4 In-House Pet Peeves Of Outside Counsel

// A common question I receive from outside counsel is how they can have an opportunity to do our business. But a question outside counsel should be asking, especially of their current clients, is what can they do to keep the business.

In no particular order, through unscientific crowdsourcing, here are some common ways outside counsel can lose their current clients’ business.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); });
  • Lack Of Responsiveness

By far, this rose to the top. In fairness, some of my in-house colleagues may unreasonably expect immediacy. At the same time, most in-house counsel surveyed expect a nonsubstantive response to an email or inquiry within 24-48 hours, with 24 hours being the preference. Rightly or wrongly, anything outside of that window is unacceptable.

Please note the use of the word “nonsubstantive.” Certainly, most of us do not expect research of a novel complex legal issue to be turned around in 24 hours. But we do want to know that you read our email and are working on it. Something along the line of “got this and we’re working on it” should be sufficient.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); googletag.enableServices(); });

For what it’s worth, for brand new matters, the outside counsel who gets considered may well be one of the first to respond with the requisite experience/expertise and availability.

  • Not Meeting Deadlines

This is not about blowing litigation deadlines — that would be too obvious of a pet peeve and reason to be fired from a single case (or forever). Rather, this category is about not producing work product by an agreed upon deadline, especially without communication. Granted, some of these deadlines are “fake,” meaning that there is no dire consequence like missing a pleading deadline. At the same time, when outside counsel is late in providing what we in-house counsel have requested, we then have to give less-than-expected client service to our internal clients and businesses. Candidly, our favorite outside counsel partners are the ones that make us look good — but if you don’t do this, at least don’t make us look bad.

  • Last-Minute Requests

For a planner like me who prefers outside counsel to send me calendar invites with litigation deadlines, this is a biggie. At the end of each week, I plan the next week (and if I’m feeling ambitious, I look a full month ahead), and nothing irks me more than a last-minute request to review a pleading, talk to a witness, or obtain documents. While some things are unavoidable, most deadlines are known far in advance, so last-minute requests can be (and often are) interpreted by in-house counsel as poor planning and inconsiderate.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Enable lazy loading. googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ renderMarginPercent: 150, mobileScaling: 2 }); // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-bottom-300x250" ); googletag.enableServices(); });
  • Talking Down To Us

This seemingly obvious one surprised me when it turned up more than once because it seems like an issue of basic respect. After all, does any person like to be talked down to?

While we as in-house counsel admittedly are not as engrossed in the law as outside counsel and may not have deep subject matter expertise, especially if we are in general counsel roles, we are still lawyers, and, more importantly, human beings.

If the denigrating approach is intentional, this paragraph may do little to change it. But this is worth noting in case those who practice law in this way may be unaware of how their delivery is landing.

As noted above, these pet peeves are very general and based on informal conversations with a handful of in-house counsel and should be taken as such. The larger takeaway is that if you are outside counsel and care about keeping your clients, it may be worth having a conversation about how you could do better.

Meyling Mey Ly OrtizMeyling “Mey” Ly Ortiz is in-house at Toyota Motor North America. Her passions include mentoring, championing belonging, and a personal blog: TheMeybe.com. At home, you can find her doing her best to be a “fun” mom to a toddler and preschooler and chasing her best self on her Peloton. You can follow her on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/meybe/). And you knew this was coming: her opinions are hers alone.

Topics

Biglaw, In-House Counsel, Meyling "Mey" Ly Ortiz, On Course, On Course Business Of Law, Outside Counsel


Introducing Jobbguru: Your Gateway to Career Success

The ultimate job platform is designed to connect job seekers with their dream career opportunities. Whether you're a recent graduate, a seasoned professional, or someone seeking a career change, Jobbguru provides you with the tools and resources to navigate the job market with ease. 

Take the next step in your career with Jobbguru:

Don't let the perfect job opportunity pass you by. Join Jobbguru today and unlock a world of career possibilities. Start your journey towards professional success and discover your dream job with Jobbguru.

Originally posted on: https://abovethelaw.com/2022/10/4-in-house-pet-peeves-of-outside-counsel/