ACC Focus on the Colorado Chapter - June 30, 2008 (Print All Articles)

President's Message

Adding Value – it’s more than just the “Bottom Line”

Giving practical and accurate legal advice:  Absolutely essential.  Being a productive member of the legal department:  Valuable.   Being productive and well liked personally by your colleagues inside and outside the legal department: Priceless!

In-house lawyers continuously face the challenge of demonstrating how they add value to the company.  My experience is that there is no lack of hurdles, but there are very few tangible elements, that factor into the value-add equation. Sure – you can use productivity in the form of quicker turn-around times on legal matters.  Or you can point to a reduction in outside counsel expenses.  But the equation starts from the premise that the legal department is a cost center.  And in the eyes of many business managers, the legal department’s sole function is to hinder the development of new products and services.

Nevertheless, the legal unit, like any other department, must hold itself open to scrutiny. One means of accomplishing this is by conducting “client satisfaction” surveys, where in-house clients can opine on the legal department’s performance.  I recently presented this opportunity to approximately twenty of my corporate colleagues, all of whom have regular dealings with the legal department.  Despite the fact that it was a very informal, spur of the moment survey, it provided encouraging feedback that otherwise would have remained unspoken.

This was a one-question survey:  What do you like most about your in-house legal department?   (Okay, the question may have been slightly slanted in our favor, but I figure we hear regularly from our clients on what they don’t like about the legal department.  Also, a lack of response was interpreted, as “there’s nothing to like about the legal department”. )  One respondent suggested, “you'd probably get more responses if you asked "what (or who) do you like least?”  And another respondent added, “You sent this to Marketing. You're a very gutsy lady, Jean!”  Here are few more of the lighthearted responses:

 “The only real downside with our legal team is they don't keep good snacks on their desks. I have to mooch elsewhere.”
 “I like it when xxx ’s face turns beet red when he's angry. It gives us a clue if it's safe to enter his office or not.”  “You're all just really good people and I thoroughly enjoy working with each of you.  (Although, sometimes I do want to pop xxx's tires.)” 

On a more serious note, what respondents most often conveyed was their satisfaction with the legal department’s availability, accessibility, and the legal staff’s ability to be “regular” folks, while simultaneously being able to respond intelligently to questions on various legal issues.

 “Having in house legal counsel provides me with expedient advice for personnel issues especially in the area of legal summons, liens and garnishments.  The laws change so quickly that the legal staff knows right where to go to find out the newest laws that prevail over my problem.”
 “Everyone in the Legal Department has always been VERY efficient and knowledgeable about answering my legal questions regarding vendors, and I've never been turned down when asking for a quick meeting to get those answers no matter how busy they are.”
 “The logic they use in crafting the language we need to do a deal.....”
 “I like the open door policy.”
 “The fact that you're REAL people.  You don't think you're above everyone else just because you have a law degree and I can talk to you about important matters and you'll respond to me straight instead of all the mumbo-jumbo lawyer lingo that nobody else understands.  I like the fact that all of you generally want to receive input or ideas and you even ask for it sometimes!”
 “Every member of our in house legal department has a calm, professional, and friendly approach. Many times the need for their assistance is a highly stressful matter or one of urgent necessity. I personally have found I am able to feel comforted due to the manner they react to me in these situations.”

And my personal favorite –
  “I think you guys are the bomb! 

I’ve yet to come across a value-add equation or a law department metrics model where personal attributes, e.g. “likeability”, and department procedures, e.g. accessibility, are given appropriate consideration.  However, asking for feedback and using the direct approach survey method resulted in valuable responses speaking to those factors specifically.  Indeed, I would contend that the value-add equation and other metrics models should be built upon these attributes. because they directly impact the perceived value of the legal department.  Being viewed as congenial, credible, and accessible are crucial factors for the success of a legal department.  These factors can impact motivation, productivity, and overall, the company’s bottom line.

Of course, one of the most fundamental roles of the in-house legal function is to offer accurate and practical legal advice. But credibility is not always guaranteed by advising on complex or obscure areas of law.  Credibility can be sought high up within the company, but it is your reputation, personally and professionally, that ultimately “cascades” down.  Just remember, it’s priceless!

Best regards,

Jean Robertson
Colorado Chapter President 2008

Real Employee Issues in a Virtual Workplace*

By Tanya E. Milligan, Holland and Hart

How do you regulate the use of Internet and communication technology in the workplace to avoid litigation?

Ellen Simonetti, a Delta Air Lines’ flight attendant, was fired for posting photos of herself in uniform on her personal Internet blog. **  Ms. Simonetti sued her former employer for wrongful termination, discrimination and defamation.  Although the merit, if any, of Ms. Simonetti’s claims is still unresolved,*** avoiding such litigation and its associated costs motivates employers to take steps to address employee use of computer and information systems.

Communication Systems Policies
Written policies notify employees of their rights and obligations. An employee’s expectation of privacy, which is the basis for an invasion of privacy action, is reduced or eliminated by way of employer policies and practices.****   Clear policies should inform that there is no expectation of privacy in the employee’s use of the computer, Internet, email or IM communications.  It should be noted that if an employer fails to enforce its policy, a policy might be used against the employer in the litigation context.

