2013 Goals - a year in review

At the beginning of the year I put out my goals for all to see in my New Year's post.  So now it's time to pay the piper and see how I did.  I had a couple of professional goals, one to strengthen my existing network.  Once again my network has come through for me when I really needed it and helped me land my newest gig, for which I am extremely grateful - it's an awesome job at a great company with a great team!  Thank you Amy!  But did I do what I could to help my network?  I made introductions as often as I could and referrals to very qualified folks - both public and private.  I supported a few friends in their political endeavors - if you're an AZ resident vote Christine Jones for governor and Tempe/east valley residents should definitely choose Kari Jill Granville-Minton for their newest University Lakes JP. (Both are incredibly intelligent and talented women with a lot of integrity and Arizona's best interests at heart.)  So I guess that one is still a work in progress, though it's better this year than it was last and I guess that's all you could ask for.

I also committed to becoming acquainted with a new area of the law.  I didn't take the courses I thought I would when I wrote that goal, but I have updated my knowledge in the areas surrounding payments as a part of my new job.  Still have a lot of learning to do, but I'm on my way.  Mark another one as a work in progress.

On the personal front I had two goals as well.  To spend more quality time with my family if not more quantity and to spend more "me" time without the guilt.  I took the summer off and got to spend an amazing amount of time with the boys.  I played games I've never heard of, supported them during their growing pains and got to know each of them just a bit better.  Since going back to work, I feel like we still have that strong bond that we forged over the summer and our time together is definitely more quality than before.  While this will be an on going goal for me for the rest of their lives, I think we've got the recipe down for now.

I still struggle with the "me" time without guilt, but have gotten a lot better at the "we" time without guilt.  We now make it a point to go out at least once a month without the kids.  We go to a movie or dinner or just shopping in peace.  We talk about goals, interests, or just general adult conversation that doesn't revolve around the kids.  I think this has brought us closer this year and strengthened our marriage. I'll get to the me time this year.  It may be easier to do now that I feel more secure in the relationships I have at home.

I know it's New Year's Eve and I should have my 2014 goals all in order.  But honestly, 2013 had so many ups and downs that I'm not sure where to start.  I'll need to think about it a bit more.  For now I'm happy to have survived 2013 and come out better for it.   

Dear Santa, a wish list from an in house lawyer

Dear Santa,

I know that it's Christmas Eve and you're busy delivering toys (or coal) to little boys and girls across the globe, but I haven't had time until now to write my wish list.  See I've just started a new job and it's been a bit hectic.  Combine that with playing Santa for my three boys in what little spare time there is and there hasn't been much "me" time in the last few weeks.  So I'm reaching out on the internet as only a blogger can.  My list has been years in the making. I haven't been at this new place long enough to make a full list, but over the past decade I've accumulated a few wishful thoughts.  Let's see some Christmas magic knock a few off the list?

I'd really like a contract management system that works exactly as advertised without a Phd in computer programming.  Something easy enough that sales people will adopt it without me threatening to withhold commission payments and thorough enough that it will actually make due diligence less of a night mare.

I'd LOVE it if the lawyer on the other side of the table didn't try to intimidate me by touting his resume or classification as some 'industry expert".  I get it, you're old and you've practiced for a long time.  Oh and you don't have ovaries so you're better than me.  Now that that's out of the way, can we also stop referring to female lawyers as "sweetie", "honey" or whatever other patronizing term of the day is.  I went to law school, took the bar and have sat in just as many negotiations, war rooms and board meetings as most of my peers.  Give it a rest!

Even better would be sales people who don't wait until the week before end of quarter/year to "rush" that one customer agreement because we need to make our numbers and no other sales person has procrastinated so I must not have anything to do.

Maybe, while we're getting really wishful, we can get support, transparency, and the tools needed to actually be effective at my job from my management team/board.  I'd spend a lot less time cleaning up the mess if someone would just let me sit in on a meeting or two, or let me buy that contract management system that won't meet my expectations (but is still better than nothing.)

CLE's that are actually relevant to my in house practice would be great!  You know, the kind that isn't just cover for some firm to tell me that I can't do it in house and I need to hire them.  Or buy their software.  Or give over all my data to the government.

