Paul Gilbert argues that lazy thinking and perverse incentives are dulling the ethical and intellectual edge of in-house counsel
It’s stated so often but never questioned: everywhere you turn, in-house lawyers pay tribute to the holy grail of ‘being commercial’. But, as I will argue, such an approach raises substantive and troubling questions regarding the influence on the ethical compass that is supposed to be an in-house lawyer’s most important tool.
From collaboration to rough quarters to restoring market confidence, leaders at Legal Business 100 firms give us their views on the last financial year and the next 12-18 months.
‘I feel very optimistic about the economy and therefore the opportunities. Any firm would be foolish in thinking the challenges have gone and those challenges continue to be how we deliver immaculate service and efficiencies to our clients. The market as a whole is still over-lawyered and that challenge remains. It’s still fiercely competitive.’
Monica Burch, senior partner, Addleshaw Goddard
I made a mistake. It was in 1989. I went in-house and found I was good at my job. It was the first time in my life I truly felt I was good at something. Until then I had found everything hard. Exam results were never adorned with flying colours and my CV, such as it was, looked more apologetic than full of promise.
Continue reading “Guest post: Stop being proactive, stop being commercial, stop being nice”
‘Call it the Great Recession, the Great Reset, or whatever, the world palpably shook in September 2008 and the repercussions are still very much with us.’
Bruce MacEwen wrote the above in his 2013 book Growth is Dead, and while changes have been made, much of it still rings true today – including for law firm technology.
Continue reading “Guest post: Change is neither good nor bad: It is”
A caricature may reveal a truth…
‘Why, if there is all the talk of change, is change so slow?’
One might be forgiven for thinking that there is rather too much talk of change in the legal profession and perhaps rather less evidence of it happening. It is not easy to see the wood from the trees sometimes, but I would like to offer a perspective on why this may seem to be the case from both a law firm and a client point of view. Continue reading “Guest post: ‘Stockholm syndrome’ in legal services – GCs are captured by their advisers”
A direct consequence of the government’s decision in May not to make any major changes to the regulatory framework for legal services is that it simultaneously fired the starting gun for the race to introduce major changes to the regulatory framework for legal services.
Given the amount of time I spend hanging out with managing partners it’s not unusual to be asked by law firms how they could tweak their governance or how they stack up against peers.
In one such recent conversation, I got to thinking about how best to prepare the new managing partner for the culture shock of moving from the clear purpose of a revenue-generating role to the ambiguous job spec of running a law firm. Continue reading “Comment: Advice for the new managing partner – don’t consult, just do”
For all the improving signs, glancing at our annual Global 100 report shows headline performance largely comparable with 2013. The group increased billings by 4% to $88.63bn, a rise of 4% and the same growth rate achieved in 2013. Continue reading “Comment: Global 100 – a little bit of life before Lehman returns. But only a little”
As journalists and managing partners hit reporting season the understandable urge rises once more to make sense of the legal world. Nearly six years since Lehman Brothers’ collapse did something substantive to the law game, what lessons can be learned? Continue reading “Comment: ‘Nobody knows anything’ – Goldman is more right than Maister”
Ten Old Square’s Eason Rajah QC examines whether Beddoe applications are still relevant or whether they should be brought in line with other applications for directions
Since the case of Re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547 it has become accepted that costs incurred by trustees who bring or defend hostile litigation unsuccessfully are costs which are prima facie not properly incurred and therefore cannot be recouped from the trust fund pursuant to their indemnity. A trustee is not protected merely because he acts on legal advice. It has been said fairly recently that a trustee who has pursued or defended an action unsuccessfully is likely only in exceptional circumstances to be able to show that his costs were properly and reasonably incurred (see Bonham v Blake Lapthorn Linell [2007] EWHC 2513 (Ch) at para 123). Consequently, trustees are usually advised to obtain the consent of their beneficiaries, or an indemnity from one or more of them. In the last resort, trustees are usually advised to obtain prospective costs protection by bringing an application for directions as to whether or not the claim should be litigated – a Beddoe application.
Continue reading “Beddoe applications – still fit for purpose?”
