- Margaret Thatcher

In-house counsel must be focused on providing value in today’s corporate legal environment. Failure to do so likely will have adverse consequences for your career. So, I offer these 10 “rules” to help you prove your value in the corporate setting:*

Understanding value:

1.         The client defines value, not the lawyer. You must align with the client expectations or educate the client to modify the expectations; otherwise, your efforts to prove value likely will fall short. Jeff Carr (general counsel, FMC Technologies), a frequent speaker on this topic, offers an interesting perspective to this rule: “What my boss finds interesting, I find fascinating!”

2.         Saving money is important, but value is more than just cost savings! Sometimes, you must spend in order to improve outcomes, achieve strategic goals or provide long-term value.

3.         Your legal contribution is only part of your value proposition. Many leading in-house counsel play significant roles on the management team, and provide strategic advice and guidance beyond answers to legal questions.

4.         As you move through your in-house career, you develop a progression of skills: first level: efficient, dependable and no surprises; second level: manage budget, manage people, and understanding and accepting accountability; and third level: judgment, strategic perspective and vision. All levels require the ability and willingness to communicate. The ability to communicate includes the ability to listen and to understand what your colleagues actually need.

5.         The value proposition for in-house counsel varies depending upon: A) where you are in the corporate hierarchy (GC, staff attorney or somewhere in between); and B) your audience (e.g., Board, CEO, CFO, CLO, supervisor, business client). You may be dealing with several audiences at any given time. Certainly, if you are a staff attorney with no supervisory or management responsibilities, the expectations will differ from those of the general counsel.

6.         To provide value, you must understand the business. To understand the business, you must understand how the company makes its money. To that end, remember what Yogi Berra said: “You can observe a lot just by watching.” In-house counsel frequently assert that they understand the client and its needs better than outside counsel. I believe that to be true but it will not just happen — you must work at it.

Using metrics to prove value:

7.         In a corporation, what is important gets measured. What gets measured gets done. You must understand the end game (or goal) in order to select meaningful metrics.

8.         Your legal department goals and metrics should align with and support the corporate goals. Your metrics might include legal spend as a percentage of revenue, number of lawyers per billion dollars of revenue and external spending as a percentage of revenue. Other examples include number of patents filed, average filing timeline and total patent application costs.

9.         Metrics should measure outcomes, not activities. As John Wooden once said: “Don’t confuse activity with accomplishment.” Just because you are busy does not mean that you are valuable.

10.       Use metrics to drive continuous improvement. Do more than just collect data. To this end, you should collect data that is actionable (e.g., cycle time). Then look for ways to reduce or improve it. You should understand why you collect data and then use the data or stop collecting it.

However, always keep in mind Rule Number One: The client defines value. As a recent blog post describes it:

… accept “what is”… work within the current value perception of [y]our organization and stop fighting to demonstrate [y]our value in areas that are not valued. …

[F]ollow the money and you will be able to tell what the organization values. It may not be what we value, or even where we think we can contribute at the highest level, but if X is what the organization values, then X is where we must be. This means that there is no identical road map for everyone. We must each create our own value within each individual organization based on that organization, and not some preconceived notion. …

The ACC Value Challenge materials provide a wealth of resources and materials that can help you to provide value within your organization. I encourage you to check them out at  www.acc.com/valuechallenge/index.cfm.

*These “rules” are a revised version of the “takeaways” presented at the conclusion of a discussion on “Metrics and Proving Your Worth” that I moderated at the 2013 MCCA CLE Expo in San Diego. I would like to thank panelists Sandra Phillips (Toyota), Chris Shella (Shella, Harris & Aus) and Angel Shelton (Ingersoll Rand), whose comments during the discussion provided the basis for the takeaways.

I get to my job at ACC via a commuter train. Most of the people I ride with work for the government, hospitals and nonprofits. Some of them are contractors; others are military personnel. I spend three hours commuting, round trip. If you see me tweeting at o’dark-thirty ET, this is why.

In my seven years of making this trek, I have observed many things that people apparently think are acceptable to do on a commuter train:

• clip their fingernails,
• put on a full face of makeup,
• take off their shoes,
• talk loudly on a cell or log-in to a conference call,
• talk the entire ride to a passenger across the aisle,
• eat their fast food meal,
• sing,
• have a laptop open while playing poker, and
• block other people from getting off the train.