Most of all, I just want a computer that doesn't crash when I'm 80% done with my redline/brief/email.  Or 10 minutes before deadline.  I back up often, but the 2-3 hours of IT recovery time kill me.  Every. Freakin'. Time.

As a bonus, if you think I've been really good this year, can we find someway so that all the important school events aren't scheduled on the same day/time as the board meeting, conference call, or staff meeting?  That would be ever so helpful, and the boys would thank you too.

Obviously all this won't fit in your bag of tricks, so maybe just the computer one?  I'm still pretty new at this job so maybe these won't be an issue.  So far they've been great.  But, ten years of experience tells me that my next 'industry expert' is waiting for me on the next sales call, which will be scheduled on December 29th - because numbers.

Happy holidays to all my in house brethren, or other want to be in house lurkers.  Share your wish list in the comments - just in case the big guy is taking a break from delivering toys and wants a real challenge.  

The Three P's: People, Politics and Priorities

I've recently started a new job and I'm reminded once again that the key to success for an in house lawyer is often not in how well they can evaluate the legal issues.  True success lies in the the three P's:  People, Politics and Priorities.  In an ideal world, we'd have genuine, personal connections with everyone we work with, there'd be no power plays or territorial behavior, and our legal priorities would line up perfectly with the business priorities.  If that describes your work world - play the lottery, you are that lucky.

For the rest of us, figuring out how to navigate the three P's while maintaining our integrity and professional responsibilities can be challenging.  Often the most complicated part of in house practice is not applying archaic legal principles to modern situations, but dealing with the personalities of the people you have to support.  Whether it be a VP whose risk profile is completely opposite to yours or a new sales person who thinks he should run the show, managing your relationships with people is critical to your ability to get the business to listen to you when it's important.  We all have personalities that we're drawn to or want to avoid. Unfortunately, we have to work with all types.  While it's always best to try to make that genuine connection with people - they'll come to you more often, sooner and with more important matters if they genuinely like you - it's not always possible.  For example, I'm not an outdoorsy sports person.  When I meet the guys and gals who would rather be running or camping, I don't usually have much in common with them.  It's hard to establish a rapport with someone whose interests are so foreign to you.  So you fake it a little.  I'm never going enjoy spending an afternoon with bugs buzzing around me while I'm too hot or too cold.  However I can enjoy the photography they bring back to the office or cheer them on in their next half marathon.  Over time a real connection may break through, and if not, at least I'm being likeable if not truly liked.

The more difficult challenge is the internal politics that surround any workplace.  Some of it comes from having real relationships with people, but more often it becomes an issue when there's a player who isn't interested in creating real relationships.  It doesn't really matter whether that's because they territorial or just ambitious and don't plan on sticking around for too long.  With these people you must be 'strategically professional' (a phrase I picked up from a colleague).  You're not getting anywhere with these people unless you can be valuable to them.  For these relationships you are always 'on' proving where you add value to the organization and their personal goals.  But be careful not to become too entrenched with a political player.  They don't tend to stay in one place for too long, or if they do it's because they are not afraid of throwing anyone under the bus when it suits them.

Even if you do get the relationship piece right and navigate the politics like a pro, you're still stuck with trying to prioritize your legal issues in a way that syncs up with the business.  This means matching risk profiles, budgets, goals and projected outcomes with the real day to day work your team does.  It's not always easy drawing the connection between your compliance program and business goals.  Especially if you haven't made the right people connections so that you get the inside information on what are the true business goals.  Best practice is to tie your priorities to the bottom line when possible.  When not directly possible, tie it to the less measurable annual goals or to some other teams goals.  Creating contract process that adds much needed controls on inconsistent practices?  Sell it as reducing the transaction time, providing reporting and insight into customer/employee behaviors or a reduction in due diligence cost and time.  And don't forget that the day to day needs will almost always outweigh the project timelines.  No one cares what great project you've just accomplished or what it does for the company if it takes two weeks to get an NDA reviewed and signed.

With a little skill and a lot of luck, navigating the three P's well will enable you to do great things in your career.  Or ensure that you never go anywhere. 

Unfinished Business

It's that time of year again - The weather is getting cooler, the stores are pushing Christmas on us earlier than ever, in house lawyers are working up their 2014 budget, and law firms are drafting their annual letters letting their clients know that they've unilaterally decided to give themselves a raise.  It's also the time of year that I remind those trying to get or keep my business of my Ten Commandments, and begin to take inventory of the things I've accomplished this year and what's still left to be done.

