In-House Counsel

My previous posts about the ACC Value Challenge have presented various facets of it, but not fundamentally challenged its value, so to speak (See my post of Oct. 22, 2008: normal fees for high quality work; Oct. 19, 2008: complaints about law firm associates; Nov. 21, 2008: deconstruction of its definition of value; April 25, 2009: reciprocal commitments; April 25, 2009: asymmetric commitments; April 29, 2007: not game changing; and Sept. 9, 2009: ?move away from RFP mentality.).

Then a comment showed up on my blog, from a general counsel. ?I find the ACC Value Challenge appalling. I want no part of it. They define "value" wrong -- a fancy, multi-faceted relationship. In fact, value is a good outcome at a good price. Period.?

Hmmmm. As I reflect further on the covenants, they do seem oriented more toward meeting the needs of law firms than of law departments. Managing partners want full-range, deep and lasting relationships; they give much shorter shrift to how to corral the stupendous costs of corporate legal services. The commenter hit the nail on the head.