Comments for InhouseBlog http://www.inhouseblog.com News and Jobs for In-house Counsel Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:02:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 Comment on A Force Majeure Clause for the New Millennium by Aaron Levine http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/a_force_majeure_clause_for_the_new_millennium.html#comment-2527 Aaron Levine Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:33:49 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/a_force_majeure_clause_for_the_new_millennium.html#comment-2527 While not finding a clause such as the one featured above; I have found clauses that include detailed exclusions from force majeure relating to known weather conditions. These clauses are common in the Pacific Northwest but may be a harbinger of the future as global warming changes the climate in the Midwest. I also saw a clause once where the party who did not recieve performance due to the other side's force majeure problems wanted to be compensated for the extra expense they incurred by going to another vendor. So what was the point of the clause in the first place. While not finding a clause such as the one featured above; I have found clauses that include detailed exclusions from force majeure relating to known weather conditions. These clauses are common in the Pacific Northwest but may be a harbinger of the future as global warming changes the climate in the Midwest.
I also saw a clause once where the party who did not recieve performance due to the other side’s force majeure problems wanted to be compensated for the extra expense they incurred by going to another vendor. So what was the point of the clause in the first place.

]]> Comment on Craigslist: Attorney Needed? by Gary Baumgarten http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/craigslist_attorney_needed.html#comment-2503 Gary Baumgarten Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:41:12 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/craigslist_attorney_needed.html#comment-2503 Craig Newmark will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com Monday June 23 at 5 PM New York time. To talk or listen to Newmark please go to my blog, www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the link to the show. Craig Newmark will be my guest on News Talk Online on Paltalk.com Monday June 23 at 5 PM New York time.

To talk or listen to Newmark please go to my blog, http://www.garybaumgarten.com and click on the link to the show.

]]> Comment on A Force Majeure Clause for the New Millennium by Ted Weitz http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/a_force_majeure_clause_for_the_new_millennium.html#comment-2490 Ted Weitz Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:05:57 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/06/a_force_majeure_clause_for_the_new_millennium.html#comment-2490 This post reminded me of a funny force majeure story (hard to believe) from a few years ago. I was in house at AT&T at the time and we had received a software development contract from a company that I thought was quite unacceptable. Rather than just scrap it, however, I left the structure in place and just revised many of the key provisions. Once I was done I read through the boilerplate, to make sure there was nothing of concern in the provisions that usually were noncontroversial. Sure enough, the force majeure clause referred to "acts of God or any other deity." It was the first time I ever had a theological question in a contract. To boot, since it called for California law to be applied I was particularly concerned. After amusing myself by showing the clause to all of my colleagues, I struck the phrase "any other deity" and the other side accepted the change without a word. This post reminded me of a funny force majeure story (hard to believe) from a few years ago. I was in house at AT&T at the time and we had received a software development contract from a company that I thought was quite unacceptable. Rather than just scrap it, however, I left the structure in place and just revised many of the key provisions. Once I was done I read through the boilerplate, to make sure there was nothing of concern in the provisions that usually were noncontroversial. Sure enough, the force majeure clause referred to “acts of God or any other deity.” It was the first time I ever had a theological question in a contract. To boot, since it called for California law to be applied I was particularly concerned. After amusing myself by showing the clause to all of my colleagues, I struck the phrase “any other deity” and the other side accepted the change without a word.

]]> Comment on Angry In-House Counsel & The Perfect Storm of 2008 by Mike Grodhaus http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/02/angry_in-house_counsel_the_perfect_storm_of_2008.html#comment-2339 Mike Grodhaus Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:20:43 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/02/angry_in-house_counsel_the_perfect_storm_of_2008.html#comment-2339 Geoffrey, Thank you for mentioning my blog. It is my hope that in-house counsel everywhere will find it useful and informative. As has been stated at several other blogs, including mine, our profession will not abandon or even drastically cut back on reliance on the billable hour unless clients demand it. In-house lawyers are the leading clients of law firms everywhere, so until in-house lawyers begin to demand of their outside counsel more creative ways to bill than just hours x rate, the current corporate frustration with ever-increasing legal fees will continue. The target audience of your blog has the power to change that, and it is my hope that over the next several years, more and more corporate law departments will at least begin experimenting with one or more forms of alternative billing. Geoffrey,

Thank you for mentioning my blog. It is my hope that in-house counsel everywhere will find it useful and informative. As has been stated at several other blogs, including mine, our profession will not abandon or even drastically cut back on reliance on the billable hour unless clients demand it. In-house lawyers are the leading clients of law firms everywhere, so until in-house lawyers begin to demand of their outside counsel more creative ways to bill than just hours x rate, the current corporate frustration with ever-increasing legal fees will continue. The target audience of your blog has the power to change that, and it is my hope that over the next several years, more and more corporate law departments will at least begin experimenting with one or more forms of alternative billing.