I know a passenger who received a black eye after another passenger clocked her while getting off the train to go home. Another was pushed off the train at her stop because the person behind her did not think she was moving fast enough. Did I mention that this is the same stop where commuters run and hurdle over shrubs in order to get their cars? I know that fellow commuters who ride mass transit have other stories to tell. Traveling with masses of people in a confined space can often bring out the worst in people, it seems. The words of my wise mother still ring true: It takes all kinds to make the world go around.

But, as we witnessed in the responses to last week’s bombing of the Boston Marathon, the good in humanity can still rise up from horrible circumstances. Like the crème you first pour into the cup, the good in people always makes it to the top.

I suspect that it is hard as well to see the good in humanity when you are in litigation. While we cannot change the humanity you witness during a case, we hope to provide indispensible information that you can use to better manage your litigation. The focus of this month’s ACC Docket is litigation management. It’s also the first issue to offer our expanded our digital-only offerings.

In keeping with our new Docket tagline, we hope you find that this issue keeps you informed and indispensable to your organization.

This month’s issue of the ACC Docket covers employment and human resources issues. I have managed different work situations and staff, but I have never worked with or managed someone who openly had a life-changing health issue. I turn this month’s blog post over Bret Parker, who announced his Parkinson’s Disease diagnosis almost exactly one year ago to the public and his office. Here, Bret gives us the employee side of the story, and shares how his legal department received his news.

Publicly Announcing My Parkinson’s Diagnosis — One Year Later

When I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease at age 38 in 2007, I told almost no one. There were a lot of reasons I kept it secret, but my legal career was near the top of the list. I didn’t want decisions about my job (or future jobs) to be made based on misperceptions, sympathy or prejudice. Then, in March 2012, I told everyone at once by publishing a blog on the Forbes website. Since then, I became increasingly public about my medical condition, started actively fundraising for the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, and was profiled in the Wall Street Journal. What a year it has been!

As it turns out, my fear about negative reactions at work was all for nothing. My colleagues reached out to me with concern and understanding. Every interaction has been another opportunity to educate someone about Parkinson’s Disease; to raise awareness and break the stereotype that only “older” people have this condition. In fact, my company has embraced me and my campaign to educate the public by having me write about it on the company intranet. What I feared would become a liability actually became a badge of courage as people thanked and complimented me for disclosing my condition. For example, one of my marketing clients heard about my condition and confided that her mother was struggling with Parkinson’s — I was even able to refer her to my neurologist for a second opinion.

I feel undeserving of the attention, but somehow my candor makes others feel comfortable about describing and revealing their own individual issues — let’s face it, at one time or another we all have some health challenges. My illness has made me more empathetic when I learn that work colleagues are juggling personal health issues and professional obligations.

My hope is that my experience will help shatter the illusion that a disability like this would keep me from working and performing at a high level. It still requires me to balance my health and my job. Lack of sleep, stress and excitement each tend to exacerbate my symptoms. (This is a perfect storm for someone like me, with a challenging and busy in-house job!) Luckily, my symptoms are still moderate and don’t significantly impact me at work.

Meanwhile, other Parkinson’s patients who had heard about my disclosure have reached out for advice on disclosing at their jobs. One banker who contacted me said that people at his work noticed his tremor, but since he had not disclosed that he has Parkinson’s, his co-workers actually thought he had the shakes from alcoholism or drug addiction. It made me realize that it was better to reveal my illness on my own terms before the symptoms were so noticeable that people incorrectly assumed things about me.

The irony is that as more people disclose their medical conditions, the less of a stigma they will create. And while it’s a personal decision, and everyone is free to keep their personal information private, telling people is still one of the best things I’ve ever done.

There are still awkward moments. People aren’t always sure what to say or whether to say anything at all. I try to diffuse those moments by offering up a status update (“I feel great and hopefully this will continue to progress slowly”) or a joke (if you haven’t seen the “Curb Your Enthusiasm” episode featuring Larry David and Michael J. Fox, I highly recommend it). At the end of the day, I’m happy if people express occasional interest and compassion, but generally I think that my condition shouldn’t be the focus for people at work and certainly shouldn’t limit my career path. It’s an important part of who I am, but doesn’t define me. In today’s workplace, that’s a tough balance to maintain, but it’s worth the effort.

Bret I. Parker is vice president and associate general counsel at Elizabeth Arden, Inc. and president-elect of the International Trademark Association (INTA). He serves as a member of the Patient Council of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research.

The challenge is to identify a meaningful standard and actually take action when or if you come up short in the comparison.

