Articles Posted in Managing Your Lawyers

In Part 1 I described how the Mayo Clinic simultaneously achieved both the highest clinical standards and robust new efficiencies in its heart surgery department.

In looking to the Mayo Clinic for ideas on how to better manage the work that lawyers do for our businesses, I’d like to look in this Part 2 at one of that organization’s hallmarks:

Teamwork medicine rather than a star-performer focus.

 

Warren Buffett has long used the word “moat” to describe a company’s competitive advantage. In his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders for 2007, Warren Buffett cited teamwork medicine — as contrasted with individual superstar doctors — as the key to the Mayo Clinic’s appeal to patients:

” … If a business requires a superstar to produce great results, the business itself cannot be deemed great. A medical partnership led by your area’s premier brain surgeon may enjoy outsized and growing earnings, but that tells little about its future. The partnership’s moat will go when the surgeon goes. You can count, though, on the moat of the Mayo Clinic to endure, even though you can’t name its CEO.”

Continue reading

Last year the Wall Street Journal recounted how — eight years earlier — the Mayo Clinic’s heart surgeons had asked for two more operating rooms to meet skyrocketing demand.

“No” – replied the Mayo Clinic’s CEO — himself a physician.

Not only did he say “No” — CEO Dr. John Noseworthy then asked heart surgeons at what is probably the number one-rated hospital system in the world to redesign every aspect of their work.

For at least 20% in cost cuts.

Clinic-wide, Mayo has reported $900 million in savings over the past five years from such re-engineering projects.

And eight years after that request the Mayo Clinic’s heart surgeons got half of what they’d asked for — just one additional operating room.

Eight years later.

Meanwhile, over in the business legal sector, aggregate spending never goes down (here and here).

Continue reading

I’m back from a hiatus in my blogging after two months of traveling back East on family medical and elder care duties.

This blog, like my law practice, remains focused on a dilemma faced by business owners and executives:

How to manage legal and regulatory exposure where your attorneys (outside firms and in-house counsel alike) offer the specialized expertise in law that you need — but insert waste into their charges and staffing practices — and make little effort to prevent liability before it happens.

I first really understood this problem only after I was invited by a corporate client to leave the practice of law to be general manager of a division.

Litigation and regulatory demands soar. A hostile legal climate requires the highest standards of legal analysis and representation — with harsh consequences if you get it wrong.

Meanwhile attorneys’ fees and in-house legal budgets refuse to go down (see here and here). Ten days ago I received this promotion from a legal budgeting consultancy:

As you prepare next year’s [legal] budget, think beyond ‘last year plus five percent‘.”

Such a low bar on cost control and management no longer surprises me.

Because I’ve worked on both sides of the lawyer / client table.

Continue reading

Some times a character test presents itself in the guise of a legal question.

And when that character test presents itself it’s the duty of general management — not their lawyers — to decide with wisdom and discernment.

Because — except where there is an actual violation of law or of the bar authority’s canons of ethics — lawyers considering moral issues can miss the forest (discernment) for the trees (strict, technical rule compliance).

Consider this sequence relating to Tesla:

1. Two months ago California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health opened an investigation into Tesla following a report about “underreporting recordable work-related injuries and illnesses”.

2. Two weeks ago Tesla announced that it would lay off nine percent of its work force.

3. Ten days ago (June 18) Bloomberg reported that — as a condition to receiving severance payments — Tesla would require a laid-off employee to sign the following statement of fact:

” [The laid-off employee] had the opportunity to raise any safety concerns, safety complaints, or whistleblower activities against the company, and that if any safety concerns, safety complaints, or whistleblower activities were raised during your employment, they were addressed to your satisfaction.”

Temple University law professor Brishen Rogers:

“I do think the agreement will chill valid employee complaints …. A reasonable worker would just keep their mouth shut, rather than risk losing their severance pay.”

Ya think?

Continue reading

Contact Information