This year has been one of ups and downs for me.  As a result, there's a lot on my to do list from January 1st that hasn't been done yet.  And now it's time for me to come to terms with the fact that some of it just won't be done this year.  Given the personality types that the practice of law attracts, it's understandably difficult for many of us to let go of the unfinished business.  This is true in my personal life as well as my professional, but I hope I'm getting better at both - my husband may disagree.

It's also difficult to recognize that I'm not the only one struggling with this.  Friends, family and even my business partners are having to admit that some of those goals set at the beginning of the year are no longer realistic.  That may mean that vacations are canceled and holiday plans are postponed until next year.  The most frustrating for all involved are the times when business expectations aren't met.  We didn't close that big deal we were counting on so bonuses will be reduced; we couldn't recruit fast enough to get the new feature in the roadmap finished so we'll have to keep using the inefficient work-around; the patent office was slower to respond that we had predicted and now the cost of that patent gets pushed to next year's budget.  To a certain extent these things are affected by things outside our control.  Which is why it is so frustrating.  And having to come up with a plan to compensate for the effects is an exercise we'd all like to skip.

When this happens in your organization, you need to be the voice of cautious optimism.  What can we do to minimize the pain of not having met the goal?  Will working an extra hour a day get us over the finish line by December 31?  Can we restructure the offering to make the customer come back to the table while still maintaining profitability?  Can we take a goal from 1Q14 and move it to 4Q13 to compensate?  Or maybe we could just not pitch a fit about not getting the entire bonus projection.  The one goal I am going to keep this year is to not sweat the small stuff.

The Three Types

Lawyers often get classified by the area of law that they practice.  You're a corporate lawyer, litigator, employment lawyer, etc.  While this classification system is helpful in telling what you do, it's not the only way of classifying attorneys.  There's another classification that will go even farther in predicting the success of a lawyer on your in house team.  There are only three types - Transactional, Strategic, or Hybrid.

A Transactional lawyer is one that thrives on the day to day.  Whether it is reviewing and negotiating contracts or managing litigation, the Transactional lawyer gets stuff done.  Law teams cannot survive without this type of lawyer - someone has to do the work.  This guy is the one who will work 15 hour days if required and will be good friends with many of the rank in file in the organization.  They like him because he gets stuff done, quickly and efficiently.  He may be a 'business lawyer' in the sense that he takes business concerns into consideration when negotiating that agreement or setting that litigation strategy.  However, he doesn't think strategically.  He doesn't know how to add long term value to the organization other than doing more volume.  He'd have a hard time describing what value add the legal team provides in terms other than dollars saved on outside counsel. The transactional lawyer is best as an individual contributor or lower level manager.

On the other hand, the Strategic lawyer thinks long term.  Her every move is based on how to strategically help the company achieve it's goals.  From the structure of the contracting process to better meet the needs of the sales team to the review and analysis of new product developments to achieve the most effective regulatory compliance, she's constantly thinking of the big picture.  She'll tell you the real value of having in house legal is managing the risk on a more global level.  Setting policies and providing advice that allows the company to navigate the challenges that growth inevitably brings.  Unfortunately, she's not as good at getting the day to day done efficiently.  She spends most of her time in meetings and may have a harder time prioritizing sales contracts over less important litigation.  She's great as a leader and makes a great GC or upper manager for a larger organization.

The rarer of the three is the Hybrid.  We all like to think we're a Hybrid, but few of us actually are.  A Hybrid can spend a significant amount of time everyday doing the day to day transactional needs.  Negotiating those agreements, training with HR, managing litigation and juggling it all effectively.  They can also sit in on the meetings and provide strategic advice for the two, three and five year plans of the company.  We'd all like to be a Hybrid because there are more opportunities open for them, they can succeed at the roles of either a transactional or a strategic lawyer.  But, this person is happiest as upper manager or GC for a smaller organization where less resources tend to mean broader job descriptions and wider roles.  Often a Hybrid will evolve into a Strategic lawyer over time as the organization they're with grows and their role grows with it.

