Law is a service profession, which, by its very nature, is founded on personal relationships between a firm's lawyers and the client or the client's representatives. Good client relations are as important as quality legal services and are built upon recognizing and respecting differences of whatever kind. Being sensitive to those differences will help to prevent most misunderstandings, no matter the venue. Simple courtesy and consideration - and regular communication - plus the ability to put oneself in the other person's place, is of the utmost importance.

These same good-practice rules ought to be followed in relationships between firms and their clients and/or their clients' in-house counsels. In this realm, there are times when special care needs to be taken, especially if some participants come from diverse cultural or ethnic backgrounds. Looking at the following situations may provide some helpful insights.

Setting the scene:

An American lawyer (in-house counsel) becomes affiliated with an international joint venture (the Client) involving staff from North America, Europe and Asia.

At the time of the U.S. lawyer's initial involvement, the Client already had in place an in-house legal team consisting of three qualified solicitors, each with several years' experience. Apparently, the Client's strategy was to have an outside solicitor experienced in the nature of the dispute to guide its in-house team in undertaking the necessary tasks related to preparation and presentation of the dispute. To this end, Partner ABC of a leading firm was seconded to the Client.

Trouble began when:

Partner ABC stated to one of the Client's female solicitors, "I don't want to work with you; I want to work with [people from my firm]."

In a dispute of this (or indeed any) magnitude, teamwork is essential. Sowing discord by making statements like this is not conducive to the smooth functioning of the legal team. This is particularly so when the comment is not based upon the solicitor's qualifications or work-product and might even be interpreted as gender-biased.

Lesson to be learned:

Maintain diplomacy and tact at all times. Refrain from derogatory comments to the Client or its representatives, particularly when these comments are not based upon any reasonable argument.

Lack of communication brings problems:

In-house counsel made an inquiry of one of the firm's paralegals asking whether a particular task, of an urgent nature, had already been performed by the paralegal in London so that in-house counsel need not replicate this task in Hong Kong. Not receiving a reply for several weeks, in-house counsel followed up with an e-mail noting the urgency of the initial task and the desire not to waste time. Partner XYZ immediately reprimanded in-house counsel with an e-mail to the effect that such an attitude was inimical to the smooth functioning of the team.

The time-sensitive nature of the task required expeditious and efficient completion. If the task had already been completed, it would be unnecessary, inefficient and uneconomical for in-house counsel to perform the task again, especially since the paralegal's law firm had initiated the time pressure.

Lesson to be learned:

Always respond promptly to a Client's enquiries or to those of the Client's in-house counsel. The Client is the raison d'être for the law firm's existence. Without the Client's business, there would be no earned fees. A Client's inquiry should not be considered an interruption of the law firm's work and should be promptly acknowledged.

Investigate before leaping to conclusions. Even if the Client is in error, the matter should be handled diplomatically; the law firm demonstrated, at the end of the day, a failure to communicate with the Client's team members.

Client protocol:

The law firm held a team meeting in its London office. A list of attendees was presented. Under the Client, the attendees were not listed alphabetically, but rather supposedly by order of seniority [Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager, Contract Managers], then followed by the joint venture's outside consultants. Second to last was in-house counsel's American student intern who was receiving practical training as part of her LLM degree requirements and who had recently joined the team. In-house counsel was listed last.

Comment:

As the attendance list was presumably generated on a word processing program, which would allow easy corrections, and as the law firm knew of in-house counsel's attendance in sufficient time to include his name on the list, in-house counsel should not have been listed last. In addition, since all the Caucasians were listed before in-house counsel, an Asian, the listing could be construed as a racial slur. Even the American student intern had the common sense to query the propriety of this list.

Lesson to be learned:

Be especially careful to avoid anything, no matter how accidental, that could be considered a sign of prejudice.

How not to be condescending:

Senior Associate GHI forwarded instructions pertaining to completion of a witness statement to in-house counsel with the concluding statement "I trust the above is clear." When informed that such a statement could be deemed condescending, Senior Associate GHI replied that in-house counsel was being "silly" and that such a statement is frequently used. In-house counsel reviewed prior correspondence and concluded that this was not the case.

Use of courteous or respectful language should be standard business practice and if someone thinks a certain expression is condescending, find an alternative phrase. Never be dismissive of a Client's or counsel's feelings by calling them "silly."

Atmosphere important:

In several other instances, the law firm contributed to a climate of alienation by showing a lack of cooperation with in-house counsel. In-house counsel on a number of occasions was compelled to draw attention to errors or omissions on the part of the law firm, such as the misspelling of witnesses' names and confusion regarding progress reports and witness bundles. Even worse, at one point Partner ABC reprimanded in-house counsel for reminding him of an impending discovery deadline, stating in part: "You certainly should not be disclosing this to the client." In-house counsel was understandably shocked: he did, after all, work for the Client and not the law firm!

Partner DEF, who had daily operational control, appeared oblivious to in-house counsel's increasingly frustrated stance or to any team discord. To in-house counsel's knowledge, Partner DEF undertook no overt action to resolve an increasingly cold and hostile relationship. This failure further increased the level of frustration and accelerated the deteriorating professional relationship.

Lesson to be learned:

Do not present the impression of tacit approval of acts which appear to annoy the Client or which appear to be calculated to alienate the Client's in-house counsel. Do not be impervious to a change in relationships.

Remain alert and sensitive to changes in a Client's/counsel's attitude as an indicator of a deteriorating situation. Be aware of the emotional "weather"; a Client's perception of a solicitor's conduct of a case is as important a factor in a firm's dealings as the winning of a case, not only from a practical point of view, but also from a malpractice viewpoint.

Conclusion

These experiences demonstrate how insensitivity and sometimes even an elitist attitude, can surface in relationships, making it very difficult for in-house counsel to function effectively. The Client's internal organization should actively create and maintain good client relations and teamwork and co-operation with the outside law firm. The law firm should foster a climate that promotes thoughtfulness, anticipates problems and establishes a courtesy that is based on true sensitivity and a concern for the perceptions of others.

Stephen D. Mau is a member of the New Hampshire Bar. He is a member of Hellings Morgan Associates, Hong Kong, practicing in the areas of alternative dispute resolution and international arbitrations. The views expressed in this article are the author's own. All references to individuals in this article are fictitious; any correlation of initials to any person, living or deceased, is purely coincidental and unintended.

Home | About the Bar | For Members | For the Public | Legal Links | Publications | Online Store
Lawyer Referral Service | Law-Related Education | NHBA•CLE | NHBA Insurance Agency | NHMCLE
Search | Calendar

New Hampshire Bar Association
2 Pillsbury Street, Suite 300, Concord NH 03301
phone: (603) 224-6942 fax: (603) 224-2910
email: NHBAinfo@nhbar.org
© NH Bar Association Disclaimer