]]> Comment on Eight Legal Technology Trends for 2008 – Good Times, Bad Times or Hard Times in Legal Tech? | LLRX.com by Bob Jamison http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/03/eight_legal_technology_trends_for_2008_good_times_bad_times_or_hard_times_in_legal_tech_llrxcom.html#comment-2330 Bob Jamison Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:30:41 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/03/eight_legal_technology_trends_for_2008_good_times_bad_times_or_hard_times_in_legal_tech_llrxcom.html#comment-2330 As companies develop plans to weather the recession I think financial executives are going to look to do more with their existing headcount. This means that functions such as in house legal and revenue operations that are often considered cost centers will be required to handle more contract negotiations with the same amount of resources. In the area of “Technology that Cuts Costs”, my company Emptoris worked with a large telecommunications company to enable self service contracting for their sales team. This allowed them to double their sales force without increasing headcount on their contract management team. Instead of the legal team managing each contract negotiation, they now only focus only on the exceptions. This allows them to focus on improving template standardization and handling contract maintenance activities. We are seeing an increased interest in our Contract Management software, especially for revenue contracts, where companies are working to increase “revenue in” and decrease the cost of revenue. As companies develop plans to weather the recession I think financial executives are going to look to do more with their existing headcount. This means that functions such as in house legal and revenue operations that are often considered cost centers will be required to handle more contract negotiations with the same amount of resources. In the area of “Technology that Cuts Costs”, my company Emptoris worked with a large telecommunications company to enable self service contracting for their sales team. This allowed them to double their sales force without increasing headcount on their contract management team. Instead of the legal team managing each contract negotiation, they now only focus only on the exceptions. This allows them to focus on improving template standardization and handling contract maintenance activities. We are seeing an increased interest in our Contract Management software, especially for revenue contracts, where companies are working to increase “revenue in” and decrease the cost of revenue.

]]> Comment on Reading List for 2008 - Publications for Law Department Managers by New in-house http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/01/reading_list_for_2008_-_publications_for_law_department_managers.html#comment-2320 New in-house Sun, 24 Feb 2008 16:30:33 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/01/reading_list_for_2008_-_publications_for_law_department_managers.html#comment-2320 I am about to start a new job as corporate counsel and will be the first in-house lawyer at the company. Can anyone recommend a web-site, books, etc., that I can use as a reference regarding what I need to do to start-up the company's in-house legal department? Cheers, J. I am about to start a new job as corporate counsel and will be the first in-house lawyer at the company. Can anyone recommend a web-site, books, etc., that I can use as a reference regarding what I need to do to start-up the company’s in-house legal department?

Cheers, J.

]]> Comment on Extreme Contract Simplification by Dan Cahill http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/02/extreme_contrac.html#comment-2312 Dan Cahill Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:15:00 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/02/extreme_contrac.html#comment-2312 The International Association of Contract Management (IACCM) has a number of good resources about streamlining contract management processes, including one related to building a case for contract management change and technology: http://www.iian.ibeam.com/events/empt001/21807/index.jsp?adid=emptorisdb And Emptoris, a contract management software provider, offers a whitepaper on how technology can transform contracting processes: http://www.emptoris.com/solutions/be_ecm_whitepaper_registration.asp The International Association of Contract Management (IACCM) has a number of good resources about streamlining contract management processes, including one related to building a case for contract management change and technology:

http://www.iian.ibeam.com/events/empt001/21807/index.jsp?adid=emptorisdb

And Emptoris, a contract management software provider, offers a whitepaper on how technology can transform contracting processes:

http://www.emptoris.com/solutions/be_ecm_whitepaper_registration.asp

]]> Comment on US News Law School Rankings Sneak Peek?? by Ezra Goldschlager http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/03/us_news_law_school_rankings_sneak_peek.html#comment-1643 Ezra Goldschlager Sat, 02 Feb 2008 13:52:36 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/03/us_news_law_school_rankings_sneak_peek.html#comment-1643 We all know that the U.S. News methodology is flawed, but what is frequently overlooked is just how damaging the rankings are beyond their simple impact on applicants' decisions about where to attend. Because admissions officers are frequently judged based on ability to boost their schools in the U.S. news rankings, they make admissions decisions based not on actual applicant merit, but on factors entirely divorced from merit that are instead directly related to U.S. News rankings. For example, admissions officers are frequently hesitant to fully-consider extenuating circumstances when evaluating an applicant's LSAT score, because even though they may have excellent evidence that the applicant's score is not indicative of her likelihood of future success, they realize that the applicant's score will be included in their school's LSAT statistics, which in turn will contribute to their school's rankings. The same type of process goes on with GPA. It's time for the schools to take a stand and withhold their entering-class data. Ezra Goldschlager <a href="http://www.lawschoolgenius.com" rel="nofollow">Law School Admissions Consultant</a> We all know that the U.S. News methodology is flawed, but what is frequently overlooked is just how damaging the rankings are beyond their simple impact on applicants’ decisions about where to attend. Because admissions officers are frequently judged based on ability to boost their schools in the U.S. news rankings, they make admissions decisions based not on actual applicant merit, but on factors entirely divorced from merit that are instead directly related to U.S. News rankings. For example, admissions officers are frequently hesitant to fully-consider extenuating circumstances when evaluating an applicant’s LSAT score, because even though they may have excellent evidence that the applicant’s score is not indicative of her likelihood of future success, they realize that the applicant’s score will be included in their school’s LSAT statistics, which in turn will contribute to their school’s rankings. The same type of process goes on with GPA. It’s time for the schools to take a stand and withhold their entering-class data.