There's value in knowing which type you are, and which type you've got on your team.  Knowing that you're better at the transactional side, you should take the opportunities to get strategic experience.  Knowing that you've spent the majority of your time dealing with the strategic, you may want to dive into something transactional to keep your skills sharp and reacquaint yourself with the day to day priorities.  And knowing you are a hybrid, you should seek opportunities that allow you to do both.  So, what type are you?

I have a confession.

I have a confession to make, I'm an internet stalker - sort of.  I've been doing a lot of interviews over the last few months.  In addition to researching the company and the position, I've also been researching the individuals I'll be interviewing with.  It's amazing, and a little bit scary, what can be found on the internet.  With one perspective boss I was able to find his personal twitter account, his religious activities, his political point of view, that he likes basketball and not football, he has three kids, his address and even the value of the house he's living in- thanks to public tax records.  For another I was able to find some publications he did at a previous job, pictures of his wedding and even that he was a big fan of Dr. Who.  (I didn't get the chance to ask which doctor is his favorite - I'd go with #5 or #11, but didn't want to get to controversial in an initial interview.)  And a third, I read his wife's mommy blog and probably found out way to much about his family.

Through LinkedIn I'm able to find out about a persons background, and also their network.  I've been able to successfully use this to get my resume in front of someone who's a 'friend of a friend of a friend'.  I'm also able to keep tabs on who else they're connecting with recently, which may be my competition for the position.  While I was at my last job, I was able to predict with a fair amount of accuracy who was about to leave based on their activity on LinkedIn.  Someone who suddenly updates their profile and starts connecting with people senior to them in the industry is probably interviewing or at least looking at moving on.

I'm working on my addiction - not sure if there's a Professional Internet Stalker's Anonymous.  In the meantime, I thought I'd use my little piece of the internet to warn others.  There is a ton of information about you on the internet.  Whether you're the one being interviewed, or the one interviewing, expect to be Googled and searched on LinkedIn at a minimum.  Candidates are regularly advised to clean up their online profile before applying to any new position.  Those on the other side of the table don't get similar advice.  You may not want your perspective employee to see that you like to dress up in Cosplay and attend ComicCon annually before they know what color of carpet is in the lobby.  

Finding the Lesson

Any long time reader knows that I'm a big fan of finding lessons in everything I can.  My personal motto (thanks to a wonderful uncle) is 'You can learn from a jackass what not to do."  When you're working in a professional atmosphere there's no shortage of opportunities to put this motto in to practice.  I've been lucky enough to be able to learn a bit about everything in corporate operations from HRIS to finance from some very qualified and patient co-workers.  I've picked up bits and pieces of other area of law from great friends and outside counsel to the point where I've become very comfortable doing basic employment, IP, litigation management, marketing and both sales and procurement transactions for a variety of different industries.  I've been incredibly lucky so far to have this opportunity.

Over the summer I've taken a break from the professional world and have been spending more time with the kids at home.  I'm finding that I'm not quite as adept at seeing the lessons from a two year old. With him, more often than not I am playing the role of the jackass.

A couple of weeks ago I was reminded by a post on LinkedIn that lessons are everywhere if we just open our eyes to them.  So with that in mind, I've been going through my summer looking for the lessons I missed - and since I love lists so much here are my top 3.

1.  Perseverance and creativity will pay off in the end.  I spent the month of July potty training my autistic four year old.  He has limited communication skills and is quite stubborn.  He didn't respond at all to the reward technique that we used to very quickly train his big brother - he loves M&Ms but couldn't quite get the correlation between going and getting more.  So I had to get more creative and be very, very patient.  After about 3 weeks he finally got it, and while we're still working on the finer nuances (boys and aiming is quite a challenge!), we're there.  In my working life, sometimes the first approach doesn't work.  Maybe it's a lack of effective communication, maybe it's a wrong assumption of underlying facts.  What matters is that we keep looking for an effective resolution and not be afraid to use a methodology that hasn't been tried before.

