments on this blog, I could hold up the posts that attract the most controversy, but that is not possible here since comments appear so infrequently.

More impartially, I have drawn on Feedburner to spot the posts most viewed by those who have LawDepartmentManagementBlog on their RSS feeds (See my post of June 15, 2009: ten posts listed but no pattern observed.). The posts that the sage editors of Law.com and Corporate Counsel select must have something going for them in terms of perceived widespread interest. To the same tune, PinHawk picks up posts from time to time and they could be candidates for quality (See my post of May 28, 2010: Pinhawk.).

In the future, Twitter may let me identify the posts that have been most retweeted (See my post of May 24, 2010: retweets.). There might be a way to find those items most clicked to through the “linkwithin” function on TypePad (See my post of May 26, 2010: new developments on this blog.). Likewise, were there software to do it, I could track the posts that readers email to others.

Eventually, tools will exist that integrate these various votes on quality or interest.

It seems inevitable that when a lawyer is promoted to be a direct report of the general counsel or to be the general counsel, disappointment – sometimes bitter discontent – plagues those who believed they had a shot at it but were passed over (See my post of April 16, 2007: loss of talent when a general counsel is promoted.).

A study should look at former peers of the promoted lawyer and count their departures within two years of the promotion. Such a study could quantify the likely range of loss to include the cost of morale, lower productivity, and replacement (See my post of March 8, 2009: attrition in law departments, with 16 references and one metapost.).

No palliatives can completely comfort someone wounded by not being promoted but when the full consequences are better understood and the economic loss made manifest, a well-run legal department might take steps to ease the pain and reduce the loss (See my post of May 24, 2010: shared position holders as a possible solution.).

Kevin Potts, VP of Product Management and Marketing at Emptoris, a leading provider of contract management software, left a hefty comment on one of my recent posts. His lessons learned deserve wider play and I couldn’t resist some editorial remarks. Note also that Kevin hosts a blog.

“Not being a lawyer, I have struggled to find the right words to describe how automation plays a role in contract management best practices. Here is what I have learned:

1. Don’t emphasize live negotiation management – no lawyer sees herself negotiating online with a customer on a sales agreement inside some software application. [That would be as off-putting as online auctions based on an RFP.]

2. It is not about improved productivity through contract template management. Making lawyers more efficient is not high value. [Kevin’s point eludes me. If a lawyer can find a precedential document more quickly, that improves productivity and has value.]

3. Few lawyers see value in contract lifecycle management software as a way to close contracts faster. [Clients care about speed; lawyers care about risks anticipated and dealt with.]

4. The real value of the software which provides contract template management comes from the ability to control the contractual language and thereby understand and influence the business ramification of those contracts.” [I defer to Kevin’s experience, but his point makes sense.]

One of the speakers at a panel at the InsideCounsel Superconference was the General Counsel of Johnson Controls. He said with evident pride that over the past 20 years seven people had left the law department and become the general counsel at a publicly traded company. He believes that departures of talented lawyers are inevitable and the step ups reflect well on the training provided the departing lawyer.

It would be an interesting benchmark to look at general counsel produced per 25 lawyers (or some other standard) during the 10 years preceding the count. Successful careers elsewhere are good indicators not just of ability and ambition but also of strong training and good preparation.

The General Counsel Metrics study, exceeding 600 legal departments around the world, has elevated fundamental management metrics to a new level. Far more global than Hildebrandt’s, more balanced by company size than Empsight’s, with much broader coverage than ALM’s, and not only larger than all three, the rapidly improving offering – available at no cost whatsoever – has garnered much attention on this blog. Small wonder, since this blogger guides it (See my post of March 8, 2010: five innovations; and July 25, 2010: twelve benefits of participation.).

A flow of posts have announce the maturation of the metrics survey (See my post of Feb. 4, 2010: first invitation to readers to take part; Feb. 15, 2010: 93 participants; March 4, 2010: more than 300 respondents; April 2, 2010: more than 430 departments; April 13, 2010: geographic dispersion of 330 departments; May 26, 2010: first .gif notice on this blog; April 26, 2010: Martindale-Hubble Connected webinar on first release of data; May 7, 2010: podcast of webinar; May 20, 2010: first release covered 455 departments in 35 countries; and July 6, 2010: second release with 500+ and 15,000 lawyers.).

Another tributary describes the participants (See my post of May 26, 2010: almost two-thirds of respondents are general counsel; May 31, 2010: why some participants request anonymity; June 11, 2010: anonymity requested to avoid having to ask permission; June 13, 2010: seven regions but unbalanced representation; July 22, 2010: 44 Global 500 as well as 126 participants with less than $180 million in revenue; June 2, 2010: participants in multiple benchmark studies; and June 23, 2010: network externalities and value of additional participants.).

The most useful current is the explanation of findings (See my post of May 31, 2010: comparisons of total legal spend among French, German, Italian, and UK participants; April 23, 2010: spending per lawyer per day; June 16, 2010: correlations between inside and outside spending; July 1, 2010: median cost per lawyer; July 7, 2010: huge differences between US and European legal departments in total spending; July 8, 2010 #2: compensation data of Laurence Simons; Aug. 19, 2010: data from the whole department compared to data from a portion of a department.).

