Ten more embedded metaposts (See my post of June 19, 2009: Part XXXIV), each embellished with the number of its back references.

1. Evolution, evolve (See my post of June 25, 2008: evolution with 8 references.).

2. General Electric (See my post of July 7, 2009: GE with 35 references.).

3. Health (See my post of July 10, 2009: health and welfare with 15 references and 4 metaposts.).

4. Law departments and their software (See my post of July 8, 2009: hyperpost on software with 12 metaposts.).

5. Law departments much cited – six of them (See my post of July 13, 2009: Cisco, DuPont, FMC, GE, McDonalds, Microsoft, UTC and Wal-Mart with 169 internal references and six metaposts.)

6. Loser pays (See my post of July 1, 2009: loser-pays jurisdictions with 6 references.).

7. Microsoft (See my post of June 30, 2009: Microsoft’s management initiatives with 30 references.).

8. Printers (See my post of July 7, 2009: printing and printers with 6 references.).

9. Re-engineering (See my post of June 28, 2009: reengineer with 6 references.).

10. Sleep, coffee and caffeine (See my post of June 29, 2009: sleep with 10 references.).

So far, I have collected posts and created metaposts on Cisco, DuPont, FMC Technologies, GE, McDonalds and Microsoft. These six total 154 posts (See my post of Sept. 25, 2008: Cisco with 30 references; June 7, 2009: DuPont with 32 references; June 7, 2009: FMC Technologies with 15 references; July 7, 2009: GE with 35 references; March 26, 2009: McDonald’s with 12 references; and June 30, 2009: Microsoft with 30 references.).

Two other legal departments, serving UTC and Wal-Mart, have earned the right to a collection, although not a metapost (See my post of May 24, 2009: United Technologies (UTC) and four back references; and Aug. 26, 2008: 11 posts on this blog about Wal-Mart.). I have gathered other posts about the references to specific companies (See my post of Aug. 26, 2008: posts on the legal teams of the world’s five largest corporations.).

As part of a series on posts here about specific companies, General Electric deserved a festschrift for its 35 posts.

Many of the GC posts boast of costs and savings (See my post of Jan. 14, 2007: document management and savings from it; Aug. 5, 2008: savings from early case assessment; Aug. 5, 2008: savings from convergence; May 23, 2007: reductions in litigation cycle time; and May 7, 2006: total legal spending.).

Outside counsel selection and management represents many of the posts (See my post of Sept. 4, 2005: online auctions; March 12, 2006 regarding online auctions; Aug. 28, 2008: keep work inside; Aug. 29, 2008: sycophancy by law firm partners; April 7, 2006 about procurement; and April 16, 2007: US panel firms.).

Some refer to structure (See my post of Oct. 8, 2007: dispersed compliance function; May 7, 2006: GE reporting; Jan. 6, 2006: GE reporting; April 6, 2007: reporting lines at GE; Aug. 27, 2008 #3: growth of the legal department at GE; June 20, 2008: dispersed lawyers in Asia; and Feb. 4, 2008: centers of excellence.).

The GE posts are modestly populated in the talent category (See my post of July 31, 2005: legal specialists; April 4, 2006: diversity; May 7, 2006 on in-house training programs; April 6, 2008: new lawyer orientation; and April 17, 2007: workouts.).

A few items have appeared on this blog about the technological resources of the GE legal team (See my post of May 23, 2007: law department technology team; April 27, 2008: video conferencing; Oct. 11, 2008: software for patent landscapes; and Dec. 23, 2008: patent on an intranet.).

The remainder of the GE-related items cover a variety of management topics (See my post of July 31, 2005: Six Sigma; June 19, 2006: Six Sigma; Jan. 15, 2006: Six Sigma; Feb. 7, 2007: pledge to use arbitration; Feb. 7, 2007: IP czar; Oct. 8, 2007: banish the word “client”; Feb. 10, 2007: mandate to apply for more patents; July 20, 2007: pilot programs; and Aug. 5, 2008: offshore work coming back.).

