Well, another CMO has resigned his firm and the hunt is on for his replacement.

Makes me think about all the firms I have interviewed with and those red-flag moments … and a prior firm where I lived through several “interim” CMOs as they interviewed, and interviewed, and interviewed for a permanent CMO, only to have their top candidate accept another job and the process would begin again.

What advice would you give to the hiring committee at Ropes & Gray as they go about the process of finding Jim Durham’s replacement, or any hiring committee for that matter?

I’ve got a few to start us off:

  • The CMO has to work with people on many different levels and in many different departments. Start talking to your senior marketing/administrative professionals early on. What were the positives/negatives of the prior CMO? What was lacking in his or her skill set, both tactical and managerial? What did they have that you cannot live without?
  • Have the senior directors interview the candidates before the firm management has decided on who they want in the job … then actually listen to their input.
  • What are the top priorities for the person coming into the job? These will most likely be different than the last time you were hiring. Don’t recreate the “same” CMO to do a different job.

Talk about search engines! Powerset just went public with its Wikipedia search tool. I first mentioned Powerset last August in my article Web 2.0 Won’t Eat Your Mouse published in the New Jersey Law Journal. I wrote: “Powerset Natural Language Search hopes to be Google’s competitor by utilizing paraphrasing, compound nouns and hypotheses about the relationships between words. “

Now it seems, according to Michael Arrington at TechCrunch, that Powerset may find itself as a valuable chess piece in the emerging search war between Google and Microsoft. A few weeks ago after Arrington demo’d the product, he said: “…I had something very similar to the ‘Aha!’ feeling that ran through me the first time I ever used Google. In short, it is an evolutionary, and possibly revolutionary, step forward in search.”

It is indeed. I signed up to participate in the beta testing and enjoyed playing with compound words, asking real research questions, getting Karma points for my participation, and sharing my feedback in Powerlabs, a wiki format with AI scientists and language lovers. One of my own favorite searches – Where is Penny Lane? – put an article at the top of the chart that highlighted the Beatles’ famous lyrics, Penny Lane is in my ears and in my eyes. Of course, if you really want to know, the street is in Liverpool, and it has a history all its own. But I loved the metaphorical context the best. Just imagine if lawyers could use a tool like this to drill down in their research by asking very specific questions instead of using keywords.

The semantic web will never quite give us a search engine like the mind of God, but we are getting closer. Check out the Powerset blog to follow the development of a marvelous tool.

Because my work involves recent technology, I use Wikipedia as a resource and frequently use definitions from Wikipedia in my presentations. Established encyclopedias and dictionaries do not cover many of the terms that I address. I recently attributed a definition to Wikipedia and received feedback from a critic in the audience stating that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. I disagree with this assessment and believe that the person who made the statement is probably not aware of the quality and caliber of Wikipedia contributors and editors. Yes, some entries need work and are questionable in their authority, but the editors are reasonable in noting this in those entries. Otherwise, I find the information to be accurate and sometimes exhaustive.

Does anyone have an opinion about Wikipedia? Do you use it as an authoritative source? There was a recent Wall Street Journal editorial opinion written by L. Gordon Crovitz (5/12/2008 Pg. A13) which applauds Wikipedia and other bottom up approaches to communications. Suggesting that it may be a technology tool to improve governing!

There are many examples of successful collaboration using Wiki tools, in industry, government, and technology. A very informative book which I recommend in this area is “Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything” by Tapscott and Williams.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on Wikipedia and Wiki collaboration in general.

From a seat in the marketing department, what would you do?

This morning, I picked up the Daily Journal to find an article about a former Bingham associate who claims she (and others) were drugged at firm events. She filed a discrimination complaint alleging that “the law firm didn’t do enough to investigate alleged druggings of attorneys by a former employee and/or attendee of firm events and keep its female attorneys safe.”

According to Above the Law, the following internal email was circulated inside Bingham.