The chance to benchmark against your peers is one of the many reasons to join ACC. After all, the association offers an unparalleled global network and a wealth of resources.

Earlier this year, the Corporate Executive Board (CEB) posted the results of an analysis of over 300 legal department budgets, entitled “9 Efficiency Trends to Watch for in Legal.” They deemed lower costs in law departments to be a proxy for efficiency and, using this standard, identified nine trends. What surprises me most about the list is the lack of surprise. But, this can be a useful checklist when you begin an initiative to reduce your legal expenses and become more efficient. Here are the CEB trends and links to ACC resources that can help you fill in the gaps:

1.         Perform more work in-house. No shock here. Generally, bringing work in-house is less expensive, and there can also be a quality upgrade since in-house counsel should have a better understanding of the company’s culture and strategic goals. Of course, there is a limit as to just how far you can go with this one.

2.         Use non-lawyer professionals more often. Unfortunately, lawyers may become comfortable with routine, administrative matters that could be performed by other less-expensive personnel. By allowing paralegals and other skilled staff to handle the more routine and administrative work, lawyers are able to focus on high-value activities. When you do a careful review of law department process (what, how and who), you likely will achieve significant savings, improved quality or both.

3.         Invest in legal operations capabilities. Not surprisingly, many large law departments now have business or operations managers (according to CEB, more than 80 percent) who handle budget, technology, outside vendors and related matters. They focus on the “business” side of things and bring skills that most lawyers do not have.

4.         Invest selectively in legal technologies. There is a lot of technology out there that can help — matter management, e-billing and more. We love it when it works; however, it frequently fails when we do not change our habits. Be selective, as changing habits and workflow can be difficult.

5.         Unbundle legal services. Disaggregation has become increasingly common as departments use legal service providers and vendors who are more cost effective than law firms for matters such as document review, copying, research and patent filing. “Horses for courses,” as our friends in the United Kingdom might say. Of course, always remember that what you unbundle you have to bring back together at some point. This is why legal process management and business skills have become so important.

6.         Focus on litigation matter budgeting and oversight. Budget management can be critical in this area. Not withstanding what your firm may tell you, litigation can be separated into distinct tasks and budgets that mean something can be created and, more importantly, followed. There are increasing numbers of firms willing to operate this way. You have to be willing to change how you operate and use them.

7.         Use smaller law firms more often. Increasingly, law departments have moved business from the larger firms to regional or mid-size firms who provide comparable quality at significantly lower rates. Additionally, there are new model law firms that have different business models that enable them to provide services at predictable and significantly lower costs.

8.         Reduce the number of law firms. Convergence has been around for a long time — mainly because it works. If you concentrate your work with fewer firms, you can negotiate better arrangements — be they fixed fee or simply lower rates. Additionally, as the firms get to know and understand your business better, the quality and learning curve should rise.

9.         Be judicious with alternative fee arrangements. CEB notes these arrangements can be useful in reducing costs, but how they are managed and administered is more important than the specific type of fee arrangement. I would agree because much of the value comes from the process of analyzing what you need and what you are willing to pay for the service (i.e., its value).

The omissions may be what strike me most about this list, with the two most notable being legal process management and knowledge management — each of which has the potential to greatly reduce legal expenses.

This list may be helpful as far as lists go, but never forget that being efficient is not necessarily the same as being effective. Being exceptionally efficient at doing something the wrong way is not a good thing. So, your first question should be: Is that something I (or the law department) should be doing?

*This is a revised version of a post that originally appeared in the March 2012 online edition of Canadian Lawyer InHouse.

Retail is an industry segment most at risk — since the choice of extending robust health coverage to hourly employees versus incurring a large non-tax-deductible penalty is like a modern day Scylla and Charybdis. Don’t blink now, however, as there are many alternative options your company may seek.

At the heart of it all is the health reform law requirement that employers with at least 50 full-time equivalent employees must offer health insurance to their full-time workers and their families, or pay a penalty to the Feds. Currently, the law in 2014 defines a full-time employee as one averaging at least 30 hours per week.

Whether or not you have a seat at the table in terms of implementing your company’s benefits strategy, by now, it’s clear to you that there’s a built-in incentive to keep workers to 29 hours or less. The word on the street is that many are already doing so. This strategy, however, is the easy one. What is more challenging is to identify other options that will minimize your company’s penalty exposure and overall cost of benefits, while allowing employees a reasonable choice (either sponsored by the company or the “yet to be determined” insurance exchanges).