Take notice of good counsel on the other side. “Some [legal departments] track their expenditures per matter based on the identity/quality of opposing counsel to determine the best advocate against a thorny opponent or to hire that opposing lawyer away.” Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 17, June 2009 at 11 (Marcus Linden), mentions this and I include it because your next choice of counsel might be the adversary who just opposed you and did a good job.

Hakia as a semantic search engine and pictures for “law department management.” Having heard about Hakia, I tried it and of course searched for “law department management.” Aside from the results, I was fascinated by the six or more images that nestled to the right of the list of search results. A few connected immediately to legal departments, but others appear to have been photos uploaded next to some comment that has the term in it.

A bit more on litigation financing. The NY Times, June 3, 2009 at B1, has a column on investments in portfolios of lawsuits. It mentions Juris Capital, “a Chicago firm backed by two hedge funds” and David Dresser, managing director of Juris. The article also refers to Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City “who has studied the business” (See my post of May 21, 2009: lawsuit financing by groups with 8 references.).

Jux2 searches and comparison of three major engines. Jux2 runs simultaneous searches across Google, Yahoo! and MSN, according to Strategies: The Journal of Legal Marketing, Vol. 11, July 2009 at 18, so I tried it out. When I searched for “law department,” it showed hits as follows: Google 1.43 million, Yahoo! 3.52 million and MSN .33 million. For “legal department” Jux2 returned Google 1.65 million, Yahoo! 5.36 million and MSN .34 million. Jux2 returns what it claims to be the top results from each engine (See my post of April 20, 2009: Google results for the search; and May 24, 2005: difference between “legal department” and “law department”; slightly more hits for “legal department.”).

F-statistic analyses. The F-statistic tests the equality of the means in a group of figures, which is used sometimes to separate sets of figures into categories, as mentioned in Laura Empson, ed., Managing The Modern Law Firm: New Challenges New Perspectives (Oxford Univ. Press 2007) at 99 (Brian Uzzi, Ryon Lancaster and Shannon Dunlap) (See my post of Jan. 20, 2007: statistics with 28 references and May 31, 2006.)

Half million lawyers on LinkedIn. Steve Matthews, founder of Stem, said at the 2009 ABA Tech Show in April that LinkedIn has 563,000 lawyers with profiles. That number, according to Ari Kaplan in Strategies: The Journal of Legal Marketing, Vol. 11, June/July 2009 at 8, has shot up from 406,000 in December 2008 and 118,000 a year before. My group, Law Department Management, has a paltry 200 members (See my post of Sept. 22, 2008: social networks such as LinkedIn, with 7 references.).

Definitions of global, international, regional and local. From a benchmark survey, I saw these definitions (See my post of June 26, 2009: what is a “foreign law firm.”). These make sense as nomenclature for legal departments:

“Global/multinational (operating in many countries on several continents); International (primarily European or operating in multiple countries beyond the home country); Regional (from the home country and operating primarily in the contiguous region); and Local (from the home country and only operating there).”

Differences among loser-pay countries, with some details. An article in Focus Europe, Summer 2009 at 42, by a Clifford Chance lawyer, explains the courts’ powers to award costs of the prevailing party against the losing party in seven countries. In England, “it is uncommon for courts to award a party more than about 60-75% of its actual costs.” In the Netherlands, “legal costs are recoverable on the basis of how many briefs were submitted and how many times the parties appeared in court,” but “the reward is usually only a fraction of the actual costs.” Each of the countries covered has a different scheme, but the upshot is that the award of fees is not as great as I had thought (See my post of Oct. 22, 2005: insurance proceeds in a loser-pays jurisdiction; May 31, 2005: insurance where the loser pays the other side’s fees; May 10, 2006: why US litigation hasn’t spread to Europe; Aug. 21, 2006: Florida experience with loser pays; Jan. 12, 2009 #3: Germany’s rules; and May 21, 2009: conditional fee arrangements in England.).

