Nonlawyers Influencing Lawyers: Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen or Stone Soup?

In NonLawyer Influencing Lawyers: Too Many Cooks in the Kitchen or Stone Soup?, __ Fordham L. Rev. __ (2012), I argue that the current U.S. rules and regulations governing nonlawyer investment in claims epitomize the U.S. legal profession’s closed stance on nonlawyers influencing lawyers’ work and on collaboration between and alliances among lawyers and nonlawyers. The article starts with the premise that although law is not only a business (in that lawyers are fiduciaries to their clients), the law market cannot be insulated from capital markets. Because this is true, and because what happens in other parts of the world invariably affects what happens in the United States and the ability of U.S. lawyers to continue to profit, there will be strong pressure for the U.S. to allow investment in claims in all 50 states and to a larger degree than allowed now. Although the Bar may be able to resist for some unpredictable but possibly significant time period, I contend it should not – that lawyers as well as clients would benefit by allowing alternative litigation funding in the commercial context and managing the transition in order to maximize benefits and minimize potential risks. Utilizing outside investment in claims as an example, I also seek to demonstrate a larger point than simply the “train has left the station” in other parts of the world (or the importance of “being at the table”) with respect to alternative litigation funding, and that is that more influence by nonlawyers in general could result in a positive good. It could lead to much needed innovation in how legal services are provided and managed and it could enhance problem solving and efficiency. Therefore, instead of equating to "too many cooks in the kitchen," a certain (regulated) level of influence or sway by nonlawyers may help create the richest stone soup possible

Chicken or Egg: Diversity and Innovation in the Corporate Legal Marketplace

Although their bank accounts might suggest otherwise, these are not the best of times for lawyers who work in the corporate legal marketplace. Instead, the trouble with lawyers in the corporate legal marketplace is that they are failing to answer two calls to action made by corporate clients, both of which are of great magnitude and importance for the future of the profession. The first call to action is one that Professor Deborah L. Rhode focused a lot of her scholarship on: the call to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) in the profession. The second call to action is the call by corporate clients for lawyers to collaborate and innovate. When it comes to the call to collaborate and innovate, the question is: are the stakes that high, i.e., does it really matter if lawyers in the corporate legal marketplace fail to collaborate and innovate? It is this question that this Essay urges should be taken seriously. This Essay argues that to enhance DE&I, in-house and firm lawyers alike need to be capable and willing to (1) innovate the way in which they practice and work with others, and (2) meaningfully collaborate in multidisciplinary efforts to create novel solutions that truly begin to fill the DE&I gap

Advocacy in the Court of Public Opinion, Installment Two: How Far Should Corporate Attorneys Go

Today, legal controversies are tried in the court of public opinion as much as in any court of law. Corporate lawyers\u27 traditional tendency, however, has been to attempt to isolate legal activities from public relations activities. Accordingly, when providing legal advice, they have viewed media considerations as separate. Historically corporate counsels\u27 typical media strategy often consisted of no more than, no comment. Given today\u27s saturated media culture, this is no longer a viable strategy. Indeed, it appears that some corporate lawyers are adapting to the new media environment and attempting to help their clients manage the public relations impact of legal controversies. To date, however, there has been little systematic evidence gathered on the role corporate lawyers play in the court of public opinion for their clients\u27 legal controversies and little sustained examination of the implications of these trends. The purpose of this project is to analyze: (1) how the court of public opinion impacts legal controversies of large, publicly traded corporations that have high demand for legal services; (2) how the general counsels of these corporations manage the intersection of public relations and law; and (3) what should be the corporate lawyer\u27s ethical obligations, if any, in this extra-judicial court. To investigate these questions, the author sent a questionnaire to all general counsels of the S&P 500 and conducted fifty-seven interviews with general counsels of S&P 500 corporations, law firm partners, and public relations consultants. The preliminary findings from this study will appear in two installments in the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics. The first installment focuses on how the court of public opinion can impact legal controversies and how corporate attorneys currently manage legal public relations for their corporate clients. It argues that the court of public opinion is a real part of our justice system and that managing legal public relations (legal PR) is a legitimate and fundamental component of corporate legal services. It contends that the role corporate attorneys play in managing legal PR for corporate clients. is at odds with the conventional view and that it is time to broaden our view of the corporate attorney\u27s role in this arena. The second installment highlights examples of wrongdoing by corporate attorneys and contends that there is little oversight of lawyers\u27 typical management of legal PR behind the scenes. Because professional guidelines focus on lawyers\u27 extrajudicial statements regarding matters that are adjudicated in a court of law, they put the spotlight on the wrong place and are therefore not relevant to the way corporate lawyers manage public relations. Moreover, these professional guidelines risk a race to the bottom where lawyers\u27 ability to spin is valued over their ability to provide effective legal advice that accounts for PR concerns and the corporation\u27s long-term interests. Although the court of public opinion is an extra-legal decision-maker, it does not fit the traditional adjudicative proceeding paradigm. Therefore, the second installment contends that some level of advocacy may be appropriate in that alternate-court, but that corporate lawyers should still act in a socially responsible manner and counsel their clients to act that way as well. Ultimately, this Article recommends revised education methods and disciplinary rules to provide better guidance to lawyers as to how to ethically manage legal PR for corporate clients