Team of Rivals? Toward a New Model of the Corporate Attorney/Client Relationship

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Fordham Law Review Pub Date : 2009-12-02 DOI:10.1093/CLP/62.1.478
D. Wilkins
{"title":"Team of Rivals? Toward a New Model of the Corporate Attorney/Client Relationship","authors":"D. Wilkins","doi":"10.1093/CLP/62.1.478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the heart of the traditional understanding of the lawyer's role stands a simple but powerful assumption: That the attorney/client relationship is essentially one of agency. In this paper, I argue that notwithstanding its pedigree and intuitive appeal, this traditional assumption is no longer an appropriate template for the relationship between large companies and their primary outside law firms. My claim is both descriptive and normative. Using a variety of data including the results of an on-going study of the legal purchasing decisions of large US companies, I argue that a series of recent trends - the \"convergence\" of law firm relationships by companies, \"consolidation\" among firms, increasing integration and information exchange both within and across organizational boundaries, and a surprising amount of turnover among in-house lawyers - are leading companies and firms to enter into relationships that look more like the kind of strategic alliances or partnerships that companies often have with their other important suppliers than the principal-agent relationship envisioned by the traditional model. Borrowing a phrase that has been used to describe the long-term strategic partnerships between Japanese automakers and their suppliers, I call these new relationships \"legal keiretsus\".Rather than emphasizing the typical principal-agent \"logic of power\" where stronger actors attempt to gain by coercing their exchange partners into an asymmetric distribution of value, these new legal keiretsus rely on a \"logic of embeddedness\" that seeks to encourage reciprocity and mutual trust to produce joint gains that will be fairly distributed between the parties. This new logic, however, arguably threatens the ability of outside counsel to function as public-regarding gatekeepers. Although these concerns are legitimate, I will argue that the logic of embeddedness is no more corrosive of public regarding values than the logic of power that now typifies the relationship between companies and their outside firms. Indeed, this logic has the potential to be significantly less corrosive - particularly if we move away from an ethical and regulatory structures based on a principal-agent model that serves only to entrench the ability of powerful corporate-principals to impose their will on increasingly vulnerable lawyer-agents. I conclude by identifying questions for future research, particularly in light of the current economic crisis, recent initiatives such as the American Corporate Counsel Association's Value Challenge, and the growing tendency among corporate clients to focus on the \"department\" or \"team\" level when making legal purchasing decisions.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/CLP/62.1.478","citationCount":"30","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/CLP/62.1.478","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

Abstract

At the heart of the traditional understanding of the lawyer's role stands a simple but powerful assumption: That the attorney/client relationship is essentially one of agency. In this paper, I argue that notwithstanding its pedigree and intuitive appeal, this traditional assumption is no longer an appropriate template for the relationship between large companies and their primary outside law firms. My claim is both descriptive and normative. Using a variety of data including the results of an on-going study of the legal purchasing decisions of large US companies, I argue that a series of recent trends - the "convergence" of law firm relationships by companies, "consolidation" among firms, increasing integration and information exchange both within and across organizational boundaries, and a surprising amount of turnover among in-house lawyers - are leading companies and firms to enter into relationships that look more like the kind of strategic alliances or partnerships that companies often have with their other important suppliers than the principal-agent relationship envisioned by the traditional model. Borrowing a phrase that has been used to describe the long-term strategic partnerships between Japanese automakers and their suppliers, I call these new relationships "legal keiretsus".Rather than emphasizing the typical principal-agent "logic of power" where stronger actors attempt to gain by coercing their exchange partners into an asymmetric distribution of value, these new legal keiretsus rely on a "logic of embeddedness" that seeks to encourage reciprocity and mutual trust to produce joint gains that will be fairly distributed between the parties. This new logic, however, arguably threatens the ability of outside counsel to function as public-regarding gatekeepers. Although these concerns are legitimate, I will argue that the logic of embeddedness is no more corrosive of public regarding values than the logic of power that now typifies the relationship between companies and their outside firms. Indeed, this logic has the potential to be significantly less corrosive - particularly if we move away from an ethical and regulatory structures based on a principal-agent model that serves only to entrench the ability of powerful corporate-principals to impose their will on increasingly vulnerable lawyer-agents. I conclude by identifying questions for future research, particularly in light of the current economic crisis, recent initiatives such as the American Corporate Counsel Association's Value Challenge, and the growing tendency among corporate clients to focus on the "department" or "team" level when making legal purchasing decisions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对手团队?公司律师/客户关系的新模式
对律师角色的传统理解的核心是一个简单而有力的假设:律师/客户关系本质上是一种代理关系。在本文中,我认为,尽管它的血统和直观的吸引力,这个传统的假设不再是一个合适的模板大公司和他们的主要外部律师事务所之间的关系。我的主张既是描述性的,也是规范性的。利用各种数据,包括对美国大公司法律采购决策的持续研究结果,我认为一系列最近的趋势——公司之间律师事务所关系的“趋同”,公司之间的“整合”,组织内部和跨组织边界的整合和信息交换的增加,内部律师之间惊人的流动率——正在领导公司和事务所建立一种关系,这种关系看起来更像是公司与其他重要供应商之间的那种战略联盟或伙伴关系,而不是传统模式所设想的委托代理关系。借用一个用来描述日本汽车制造商与其供应商之间长期战略合作伙伴关系的短语,我将这些新的关系称为“法律上的合作关系”。在典型的委托-代理“权力逻辑”中,实力较强的行为体试图通过强迫交换伙伴进行不对称的价值分配来获利,而这些新的法律主体依赖于“嵌入逻辑”,寻求鼓励互惠和相互信任,以产生在各方之间公平分配的共同收益。然而,这种新的逻辑可能会威胁到外部法律顾问作为公众看门人的能力。尽管这些担忧是合理的,但我认为,嵌入性的逻辑对公众价值观的侵蚀并不比现在代表公司与其外部公司之间关系的权力逻辑更严重。事实上,这种逻辑有可能大大降低其腐蚀性——特别是如果我们抛弃基于委托代理模式的道德和监管结构,这种模式只会巩固强大的公司委托人将其意志强加于日益脆弱的律师代理的能力。最后,我确定了未来研究的问题,特别是考虑到当前的经济危机,最近的倡议,如美国企业法律顾问协会的价值挑战,以及企业客户在做出法律采购决策时越来越倾向于关注“部门”或“团队”层面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.
期刊最新文献
Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud Resurrecting Free Speech Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab? Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1