Having collected posts on several other legal departments whose management efforts have been well-publicized, I decided to tally them for Microsoft. Setting aside any references on Law Department Management Blog to the software licensed by Microsoft, I found 30 references to what that company’s enormous and active legal group has pursued. The posts cover almost every category on this blog, so I have organized them in chronological order within the categories.

Two posts hinge on benchmarks (See my post of Aug. 3, 2005: patents per billion dollars of R&D; and Aug. 4, 2005: benchmark study spurs more patents.).

Others cover cost controls (See my post of June 15, 2005: outsourcing to reduce costs; Nov. 3, 2005: savings on e-billing; May 13, 2007: litigation against patent trolls; Nov. 11, 2005: $100 million spent on patent litigation; and Sept. 3, 2008: savings from offshore patent support.).

The category of outside counsel was under-represented (See my post of Jan. 4, 2006: dealing with firms across borders.) as was productivity (See my post of July 21, 2005: collective activity with GM and Cisco.).

Structure has the most blog entries regarding Microsoft (See my post of Aug. 27, 2005: law department includes government affairs; Aug. 27, 2005: supports own IT staff; Dec. 19, 2005: a legal and corporate affairs department of 850; April 30, 2006 #5: “procurement manager”; Aug. 8, 2006: its top lawyer in Europe; Jan. 4, 2006: Deputy GCs; Feb. 7, 2007: IP czar appointed; and Jan. 11, 2009: staff foreign offices first with generalists.).

Technology – well, we should expect Microsoft to excel (See my post of Jan. 4, 2006: uses document assembly; April 9, 2006: joint portal development; May 16, 2006: survey by Microsoft found that matter management systems are the least successful technology; Feb. 6, 2007: uses DealBuilder software; April 8, 2007: law firms help with rule-based drafting; Dec. 11, 2007: software to classify patent portfolios; and May 3, 2008: internal blogs.).

Talent, too, had a cluster of posts (See my post of April 6, 2009: Brad Smith as one of 20 most influential GCs; June 9, 2009: three tenors and also GC of Microsoft; May 2, 2008: employee-satisfaction poll; May 3, 2008: GC has monthly breakfasts with staff; May 8, 2008: online tool to allow comments after Town Halls; and Dec. 5, 2008: contributions as sponsor of conferences.).

The War of “Legal” Department vs. “Law” Department! The brawl over “Associate” vs “Assistant” General Counsel!! The vicious struggle between backers of general counsel (plural) and general counsels. The endless and cruel conflicts over word choices that go to the heart of one’s self and the meaning of life.

So, to hyphenate or not to hyphenate. The ultimate arbiter, the uber-crowdsource, Google, reports that a search for “in-house counsel” returns 638,000 hits. A search for the unhyphenated twin, “inhouse counsel” returns a meager 12,500. A 50-to-1 lead trumps even election returns in Iraq!

But solid empirical research demands more. “Inhouse lawyer” has 10,200 hits; “In-house lawyer” has 74,500 (7-to-1 ratio). “Inhouse attorney” barely registers at 809; “In-house attorney scales 62,100 hits.

I make the tough calls and I call them right: hyphens by a huge point spread, you in-housers!

Rapid growth of Starbuck’s legal department. Corp. Bd. Mbr., Vol. 12, 2nd Quarter 2009 at 46, says that after Paula Boggs became the general counsel of Starbucks in 2002, she “tripled the size of the legal department to 147 attorneys.” That is caffeinated growth and adds to this blogs collection of rapid expansions (See my post of May 10, 2007: Clayton Holdings; Feb. 19, 2006 #4: Home Depot; Nov. 19, 2005: Google; June 4, 2007: Wal-Mart; and June 11, 2008: an Abu Dhabi growth spurt and Caterpillar’s.).

Seyfarth Shaw and Six Sigma for litigation. According to a Bloomberg article by Cynthia Coutts, FMC Technologies chose this firm as a finalist in its ongoing selection process because it uses Six Sigma techniques to manage litigation more efficiently. Six Sigma is a business management system developed by Motorola Inc. that uses statistical analysis to improve the quality of processes (See my post of Feb. 13, 2008: Six Sigma with 18 references.).