Ezra Goldschlager
Law School Admissions Consultant

]]> Comment on Private Equity Firms Increasingly Hire In-House Counsel by Hedge Fund http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/09/private_equity_firms_increasingly_hire_in-house_counsel.html#comment-1180 Hedge Fund Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:25:00 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2007/09/private_equity_firms_increasingly_hire_in-house_counsel.html#comment-1180 Private Equity isn't the best place to be now...although if you can get in you will be set in 2-3 years when the market picks back up. - Richard http://richard-wilson.blogspot.com Private Equity isn’t the best place to be now…although if you can get in you will be set in 2-3 years when the market picks back up.

- Richard
http://richard-wilson.blogspot.com

]]> Comment on GCs Embrace Outsourced Work by Stewart Weltman http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/01/gcs_embrace_outsourced_work.html#comment-1178 Stewart Weltman Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:09:59 +0000 http://www.inhouseblog.com/2008/01/gcs_embrace_outsourced_work.html#comment-1178 I a firm believer that corporations can and should lower their litigation costs but with all due respect, if Mr. Rickman is seriously suggesting that outsourcing document reviews is the answer in litigation matters he is setting himself and his company up for some potentially case devastating results. As someone who has litigated and lead high stakes litigation matters for over 29 years - mostly suing large corporations like Mr. Rickman's [but who has now changed sides] - there is one thing that is an absolute - the documents are the heart of virtually every major commercial case. You can rest assured that no plaintiff's counsel will ever outsource review of documents, and that they will all revel in the knowledge that their opponents have been hamstrung by a penny wise pound foolish approach to lowering litigation costs. In fact, as a senior partner heading up major antitrust and securities cases I always participate in the initial first cut of documents. Why? For a whole host of reasons including: (1) as one of the lawyers who is responsible for the big picture I can directly communicate this to the team that is conducting the review - as they are doing it - to better ensure that key documents are found - outsourcing precludes this; (2) cost conscious? - knowing the wheat from the chaff, I can review 10 times faster than those less experienced; and (3) by getting my hands dirty in the opposing side's documents I obtained a tactile feel for the other side's corporate culture - a feel that has always come in handy during depositions and cross exams later on in the litigation and at trial - a tremendous competitive advantage in cases where competitive advantages can translate into millions of dollars. Putting aside the accountability risks that outsourcing presents, by sending even the initial cut overseas, you hamstring your litigation team in ways that can and will cost you far more. In short, outsourcing is a faulty patch that avoids confronting the real problem - how to manage your outside legal teams so that they function effectively and efficiently. Outsourcing is not the answer to this problem - in fact it is dangerous and potentially case defeating. There are ways to begin to solve this problem but they require systemic changes in the way in which in-house counsel manage their outside counsel. Shipping the problem offshore is a risky avoidance not a solution. I a firm believer that corporations can and should lower their litigation costs but with all due respect, if Mr. Rickman is seriously suggesting that outsourcing document reviews is the answer in litigation matters he is setting himself and his company up for some potentially case devastating results.

As someone who has litigated and lead high stakes litigation matters for over 29 years - mostly suing large corporations like Mr. Rickman’s [but who has now changed sides] - there is one thing that is an absolute - the documents are the heart of virtually every major commercial case.

You can rest assured that no plaintiff’s counsel will ever outsource review of documents, and that they will all revel in the knowledge that their opponents have been hamstrung by a penny wise pound foolish approach to lowering litigation costs.

In fact, as a senior partner heading up major antitrust and securities cases I always participate in the initial first cut of documents.

Why? For a whole host of reasons including: (1) as one of the lawyers who is responsible for the big picture I can directly communicate this to the team that is conducting the review - as they are doing it - to better ensure that key documents are found - outsourcing precludes this; (2) cost conscious? - knowing the wheat from the chaff, I can review 10 times faster than those less experienced; and (3) by getting my hands dirty in the opposing side’s documents I obtained a tactile feel for the other side’s corporate culture - a feel that has always come in handy during depositions and cross exams later on in the litigation and at trial - a tremendous competitive advantage in cases where competitive advantages can translate into millions of dollars.

Putting aside the accountability risks that outsourcing presents, by sending even the initial cut overseas, you hamstring your litigation team in ways that can and will cost you far more.

In short, outsourcing is a faulty patch that avoids confronting the real problem - how to manage your outside legal teams so that they function effectively and efficiently. Outsourcing is not the answer to this problem - in fact it is dangerous and potentially case defeating.

There are ways to begin to solve this problem but they require systemic changes in the way in which in-house counsel manage their outside counsel. Shipping the problem offshore is a risky avoidance not a solution.

]]>