Posts Tagged: "in-house Counsel"

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) platforms are already reshaping work life for many professionals, including those in the legal industry. On Day 3 of IPWatchdog LIVE 2023, a panel discussion titled “Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Law and Innovation” explored ways that in-house legal teams can advance their company’s use of generative AI to improve productivity while balancing the need to protect confidential data and intellectual property.

For corporate intellectual property practitioners, the quest to excel can be daunting and all-consuming. Indeed, IP teams and their clients face a multitude of complex internal and external challenges amidst an ever-evolving business, legal, and technology landscape. Cognizant of the considerable trust and influence bestowed upon them by the C-suite, IP teams naturally desire to perform at the highest possible level. As chief IP counsel at a global company, I constantly put myself and my team under the proverbial microscope. I reflect upon our people, strategy, and operations; assess our individual and collective performance; and seek new ways to maximize the value we deliver to our company and internal clients. In some instances, such new ways entail minor course corrections. In other instances, they encompass the pursuit of novel pathways that upend the status quo.

If you’ve worked in-house, you’ve probably been told at some point to “do more with less.” Initially a response to the Great Recession, business scrutiny over legal budgets persists: according to a recent survey of general counsels performed by EY and Harvard Law, GCs expect 25% greater workloads in the next three years while 88% of them plan simultaneous budget cuts. At the same time, research also shows that legal productivity is stagnating. Eighty-one percent of GCs surveyed by Gartner reported legal cost as a percent of company revenue increased or stayed the same during the past two years. These trends obviously put practitioners in a tough spot: how do you deliver on your value proposition while workloads are increasing, resources are constrained, and productivity is stagnating?

The issue of unauthorized practice of law is a concern for all attorneys, and something that periodically does catch up with patent attorneys. The typical scenario where this issue arises is when patent attorneys are admitted in one state and have an office in another state but provide more than patent related services. When an attorney accepts a job as an in-house counsel, the potential for problems associated with the unauthorized practice of law similarly present themselves. Different states have different regulations and procedures that must be followed when an out-of-state attorney relocates to become in-house counsel. Although in-house counsel should always consult the rules and regulations of the state where their employer is located, a common thread in these rules and regulations is that the in-house lawyer must be a full-time employee and may only provide legal services for the employer (including parent, affiliate and subsidiaries). However, in-house attorneys with out-of-state registrations are frequently allowed, often even encouraged, to provide pro bono representation through recognized legal aid organizations. The American Bar Association has compiled links to information for each state, which is current through November 7, 2019. In-House Corporate Counsel Registration Rules (last visited December 14, 2019). What follows below is a discussion of how several states with higher populations of patent attorneys handle admission for out-of-state in-house counsel. We will review the rules for Virginia, Texas, California, New York, Illinois and Florida.

Yesterday’s IPWatchdog webinar, sponsored by Anaqua, hinged on the statistic that 70% of in-house counsel surveyed by the American Bar Association in 2012 would not recommend their primary outside counsel to others and 87% would replace their current firm if given a good reason.

Panelists Bart Eppenauer and Benjamin Brown emphasized that avoiding complacency is key. “The legal industry needs to do a lot better,” said Eppenauer. “It’s not enough to deliver quality work; go to your client and ask how things are going or you could find yourself on the way out.”

Companies involved in a merger or acquisition often bring respective legal departments that must be combined after the M&A transaction closes. This presents a singular opportunity to build a new legal department that assimilates the best aspects of each legacy department and offers attorneys and other legal professionals an enhanced career platform. However, if the integration process is not carefully managed, that opportunity can be missed, limiting the potential of the new department, individual team members, and the business at large.