Paying firms by credit card, quickly. FMC Technologies offers one especially sweet carrot to the firms it retains: It pays law firms by credit card within 15 days of billing, according to a Bloomberg article by Cynthia Coutts (See my post of May 11, 2008: prompt payment with 10 references.).

ISO 9001:2008 certification for legal service providers. Novus Law, an international legal services firm (an LPO), is the first firm in the global legal industry to achieve the new ISO 9001:2008 certification from Underwriters Laboratories. The accreditation specifically highlights the Novus Q and Novus Process document review and management systems. (See my post of April 28, 2009: ISO certification by a law firm.).

Seven hundred years ago, circa 1290 AD, clients needed guidance on how much to pay lawyers. Fees were to be based on “The amount of the matter in dispute, the labour of the serjeant, his value as a pleader in respect of his learning, eloquence, and repute, and lastly the usage of the court.” This early statement of value billing, decreed 700-plus years ago, comes from The Mirror of Justices, Book II, c.5. Selden Society Edition, 1895. Having inexplicably overlooked that source, I am grateful for the clue from Laura Empson, ed., Managing The Modern Law Firm: New Challenges New Perspectives (Oxford Univ. Press 2007) at 117 (Huseyin Leblebici).

With 4,500 posts under my belt, I looked back over the distribution of posts by the dozen substantive categories I use.

Outside Counsel Mgt. (976)
Talent Mgt. (602)
Mgt. Tools and Initiatives (566) Productivity (428) Controlling Legal Costs (428) Metrics and Benchmarks (224) Structure (213) Showing Value (166) Client Satisfaction (133) Decisions and Cognitive Styles (128) Technology (112) Knowledge Mgt. (107)

Somewhat ruefully, I wish I had put many of the posts that languish in “Mgt. Tools and Initiatives” into the more specific category to which they pertain, such as tools to control costs or initiatives to improve talent. With that reassignment, many other posts in the category might properly belong to “Productivity.” “Technology,” I realize now, is a productivity tool usually, so I could roll them together.

Similarly, many “Metrics and Benchmarks” pertain to a more focused category, such as outside counsel or structure. “Controlling Legal Costs” has evolved mostly to cover controlling non-law firm legal costs. I have come to believe that “Showing Value” should have been a part of “Client Satisfaction.”

Another consolidation would be to roll “Decisions and Cognitive Styles” into “Talent Management,” and I might as well pour in “Knowledge Management” at the same time. While I am tidying up, why not drop “Mgt.”? In short, going forward my categories will be “Outside Counsel,” “Talent,” “Costs,” “Structure,” and “Client Satisfaction” (why not “Clients”?).

Thus, legal department management boils down to people inside and out, how they are arrayed, and the associated expenses of serving the corporate client.

Ten more embedded metaposts (See my post of June 7, 2009: Part XXXIII), each embellished with the number of its back references.

1. Law departments of Asia (See my post of June 13, 2009: Asian law departments with 12 references.).

2. Collective actions (See my post of June 10, 2009: joint collaborations by legal departments with 18 references.).

3. Decision trees (See my post of June 17, 2009: decision tree software with 6 references.)

4. DuPont (See my post of June 7, 2009: E.I. DuPont with 32 references.).

5. Finance department (See my post of June 18, 2009: interplay of finance/accounting and legal with 19 references and 2 metaposts.).

6. FMC Technologies (See my post of June 7, 2009: Jeff Carr and FMC Technologies with 15 references.).

7. Human Resources departments (See my post of June 14, 2009: HR departments with 16 references and 3 metaposts.).

8. SharePoint (See my post of June 9, 2009: SharePoint with 6 references.).

9. Technology support IT staff (See my post of June 16, 2009: Information Technology staff group with 23 references and 1 metapost.).

10. Translation services (See my post of June 5, 2009: translating documents with 7 references.)