Methodology deservedly has seen a splash or two of observations (See my post of Feb. 19, 2010: representativeness of participants based on 225; April 16, 2010: treatment of European patent agents; June 8, 2010: example of graphic showing quartiles and other metrics; April 30, 2010: three points; April 30, 2010: two group mean comparison test; June 13, 2010: stem and leaf graphic; June 23, 2010: methodology of benchmarking; July 1, 2010: standardized scores; July 28, 2010: currency valuation; and Aug. 16, 2010: test for representativeness.).

The most important contracts handled by a legal department are those with customers. Whoever wants to purchase your company’s goods or services deserves the most attention and creativity. No customers, no company.

Second in priority come contracts with suppliers. Cost and quality, to be sure, bear on how well in-house lawyers prepare those agreements, but the leverage stacks up on the buyer’s side of the table. The legal liabilities and issues may be comparable to sales, but the importance to the company is less.

In third place are contracts for indirect services. If a contract covers something other than revenue production or materials and supplies that go directly into the item sold (direct purchases), the contract applies to “indirect” services. Expenditures on contracts covering maintenance, employment, operations, leases, and so forth are secondary to the costs of goods sold and tertiary to what generates revenue for the company.

One panelist at the InsideCounsel SuperConference was the General Counsel of Johnson Controls, Jerry Okarma. His 55-lawyer legal department has a standardized on-boarding process for lawyers around the world. Otherwise, he said, there would be lots of different understandings. There is a schedule set for what newcomers should do and learn in the first three months, the first six months, and so forth. They have been using this process for the last year and a half and are continually improving it (See my post of Nov. 27, 2005: lawyers don’t coddle – sink or swim; April 27, 2006: on-boarding a new general counsel; Sept. 18, 2006: training program at Citigroup for new hires; May 28, 2007: Human Capital Theory espouses new-hire indoctrination; Jan. 4, 2008: socialization, another term for on-boarding; and April 6, 2008: new-lawyer orientation at GE.).

Okarma also showed his talent development chart. It has a row each for commercial contracts, corporate work, and antitrust. In the columns there were two numbered categories under each of basic, intermediate, and advanced. In other words, each lawyer for each of those three areas of law that were deemed core competencies is rated from one to six, the most advanced level of knowledge. The company also has a leader expectations model which is companywide and applies to the law department.

The General Counsel of LG Electronics spoke at the InsideCounsel SuperConference on May 25 th. I note three of his practices. One is that his lawyers train ad agencies on the basics of intellectual property, such as trademarks and copyrights. His department also prepares a list of trademarks and usage guidelines.

The department produces the quarterly Legal Gazette which goes out to clients. (See my post of July 20, 2009: newsletters by legal departments with 6 references.). http://www.lawdepartmentmanagementblog.com/law_department_management/2009/07/newsletters-produced-by-in-house-legal-groups.html

He also believes strongly that a law department should prepare a business plan with objectives and go through the usual scrutiny all business operating plans are subjected to (See my post of July 26, 2008: InBev’s business plan and speculation on contents; Dec. 29, 2008 #1: difference between a strategic plan and a business plan; Jan. 8, 2009: five-year business plan is a waste of time; Sept. 27, 2009: cascade from enterprise objectives to departmental business plan; and June 25, 2008: strategic plan with 10 references.).

An article several years ago laid out an organizing framework for knowledge in the form of a basic four-cell matrix. Visualize theory and practice as labels for the two rows and content and process as labels for the two columns. This useful table comes from Admin. Sci. Q., March 2003 at 95.

The authors place “organizational learning” at the intersection of theory and process, because that area of study combines theories about how organizations learn and the methods by which organizations encourage learning.

The authors place “learning organization” in the cell for practice and process, because the shift there is toward useful, non-theoretical advances (See my post of Dec. 19, 2005: think of law departments as learning organizations.).

A third cell in the two-by-two framework covers “organizational knowledge,” which they see as combining theory and content. The focus rests not on activities (process) but on the results (knowledge content).

Finally, they place “knowledge management” in the fourth cell, the one where practice and content combine. For legal departments, content is king, not process, and implementation matters, not theory.

With posts here and there about the odds of an internal promotion to the top legal spot compared to a recruitment of a new person to that position, let’s pause to state the shaky reasons why recruitment happens more than it should. More accurately, it happens more than academic researchers suggest it should happen based on CEO succession and the aftermath. These flawed explanations ignore sound reasons such as lack of ability or preparation among the internal contenders or their lack of interest in promotion.

1. The shortcomings of a long-serving Chris in the legal department, ready for prime time, are well known and much chattered about. Chris’s known warts look ugly compared to the unblemished visage of the outside candidate.

2. Change follows from change, doesn’t it? If we want to shake up that slow, over-priced and cantankerous department over-staffed with prima donnas, we need new blood, a modern perspective, a change of pace and face!

3. Really smart lawyers become partners at well-known firms (or stayed and built an impressive practice). The corollary of this misguided view is that legal sharpness should be the primary strength of the new general counsel, not balanced by the ability to motivate, manage, and move a team.

4. It is too hard to visualize in-house veteran Robin as anything bigger than Robin, certainly not dealing with the Board, handling corporate crises, making the tough legal calls. It’s easier to assume broad abilities of the unknown candidate than to attribute growth and capability of a person who has long been slotted in a role.

5. Internal politics stymies the internal candidate. Powerful business unit President A likes Jean but powerful business unit President B doesn’t want a lackey of A to rise to the top of the legal pile. In the competition to be the next CEO, never strengthen your opponent!

6. Executive recruiters make wads of money if the company plucks its new general counsel from elsewhere, but that wouldn’t influence their advice, would it?