2.  While perseverance is king, sometimes you just need a break.  My two year old is learning something new everyday - new language, new physics, new abilities of his body.  It can be overwhelming.  He's as stubborn as his brothers so he'll keep trying to get it right for as long as it takes.  However, he's two and sometimes he needs a nap or a rest before he can focus enough to get it right.  I've realized that I'm not much different.  I may not need a nap everyday (although wouldn't that be nice!).  However sometimes I do need to step away and take a fresh look at the problem after I've cleared my mind.  So put down the contract that you're struggling with the wording for 30 minutes.  Go for a walk, work on some trademark/marketing stuff instead.  Get your mind thinking about something completely different and then approach it again.  You'll be amazed at how taking a break gives you a new perspective and makes that huge issue seem a little more manageable.

3.  You can't control everything.  As any young kid can tell you, there's only so much in this world that you directly control.  You can be on your best behavior, eat all your peas and still have to go to bed at 7:30.  The world is made up of rules and conventions that may sometimes bend but are best if not broken.  This is true for adults too, although we often maintain a self-delusion of having complete control over our lives.  Afterall, we can go to bed anytime we want.  But we can't make the judge rule how we want them to, or make our boss like that proposal any more if he's already decided on a different option.  Sometimes, we'll get farther by accepting the things we can't control and working more effectively in the confines of those conventions.  After all, for all the time my 6 year old spends complaining and fighting about going to bed too early, he could actually be spending that time playing and accomplishing what he wants to do after bed time.

I'm still learning the lessons these little overlords are trying to teach me.  In the meantime, I think I might pick up my job search a bit more - these three are more demanding than any CEO or GC I've ever worked with! I could use a vacation. ;)  

Recruiters, to use or not?

When it comes time to look for a new job or hire a new team member we all struggle with the question of whether or not to engage a recruiter.  They can be expensive and territorial.  But they can also have in place relationships that can quickly make that perfect match.  So, do you use one or not?

From the employer point of view, I almost always recommend using a specialized recruiter for legal department hiring.  Unless your company has a substantial legal department, most internal recruiters won't hire more than one or two lawyers in their career.  They don't know the difference between transactions done in a merger/acquisition and those done for day to day operations.  They won't pick up on the personality difference that's likely to occur in a former plaintiff side vs defense side litigator either.  As the hiring manager you'll spend more time weeding through completely unqualified candidates simply because they have the requisite number of years in practicing law and a few optimized key words in their resume.  And it's not the recruiter's fault.  It takes lawyers some time in real world practice to know there's a difference between employment law and labor law.  How would someone who's asked to pay attention once every three to five years supposed to figure it out effectively?

With a specialized recruiter, usually a former lawyer, you get someone who can ask the right questions and get to a more nuanced job description.  They also spend a lot of time cultivating their networks of qualified candidates to pull on quickly when they get a match.  This means they typically know a bit about the candidates' personality as well as their CV.  Generally this makes for a better fit.  Of course recruiters can be expensive, 20-25% placement fees are common.  However consider the lost opportunity cost of waiting months for the internal recruiter to find the right fit and it doesn't seem so expensive anymore.

From the job candidate point of view, it's a little more complicated.  Recruiters don't work for you.  They work for the company.  It doesn't matter how great you think you'd do at a certain job, if the recruiter doesn't think you're a good fit or thinks someone else fits better you won't get presented to the employer.  But if the employer has decided to use a recruiter, you're not likely to get to them otherwise.  So you are forced to work with them if you want to work for the company that hired them.  

It's actually not that bad, some of the nicest people I know are legal recruiters.  I actually make it a point to know at least one recruiter at each of the major recruiting agencies in my market.  They can give you the insight on a job before it gets posted and help you feel out personalities and fit before you waste weeks on the interview process.  However, they don't work for you.  So getting you working again is not their job.  It's yours.  Generally networking with a recruiter or working with one on a specific position is not enough.  Network with them all, and keep networking with other professionals.  You may just find that your next job isn't through a recruiter directly but through someone they know.

How to Say No.

We've all heard the (and probably repeated often) the in house lawyer motto - "never say no."  It's a rule that we live by - always find a way to help your client accomplish their goals.  Don't say no, say we can't do it that way but here's how we can accomplish the same thing.  It's one of the most valuable traits of an in house lawyer and also a trait that differentiates us from firm lawyers.  Because of that it's one of the first things we teach lawyers coming in house for the first time.

Often though, we stop there and don't go on to acknowledge the fact that sometimes the answer is plainly and simply "no."  As in, 'No, you can't dump your toxic waste into the lake no matter how much cheaper the fine is than the cost of disposing of it properly.' Or 'No, you can't fire the pregnant woman because she's over forty and her ovulation gets on your nerves.'

