http://www.law21.ca/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Comments+on+Articles+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law21.ca%2F2009%2F07%2F22%2Fspend-wisely%2F%23comment-&seed_title=Spend+wisely Dispatches from a legal profession on the brink Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:47:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://www.law21.ca/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Comments+on+Articles+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.law21.ca%2F2009%2F07%2F22%2Fspend-wisely%2F%23comment-997&seed_title=Spend+wisely/comment-page-1/#comment-997 Tim Donovan Thu, 23 Jul 2009 19:30:26 +0000 http://www.law21.ca/?p=964#comment-997 The balance between "good enough," "not enough", and too much, or overlawyering is part and parcel and life as an in house attorney or general counsel. Our goal is to reduce risk for the client, not eliminate risk. It is impossible to run or more importantly, grow, a business enterprise without taking calculated risks. Part of the problem with current law firm business models is that they are not able or prepared to incorporate this into their business model. For example, how many firms would advise the client not to pursue a claim or counterclaim that has some merit, but will use resources that might be spent more effectively on the strongest argument supporting the clients position? The need to include all claims and all parties is imprinted into our classical legal training and in some cases, rules of procedure. The balance between “good enough,” “not enough”, and too much, or overlawyering is part and parcel and life as an in house attorney or general counsel. Our goal is to reduce risk for the client, not eliminate risk. It is impossible to run or more importantly, grow, a business enterprise without taking calculated risks. Part of the problem with current law firm business models is that they are not able or prepared to incorporate this into their business model. For example, how many firms would advise the client not to pursue a claim or counterclaim that has some merit, but will use resources that might be spent more effectively on the strongest argument supporting the clients position? The need to include all claims and all parties is imprinted into our classical legal training and in some cases, rules of procedure.

]]>