As one international lawyer noted earlier this decade regarding the trend toward the use of in-house counsel for international projects: "Not too long ago U.S. multinational corporations and other clients were rather likely to engage their outside counsel in outbound international corporate practice, and it was rather common for those clients to regularly dispatch their outside counsel to locations all over the world when legal problems arose. . . . Today, much more often than not, outbound international corporate work for U.S. multinational corporations is assigned to in-house corporate law departments." We have heard numerous companies express a strong preference for in-house control over legal aspects of cross-border projects At the 1996 Inter-Pacific Bar Association Conference in Malaysia, we recall that James Watkins, the former Group Legal Director of Trafalgar House plc, emphasized his interest in handling international work in-house and retaining strong local law firms. In a more recent example, Peter Lawson, Motorola's general counsel, reported that while Motorola had used both in-house counsel and Hong Kong counsel in early joint venture negotiations in China, Motorola's extensive work in that country is now generally handled by inside counsel based in the region. The reasons for a reliance on in-house counsel for international matters are many and extend beyond a desire to save costs. In-house counsel offer: Broad experience with a variety of markets and entry strategies (as opposed to the narrower specialization encouraged by law firms); Tight working relationships as part of a multidisciplinary team typically used for international projects (which include business development, finance, human resources and other specialists) from the earliest stages of a project; The hands-on commitment of an experienced professional (in contrast to law firm reliance of inexperienced juniors); and The ability to work under pressure as part of a fast-moving team to deliver advice which is timely, practical and cost-effective. As opposed to the more prevalent private practice experience of solving problems which have already materialized, a key aspect of the in house role is to address issues before they become problems. Our own practice at InternationalCounsel is modeled on the strengths of the in-house model of handling international legal work. Over the next few installments of this Monitor, we will explore the strengths and limitations of different options for handling international legal work. We will also note the kind of legal expertise and resources needed to implement international projects. previous |next | back to top © Copyright 1997-2006, InternationalCounsel. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.