What private practice lawyers don't understand about in-house counsel

I trained and qualified within a city law firm's employment team. Not only did I enjoy being part of the team, but I also felt the training I received was second to none. I was involved in a wide variety of interesting legal work for a range of clients and worked directly with HR directors and business owners. I was able to effect change as part of the team, to come up with new initiatives for marketing and business development and to understand the business of law.

In my mind, I was working with client organisations and receiving true insight into their business needs. Then, I moved to an in-house position covering employment for the EMEA regions for a global telecoms company and my perspective changed.

Shock to the system

It was a shock from day one. First, as an in-house lawyer, I was a cost base, as was the entire legal function, and therefore the usual add-ons (such as secretaries, document management systems and know-how banks) were nonexistent. We relied on support from our external suppliers or on Google and, because the cost of external suppliers was just too high, Google became our main resource.

Private practice lawyers need to understand the challenging working environment of in-house lawyers, especially when they send them five-page letters of advice! While in practice, I used to send my clients a cover letter suggesting changes to an agreement, without actually marking up the agreement. Having been on the other side of such a practice, I have to say there is nothing more annoying. For an in-house lawyer who has limited or no support, who is fighting for budgets and coordinating many functions at the same time, this is a waste of time and money.

The shocks kept coming. Approximately four weeks in, I was working on a TUPE transfer and a member of the team I was trying to offload onto the new supplier turned up at my office. He asked me
why I was trying to make him leave the company he loved and had worked at
for over a decade.

Within private practice, we seem to have one line of defence: 'the client'. You can advise on the sidelines; this not only protects you, but it also provides a barrier that prevents you from actually getting to know the business. What working in-house taught me was not only how loyal the commercial team were, but also how much the employment legal team tried to protect its employees.

In private practice, we often look at the legal argument or the cost of things going wrong, but not necessarily the culture, the knowledge retention or the long-term strategy of the client.

The third shock came when I finished my first transaction. In private practice, whether it is a compromise agreement, changing terms and conditions of employment or finalising a commercial/corporate transaction, you deal with the negotiation and drafting, and then you hand it on to the client's team for implementation. You actually have very little idea of how that document is put into practice or what the internal logistics are
to make the agreement effective.

Since being in that position, I now strongly believe that this lack of understanding or experience means that you cannot negotiate as effectively. You need to see the full picture to understand what each term means or you are negotiating with half a view.

Value of secondments

This point goes to heart of what most lawyers claim they can do: "provide hands-on commercial advice". I felt that I had commercial experience, but that was so far from reality. My experience in private practice took me as far as it could, but it was my in-house experience that took me to the next level. It gave me the robust, 360-degree understanding of what is important to clients and in-house teams.

If you still think there is no difference between private practice and in-house, just ask a few random in-house lawyers if they think private practice lawyers are commercially minded; most will roll their eyes. Technically brilliant they may be,
but commercial?

Since this is an issue that clients are raising, it is time we act on it in a more formal way. Maybe it is time for all law firms to include secondments or industry experience as part of their lawyers' professional development programme. The idea would be to ensure that, at two or three years' PQE, all lawyers undertake an in-house secondment. Even if this does not become a regulatory requirement, all private practice firms should look to create such a scheme as part of their long-term training and career development plans.

Private practice firms need to see the value of developing this level of exposure. And, if you are not sure it is valuable, ask your clients which skill set most private practice lawyers need to develop. Being
a good lawyer is no longer enough.

Janvi Patel is chair and co-founder
of NewLaw firm Halebury
(www.halebury.com)