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP — MEMORANDUM — MCAD COMPLAINT AGAINST THE FIRM
From: William G. Southard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:20 PM
To: zz personnel dc; zz personnel har; zz personnel hk; zz personnel la; zz personnel lon; zz personnel ny; zz personnel oc; zz personnel sf; zz personnel sm; zz personnel sv; zz personnel tk; zz personnel wc
Cc: zz management committee

Subject: MCAD Complaint Against The Firm
I’m sure many of you have seen or heard about today’s media reports concerning a filing yesterday by Michelle Moor with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. Because the reports and the filing contain alarming allegations, we thought it appropriate to respond briefly about the personal safety issues raised in Ms. Moor’s filing. While we empathize with the concerns raised by Ms. Moor, we want to address the allegations contained in the media. Because of the pending legal process, we are constrained in what we can say, but we do want to stress the following.
First, Ms. Moor reported that at the 2007 associates Christmas party at an off-site location she was given a date rape drug which made her ill and required treatment at an emergency room. The events occurred in a public restaurant with a very large number of people present over the course of the event, including numerous people unaffiliated with the firm. Our initial desire was to begin an immediate investigation, however, Ms. Moor asked us to refrain because she did not want her privacy compromised and because she felt that it would be difficult to determine the identity of the offending party at such a public venue. Only after Ms. Moor was comfortable with proceeding did we undertake the investigation. Ultimately, we could not determine, and Ms Moor could not say, who might have introduced the drug, how the drug was ingested or whether the person who did this had any affiliation with the firm. We did, however, conclude that the events, whatever their genesis, furnished an important reminder to all of us that issues of personal safety arise in all aspects of present-day life. As a result, commencing in January we began to plan to better inform all of our personnel about safety measures that they can take, and are conducting personal safety training sessions for all lawyers and staff in the Boston office. We will expand the reach of those efforts to the rest of the firm. We also engaged in outreach to concerned personnel in the Boston office to detail what had transpired, and sent out an email to all Boston personnel informing them of the off-site incident and advising them of the need to be aware of these types of concerns. We have today in Boston issued a response similar to this one to address Ms. Moor’s allegations.
Second, Ms. Moor purports to describe a second incident that occurred at some point in the past involving the drugging and rape of an associate. We investigated this assertion, though Ms. Moor refused to identify the associate whose story she purported to relate. Without any identifying information we had no way of verifying the report or reaching any conclusions about it. We have very recently been contacted by the associate referenced by Ms. Moor. Without going into details, we have learned Ms. Moor’s information is fundamentally inaccurate.
Third, Ms. Moor complains of comments made in her presence by a firm staff member concerning date rape drugs and she accuses the firm of not acting appropriately in response to them. The allegations of a failure by the firm to act are unfounded. When the firm learned of the comments, an exhaustive confidential investigation was undertaken over a period of several weeks, not only because the reported comments were inappropriate, but also because of the prior events at the Christmas party. At no time in the investigation was the firm able to conclude there was any connection between the inappropriate comments and the events at the Christmas party. Upon completion of the Firm’s investigation, the staff member identified by Ms. Moor was terminated.
We are very disappointed that Ms. Moor resigned from the firm and that she has filed her complaint, and we disagree strenuously that there is any basis, factual or legal, for any of her claims. The thrust of Ms. Moor’s MCAD complaint — that the firm was unresponsive to the concerns she raised — is simply untrue. Despite Ms. Moor’s complaints, the safety of firm personnel is of paramount importance to us, as the current safety training efforts and numerous other programs reflect.
Given the pendency of the complaint, please maintain this information as confidential. Please feel free to contact Ralph Martin or me with any questions you may have.
Bill

When the media machine is out of your hands, what would you do in a situation like these?

We’ve all had them. That moment when you said the wrong thing, wore the wrong thing, got drunk at the wrong time, and now, you are no longer seen as a colleague by the attorneys, but as “staff,” or, in my case, a “honey” or a “chick.”

There’s a great article on professionals (primarily women) and dress in the WSJ.

“If my attorney bills out at $1,000 an hour, I want them to look like a lawyer, not a celebrity,” says Jonathan Fitzgarrald, director of marketing for Greenberg Glusker, a Los Angeles law firm.

It’s not just a matter of image; sometimes, there can be real trouble. Lisa Goldstein, an attorney and founder of consulting firm Rainmaker Trainers in Philadelphia, says that during a client dinner with spouses, a head of a law firm was propositioned by her male client and his wife. The client “suggested that they swing together,” says Ms. Goldstein, who was informally consulted on how to recover the professional-client relationship. The lawyer felt that her revealing evening dress had set the wrong tone, sending “signals that were misinterpreted,” says Ms. Goldstein.