Thoughtfully designing your benefits plan (or plans) such that they are legally compliant but also budget-sound for the long haul is key. This, in turn, gives your management an opportunity to align its health care offerings with corporate strategy and objectives, such as retention goals. At Lockton, for example, we have the experience, specialized modeling tools and know-how you need to provide the right guidance given your particular set of circumstances and demographics. Aside from the ratio of full-time to part-time workers, recommendations vary based on a number of factors, including but not limited to:

• number of employees,
• turnover rate,
• average employee age and wage,
• health of your risk pool, and
• company culture.

The federal agencies implementing PPACA (IRS, HHS, etc.) continue to issue guidance and rules on implementation, so we must not take our eyes off the ball. This is especially true for retail-based companies that need to be preparing now rather than later.

ACC guest author: With 15 years’ experience in the private sector practicing corporate law, leading cross-functional teams and counseling on risk management, Ryan Blum assists and advises Lockton St. Louis/Memphis on business development, and manages operations and client services on a day-to-day basis. Ryan works extensively in areas of strategic planning, service development, market analysis, prospect engagement and operational improvement. Ryan provides leadership, guidance, coordination and direction in collaboration with global teams to ensure appropriate resources are deployed and solutions are achieved. Ryan also acts as a point of contact regarding all risk management topics related to employee benefits, health reform and commercial insurance. He received his J.D. and MBA from Saint Louis University, and his B.S. in International Business from Northwest Missouri State. He can be contacted at rblum@lockton.com.

Licensed Producer in Life, Accident & Health, Property and Casualty in the State of Missouri.

I had a conversation recently with a co-worker. We were discussing Super Bowl Sunday and the fact that I watched “Downton Abbey” in the middle of the game. As much as I love watching American football, “Downton Abbey” trumps any game.

I mentioned to my co-worker that we only have two televisions in our home. She was aghast, almost speechless. She mentioned a family member who has six TVs in their home of five. She could not get over the two-TV-to-four-people ratio, especially since we have a teen and a tween. I simply told her that we have a “no TV in the bedroom” rule in our house. It was a rule I grew up with, so I thought nothing of it.

I am sure I could quickly find a benchmark about televisions per household, but I don’t need to. My husband and I run our home the way we think it should be run, and that is based on a core set of values we grew up with and re-enforced as adults when we became parents. That said, professional benchmarking is somewhat different. You may wonder or need to know how other legal departments function. This is where ACC can help.

Whether it’s a new survey, such as ACC’s 2013 CLO Survey or this month’s law department management issue of ACC Docket, ACC has thousands of legal resources to help you manage your law department. For example, did you know that business management tops the non-legal skills that CLOs are seeking to develop in their law departments? Coming in a close second, near and dear to my profession, is communication. Project management rounds out the top three non-legal skills that CLOs wish to see developed.

If you want to be promoted or noticed within your legal department (apart from your legal expertise), developing these skills will help. To improve your business management skills, perhaps you can attend ACC’s Mini MBA or the Advanced Mini MBA, both of which qualify for CLE. Specifically tailored to in-house counsel, this program is an excellent professional development option. Maybe you already majored in business somewhere along the line. Perhaps your project management skillset is something you wish to wow your CLO with. If so, ACC’s Legal Service Management Workshop, which also qualifies for CPD and CLE, might be what you’re looking for.

ACC is your organization. It’s our job to help you. ACC Docket’s cover tag line is: Informed. Indispensible. In-house. We take that seriously.

ACC. It’s all right here.

Guest Authors: This post was written by Justin Connor, chair, ACC’s International Legal Affairs Committee and Lucinda Low, Alexandra Baj, and Bibek Pandey of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. 

Earlier this month, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced proposed amendments to Canada’s foreign bribery law, the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). If enacted, the proposed amendments would result in a significant broadening and strengthening of Canadian foreign bribery law. The proposed amendments include the elimination of the facilitating payments exception, the establishment of nationality jurisdiction for foreign bribery offenses, the introduction of a criminal “books and records” offense, and an increase in the maximum criminal penalty. These changes, which are expected to be passed in the near future, would bring Canadian law more in line with international standards regarding foreign bribery, and could have compliance implications for multinational companies with a nexus to Canada.

