Minding the Gap
For better or worse, Generation Y—generally defined as those born in the late ’70s to early ’90s—is growing up and entering the workforce. And like Gen-X and the Boomers before it, this group of young people is shaking things up. But in the SuperConference session "Dealing With Gen-Y at Work," the generation gap in the room wasn’t so apparent as the in-house-outside counsel gap. If the reaction of both panel- and audience-members is any indication, the in-house bar is more ready and willing to adapt to the needs of Gen-Yers.
Solo practitioner and criminal defender Scott Greenfield found little value in the population he finds selfish, whiny and incompetent. "As a generational group, they couldn’t care less," he said.
Moderator J. Daniel Hull of Hull McGuire had a similar view, citing his own experiences with clueless, entitled Gen-Yers making unreasonable demands and shirking their responsibilities in the name of work-life balance. "Most general counsel aren’t coming to me and saying, I hope you have work-life balance," Hull said.
"I do," weighed in one general counsel in the audience, noting he wants his lawyers to have a life outside the office. That attitude seemed to set the in-house crowd apart from the law firm attorneys.
Anthony Zana, corporate counsel with Intergraph Corp.—and, at 29, a bona fide Gen-Yer—explained that his law firm mentors expressed regret over missing out on time with their children and warned Zana not to do the same. But putting in fewer hours doesn’t mean the quality of work has to suffer, he said.
"[We can achieve] a mutual adjustment between the generations, and that’s the real solution to help [Gen-Yers] get to where they want to be with their personal lives and also be productive in your organization," Zana said.
William Morelli, general counsel for Ingram Industries Inc., agreed. It took him some time to get used to the thought of an attorney sitting at home in pajamas working on a brief, he said—until he realized that he could still have it on his desk first thing in the morning, with no diminished quality. The key, he said, is setting boundaries.
"Make it very clear that there are non-negotiable elements to your relationship: honesty, character, quality of work, customer service and quantity," Morelli said. "If you tell the Millennials and young people what the non-negotiables are, then you can talk to them about the negotiables—the how, where and when of getting this work done."
Billing Innovation
SuperConference attendees were treated to multiple keynote sessions this year. Robert Bauer, chair of the political law group at Perkins Coie, general counsel for the Democratic National Committee and general counsel for Obama for America during the 2008 election, kicked off Day One of the conference. Bauer offered a look at lobbying and the always-developing ethical considerations around the profession. Day Two featured a panel of respected judges speaking about e-discovery. Cook County Circuit Judge Peter Flynn, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan and retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald Hedges offered advice on discovery rules every lawyer now must grapple with, providing a unique view from the bench.
Day Two also offered a keynote speech from David Boies, chairman of Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Boies’ discussion about the future of law firm billing resonated with audience members. Not surprisingly, they were especially interested in law department economics this year.
Boies has been involved in some of the most visible trials of the past few decades. As a longtime partner at Cravath, Swaine and Moore, he defended IBM in its years-long antitrust battle with the Justice Department. After leaving Cravath in 1997 to found the firm that bears his name, he took the other side, representing the government in its antitrust case against Microsoft. He also represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore—which led to Ed Begley Jr. portraying Boies in the movie based on the 2000 election’s fallout.
At SuperConference, Boies delivered what he hoped would be a wake-up call to law firm and in-house lawyers alike, declaring the industry’s adherence to the billable hour lazy and outdated, an anachronism from the times when one- and two-lawyer firms dominated the legal landscape. But, he said, the economy is now forcing a re-evaluation.
"The billable hour is a defective model, and the defects become more apparent in tough times," Boies said. He described how the time-based model is a target for pressure, especially among up-and-coming young lawyers. There’s also the innate conflict the system creates between the law firms that want to make money and the clients who want to resolve their matters as quickly as possible. Boies related that due to increased efficiency, alternative fee arrangements can even make a firm more profitable.
Boies had a few words of advice for matching a matter with an appropriate billing structure. For huge matters, do away with hourly billing, he said. A blended arrangement of fixed and contingency fees proves effective for more traditional matters. When the corporation is the plaintiff, contingency fees work for both the lawyer and client, he said. As for adapting contingency fees to defense work, which is much harder to value, Boies is still working on it. Another billing system he is developing awards law firms for certain events and criteria, such as winning summary judgments.
Boies concluded with a call to action: Alternative billing arrangements lead to the happiest clients and provide the most value and predictability, he said. And now is the time to work at adapting practices to the future.