Have you had a faux pas moment? If so, how’d you overcome it?

Law firms can be challenging places to work. Lots of highly intelligent, highly compensated people running around. So what’s the challenge you find most daunting? For me, it’s convincing partners (usually equity partners) to change how they manage their client relationships. And that begins with picking up the phone to arrange a client visit. I know folks outside the profession who read this may be scratching their heads, but getting attorneys to visit clients is an incredible challenge. I’ve heard just about all the excuses — from “I don’t want to take up my client’s time” to “We already have all of their legal work anyway” (one of my personal favorites), but in seven years of doing law firm business development, I have yet to see a client visit that didn’t create new opportunities for serving the client better. Still, attorneys are reluctant to conduct the visits. Partly because it’s “non-billable” time and partly because I believe they are very insecure about their client relationships (and they don’t take criticism well). Yes, compensation structures factor into this issue, but again, that’s an excuse. Beyond the visit, the next steps are simply improving the level of client service. That’s a little easier, but without the client visit AND ongoing feedback from the client, it’s difficult to discern how to better serve the client if you don’t talk with them.

All that said, I’ve had more success than failure with this issue, but it still puzzles me why attorneys are so reluctant to visit clients.

What’s your take on the hardest part of your job?

I subscribe to Fortune magazine for two issues: “Fortune 500” and “Best Advice I Ever Got.” From this year’s issue, I love what Sam Palmisano , Chairman and CEO, IBM has to say.

Some of the best advice I ever received was unspoken. Over the course of my IBM career I’ve observed many CEOs, heads of state, and others in positions of great authority. I’ve noticed that some of the most effective leaders don’t make themselves the center of attention. They are respectful. They listen. This is an appealing personal quality, but it’s also an effective leadership attribute. Their selflessness makes the people around them comfortable. People open up, speak up, contribute. They give those leaders their very best.

I have to agree. I have learned best by watching my mentors at their best. I have seen them: “take one for the team;” know the difference between an incident and a pattern at review time; roll up their sleeves and lick envelopes while on the phone with CNN; and, best of all, give credit when credit it due.

What’s the best advice you ever got?

So, I sent an email to 49 of my legal marketing friends inviting them to check out legalwatercooler. Over 10% of my legal marketing friends were OoO, yesterday. As I read each OoOA message I decided that there must be a strategy to these messages. When I mentioned it to Heather M she told me she got binged for being OoO too much. “Does ms. milligan ever come to work?” The managing partner at my firm told me that I was not allowed to use OoOA. ” . . . that’s what we have our blackberries for.” So, do you post new messages every time you’re OoO? Do you include details that make it sound like you’re actually doing some thing OoO? What about vacation? Any clever tips on being OoO?

New Derivative Case Against Brocade Directors Accuses Wilson Sonsini of Malpractice, Zusha Elinson, The Recorder, 05-02-2008

If your clients are going to jail over the legal advice you provided, are they going to keep coming back for more? Why is it that Brocade only fired Wilson Sonsini on advice from the judge?

Wilson Sonsini is at the heart (at least in the press) of the stock-option backdating scandals of 2006-current. According to the above article, the firm itself has now been sued over stock option backdating.

Few plaintiffs have gone after companies’ outside lawyers in backdating lawsuits. But a new derivative case against directors and officers at Brocade Communications Systems Inc. also targets the company’s law firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Filed April 18 in Northern District federal court by a small San Diego firm, Johnson Bottini, the suit accuses Wilson Sonsini of legal malpractice for allegedly blessing backdating at Brocade, a company that saw two of its former executives convicted of criminal charges.

While their numbers still look good, with this kind of press, how do you sustain current client relationships, or build new ones? How do you sell the firm to your board when facing a “bet the farm” case? How do you answer my favorite RFP questions: Has the firm ever been sued for malpractice? “Um, yeah, but the client only went to jail on the lesser charges, and paid a $15 million fine.” Not a ringing endorcement for the “trust” column.

And, I haven’t even mentioned the whole Ann Baskin, GC for HP, scandal.

Has Wilson Sonsini entered a Brobeckesque death spiral? Is it time to start a ghoul-pool? If not, how do they repair the damage?