The proposed amendments follow sharp criticism in 2011 from the OECD Working Group on Bribery (Working Group) regarding Canada’s implementation and enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. In its March 2011 Phase 3 Report on Canada, the Working Group criticized Canada’s enforcement of its foreign bribery law, noting that it had completed only one prosecution since the law’s enactment in 1999. The Report also made recommendations, some of which are captured in the proposed amendments, including to clarify that the CFPOA applies to bribery related to all international business, whether or not for profit, to make its penalties more “effective, proportionate and dissuasive,” and to amend the CFPOA jurisdiction to ensure Canada’s ability to prosecute its nationals.

Nationality jurisdiction

The proposed amendment expands the jurisdictional reach of the CFPOA by adding nationality-based jurisdiction, as recommended by the Working Group. Current law recognizes only territorial jurisdiction, requiring that a significant amount of the activities constituting a foreign bribery offense take place in Canada. The amendment would make it easier to prosecute violations of the CFPOA committed outside of Canada by Canadians. It would deem a violation of the provisions of the CFPOA committed outside of Canada to be within the jurisdiction of the law if committed by: i) a Canadian citizen; ii) a Canadian permanent resident now present in Canada; or iii) a public body, corporation, company, firm or partnership that is incorporated, formed or otherwise organized under the laws of Canada or a Canadian province. This provision is very similar in scope to that added to the U.S. FCPA in 1998.

Facilitating payments

Like the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), the CFPOA currently allows an exception for facilitating payments — payments made to expedite or secure the performance of acts that are part of a public official’s duties and are of a routine nature. The proposed amendment would eliminate this exception, bringing the CFPOA into line with the UK Bribery Act and the laws of most other OECD Convention member states. (Besides the United States, Australia also has such an exception.) This amendment is expected to come into force at a later date than the rest of the amendments in order to give companies time to revise their compliance procedures.

Books and records offense

The proposed amendments would create a new criminal offense, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, for falsifying books and records in connection with foreign bribery. Under the amendment, it is an offense, if done for the purpose of bribing a foreign public official, to: i) establish or maintain accounts that are not reflected in any books and records required to be kept by applicable accounting and auditing standards; ii) make transactions that are inadequately identified or not recorded in such books and records; iii) record non-existent expenditures or liabilities with incorrect identification of their object in such books and records; iv) knowingly use false documents; or v) intentionally destroy accounting books and records before permitted by law. This provision, unlike the FCPA’s books and records provision, is not limited to listed companies in Canada, but instead applies to all persons. However, its linkage to foreign bribery offenses makes it considerably more limited in scope than the FCPA’s accounting provisions, which apply to all expenditures of a listed company.

Definition of “business”

As recommended by the Working Group, the proposed amendments would eliminate the words “for profit” from the definition of “business” in the CFPOA. As a result, the CFPOA would apply to all business, whether or not for profit.

Enforcement authority and increase in penalties

The proposed amendments would grant exclusive authority to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to prosecute offenses under the CFPOA with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment, an increase from the prior five-year maximum. While there have been only three convictions under the CFPOA since its enactment in 1999, the RCMP has recently stepped up enforcement through its International Anti-Corruption Unit, and reportedly has approximately 35 ongoing investigations.

In light of the substantial strengthening of the CFPOA (assuming it is enacted as expected in the near future), and the heightened enforcement activity, Canadian companies and companies with Canadian affiliates or doing business in Canada should review their compliance programs to ensure that their anti-corruption procedures meet the proposed requirements and do not expose their operations to unmitigated compliance risk.

Justin Connor is chair of ACC’s International Legal Affairs committee for 2012-2013.  Mr. Connor is Senior Counsel to Spacenet, an enterprise telecommunications service provider with locations in North America including Canada.  Mr. Connor, a Fulbright fellow in 2004, has a strong background in international in-house issues, having practiced law for five years in the Middle East in Dubai.

Lucinda A. Low, Partner, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, a Lex Mundi member firm.  Ms. Low is the Head of Anti-Corruption Practice Group.  She is a member of the Board of Directors of Transparency International – USA, and was named to Ethisphere’s ‘Attorneys Who Matter’ Hall of Fame for 2012.  Ms. Low is a widely recognized and published authority on anti-corruption law.

So what’s a company to do?

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal notes that in an attempt to mitigate potential risk, “companies are teaming up with employment lawyers to craft employee dating policies.” In recent years, some employers have resorted to using love contracts (signed by both involved parties) as an “acknowledgment and waiver of claims.” While both a dating policy and a love contract may prove useful, Lisa Friel, vice president of Sexual Misconduct Consulting and Investigations at T&M Protection Resources and former chief of the sexual crimes unit in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, noted in a recent Forbes.com article that employers should primarily focus on good training.