Security Issues
Employers invest substantial financial resources in developing products, services, processes, systems and methods.  Such confidential information is extremely valuable and misuse can be financially devastating to an organization.  Similarly, a company’s reputation in the community can be as valuable an asset as any.  Therefore, an employer has a substantial interest in knowing what its employees may be saying to its competitors or its clients about the company on the Internet. 

Monitoring Methods
Most employees and employers are now aware that images and data created or access on a company’s computer cannot be deleted entirely.  Programs are available that allow employers to retrieve documents and emails.  Moreover, an employee’s Internet activity can be retraced to determine which websites were visited, when the sites were visited and how often the sites were visited. 

Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking is an important tool for employers seeking to monitor their employees’ activities.  GPS is becoming more accessible in cell phones, vehicles and security badges.  Similarly, employers are now using radio frequency identification devices in employee badges to identify an employee’s exact location at the worksite. 
Technology continues to develop in the area of biometrics, which is now being used for security access as well as time-clock systems.  As additional monitoring methods are developed, the issue of where the line should be drawn between employee monitoring and employee privacy should be addressed.

Conclusion
Given modern advances in communication, employers may not be able to count on clear guidance, when trying to make employment decisions related to employee use of technology.  Thus, the best practice in this virtual age is to make employment decisions based on a timeless guiding factor: fairness.  In other words, based on training, policies, procedures and past actions, employees should know what conduct may lead to discipline.  As always, employers should base decisions on business-related criteria, act consistently, and follow their policies. 

[*] A more comprehensive discussion of these issues had been published in “Blogging in the Virtual Age;” (co-Authored with Steve Gutierrez) Privacy & Data Security Law Journal, Volume 3, Number 4, April 2008.
[**] “Delta employee fired for blogging sues airline (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-09-08-delta-blog_x.htm)”, USA Today, 2005-09-08.
[***] Ms. Simonetti reported in her blog on February 22, 2007 that her case had been stayed while Delta Air Lines is in bankruptcy proceedings (http://queenofsky.journalspace.com/?cmd=displaycomments&dcid=923&entryid=923).
[****] McLaren v. Microsoft Corp., 1999 WL 339015 (Tex. App. May 28, 1999).

For more information about Ms. Milligan, please visit Holland and Hart's website at http://www.hollandhart.com.

Project Homeless Connect wins award from Colorado Lawyers Committee

ACC Board Member Len Segreti Honored
Teaser here

The Colorado Lawyers Committee held its 29th Annual Meeting at the Denver Marriott City Center on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. Over 450 attorneys and community leaders were in attendance. 

The Project Homeless Connect Team was honored with the 2007 Team of the Year Award: Tim Macdonald and Susan Cole (Arnold & Porter LLP), Peter Schwartz (Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP), Len Segreti (Qwest Law Department) and Alice Norman (Denver Municipal Indigent Defense Counsel).  This group organized and provided leadership for the legal component to the City of Denver’s Project Homeless Connect, an effort which at least twice a year links almost 1,000 homeless individuals to legal information, medical services and resources for public benefits, housing, employment and other valuable services.

The Colorado Lawyers Committee is a 30-year-old nonprofit, nonpartisan consortium of 50 Denver-area law firms dedicated to providing and increasing opportunities for children, the poor and other disadvantaged communities through high impact pro bono work.  The Colorado Lawyers Committee currently has more than 15 Task Forces working on projects in the areas of poverty and public benefits, civil rights, education, immigration, community development and criminal law.

ACC would like to thank the most recent group of volunteers for their hard work at the May 9th Project Homeless Connect event:
Larry Bailey
Mark Bailey
Margaret Carey
Theresa Atkins
Crystal Biggerstaff
Kathleen Cook
Kevin cummings
Susan Curtis
James DeNapoli
Leanne DeVos
Teresa M. England
Rosemary Gallagher
Carmel Gill
Holly Gonzales
Jessica Grether
Aaron Henry
Marcy Heronimus
Rick Huffman
Guy Kelley
Michael Leyba
Paul McCue
Brooke McKinley
Carol Muck
Pamela Pope
Grant Ritz

Mark Your Calendars for these upcoming ACC Events!

Teaser here

Thursday, July 10
Cocktails at the Ritz!
5:00 – 7:00 p.m.

Graciously sponsored by Gibson Arnold
Location:  Ritz Carlton Denver
1881 Curtis Street
Downtown Denver

Gibson Arnold & Associates, Inc.  is pleased to host a special networking cocktail reception at one of downtown’s newest upscale hotels, The Ritz-Carlton, on July 10th from 5 - 7 p.m.  Learn about Creative Cost Saving Litigation Techniques through the use of contract attorneys and the e-discovery process.  Hors d’oeuvres and cocktails will be served for the duration of the reception.  The Ritz-Carlton is providing a raffle for one free night's stay.  Winner to be drawn at the end of the evening. 

This event is FREE!  Reserve your spot now by emailing acccolorado@amanagementgroup.com!