When members of our ACC Employment & Labor Law group were asked to share their thoughts on the subject, several respondents felt that a “love contract” could potentially do more harm than good by elevating the risk rather than reducing it by encouraging employees to push the relationship underground. Instead, respondents suggested a policy of disclosure and approval (i.e., a “Dating Policy”) that would clearly state requirements, procedures and dispute resolution for employees that enter into close personal relationships. This information will better equip the employer should an issue arise following the termination of a romantic relationship.

With employees spending a substantial amount of time in the office, a budding workplace romance is very likely. A 2011 survey by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics notes that on average, during a 24-hour period, an employed person between the ages of 25 to 54 spends more time at work/doing work-related activities than doing any other activity. When asked on a 2011 Vault survey, 59 percent of employees responded that they have participated in an office romance. Sixty-five percent of employees reported that the shaky economy has no effect on their willingness to take romantic risks at work. As employees continue to take a chance at love in the workplace, employers must arm themselves with policy and procedure.

Canadian Lawyer Magazine reports that in a five-week span during fall of 2010, four of Canada’s top 20 national law firms took part in a merger. Since then, Canadian law firms, Macleod Dixon and Fraser Miner Casgrain have engaged in mergers with global powerhouse firms Norton Rose and SNR Denton. Establishing a global presence however, is a charged business goal that transcends the legal profession. In a recent Bloomberg Businessweek article, law-firm consultant Jordan Furlong notes that the strongest driving factor for expansion is “a desire for a global platform.” Global Chief Executive of Norton Rose, Peter Martyr told The Lawyer that the merger “constitutes a significant step towards realizing our ambition of becoming one of the world’s leading providers of legal services.” Some of the challenges to newly merged firms involve potential layoffs and integrating employees.

What does this mean for in-house counsel?

As law firms navigate the internal dealings of international expansion, in-house counsel discuss its consequences on their outside counsel relationships. When asked in a recent online poll, how they feel about Canadian firms merging with larger global firms, more than half of the poll participants responded that they would prefer to use a local firm. The poll, featured on the ACC Canada Chapter website, also notes that in-house counsel are not confident that a global organization can understand their needs. Participants also shared concern that conflict may be a potential problem for large global law firms.

The inclination of law firms to expand internationally, and specifically into Canada, comes with great risks, rewards and various factors to consider. As law firms seek to grow their businesses and secure a share in the global marketplace, in-house counsel wait to analyze the impact of this change.

A recent New York Times article notes that “the number of law school applicants has decreased 20% within the past year,” based on a study by the Law School Admission Council. The rising cost of tuition has been noted as a contributing factor in the decline. Last month, in the state of New York, officials met to discuss a proposed rule change that would allow students to take the bar exam after two years of law school. The subtraction of the now-mandatory third year would result in a decrease in tuition, which could make law school more accessible to potential students.

While New York addresses potential financial concerns, farther north in Canada, DuPont GC Ernest Tuckett is setting his sights on another challenge to the future of the legal industry: job opportunities for minorities. Tuckett, who recently transitioned to Canada from the DuPont offices in the United States, feels diversity in the legal profession is a topic that should not be overlooked when discussing incoming lawyers. Tuckett’s approach to addressing the ongoing issue and concern regarding diversity involves both mentoring and community outreach. According to a recent article in Canadian Lawyer Magazine, Tuckett plans to launch a program in Canada similar to the Corporate Legal Diversity Pipeline program in the United States — an alliance between ACC and Street Law, which partners corporate legal departments with local high school law classes.

The Corporate Legal Pipeline Diversity Program offers a glimpse into the legal profession, thus encouraging students to consider it as a viable career option. According to a recent survey of over 1,100 chief legal officers, 95 percent of respondents noted that they did not have a formal pro bono program at their law department. For smaller legal departments, a shortage of staffing and resources created challenges in developing a pro bono program. Initiatives such as the Corporate Legal Diversity Pipeline program are not only beneficial to students but also to legal departments without a pro bono program that are interested in contributing to the growth of the next generation of lawyers.

Corporate programs and provisions to current rules shed light on the trending regression of law school applicants. With the focus seemingly on high school and undergraduate students, as the next generation of lawyers emerge over the next five to ten years, success will be measured by a turnaround in law school applicants with a diverse pool of candidates.