At some point in your career you will be asked a question that boggles your mind and challenges your Never Say No motto.  We've been warned over and over again that saying no will change the way the business looks at you.  It will turn you from the trusted business partner to the dreaded legal hurdle.  You'll start being left out of meetings and decisions because the business is more afraid that you'll say no than they are of just doing the wrong thing anyway.  So how do you give the best advice without bringing down house of cards around you?  The secret is in how you communicate the answer.

I was asked a hypothetical question based on a real world example.  If this hadn't had been just X but had also had Y involved, could we handle it the same way?  I answered directly and simply - No.  More would be involved - more cost, more effort and more publicity.  That was not the answer the business wanted.  It did change my relationship with that team and damaged the reputation that I had spent years building.  Another attorney was asked the same question.  From a legal and ethical standpoint, the only right answer was No.  However he more artfully deflected the question.  Instead of going into the legal analysis of the question asked as I did, he answered with questions of his own - why do we need to know that?  Is there a risk the Y would be involved?  Was that risk material or was this merely an academic exercise?  Because there are so many variables that aren't tied down in the example there's no point in talking about what if's.  For the actual situation we did not need to go through the extra costs that I discussed.  His non-answer was much better received and set him up to become a trusted adviser for that team.

Sometimes you don't have the luxury of hypotheticals to help you weasel out of giving the direct "no" answer.  You're faced with a real time question that requires a definitive answer.  You'll get the same response  that I did above if you go directly with a simple 'No we can't' approach.  You have to buffer it with some explanation that shows that you've considered not just the legal implications but the business ones as well - i.e. "I realize that delaying the start of the new employee from next week to the normal X number of days it takes for the immigration paperwork to be complete will slow down the project and cost the company in both productivity and time.  However, if we don't follow the law precisely in these cases you run the risk of the company losing it's ability to sponsor other candidates - but you as the signer on the paperwork could face personal criminal liability.  We sponsor an average of 3 employees a quarter, this one project isn't worth jeopardizing all the rest."

Don't get me wrong, your client still won't like hearing No.  They never do.  But the reality of in house practice is not that we never say no - it's that we never just say no.

10 Commandments

I get a lot of visitors to this blog from the key word search "how to manage outside counsel".  Indeed, that seems to be a question at many in house focused CLEs as well.  With the pressure on us in house folks to keep costs down but results up, we have no choice but to figure out how to better manage our outside counsel.  In the process of figuring out how to do that, I've come up with a few universal requirements.  These Commandments apply to any type of matter that I might send to outside counsel and the goal is always to achieve the best results for the best value.  Note that we don't always go with the cheapest hourly rate or the snazziest alternative billing proposal.  But we do consistently look for a partnering with a firm that wants to work with us to get the most value we can for our companies.  So in no particular order (they are equally important):

1. Know my industry.  I don't expect you to fully understand every motive behind every business decision.  That's what we do in house, we don't need you second guessing the decisions our company makes.  However, I do need you to understand the industry in general and who the players are.  For the most part, my firms need to know who my top competitors are and not represent them, or seek to even in non-adverse matters.  Nothing will lose confidence in a firm more than name dropping a competitor to one of my business partners.  They don't trust lawyers as it is - don't give them more reason to be suspicious.
2. Do not over-bill.  I know this seems like it shouldn't be an issue in 2013.  But it is.  Apparently not all in house lawyers scrutinize their invoices, so some outside counsel don't think twice about the amount of time they bill for a matter.  It took that 2nd year associate 6 hours to draft that trademark application so of course they're going to bill for all 6 hours.  However, I know that if a more experienced lawyer had done it, it would have taken 1 hour.  And if I had done it, it would have probably taken me 45 minutes.  So when I see 6 hours on the invoice I get very annoyed.  Where's the value in that for me?  Look at every line item and only charge me what is reasonable even if your team was inefficient about it.
3. Don't double charge me.  I get that firms have to train their new associates and that's how we get good lawyers.  But here's the thing - I don't want to pay the tuition for that education.  I'm already paying hundreds of dollars an hour for a newbie that doesn't know anything, why do I also have to pay for the partners time to correct all of their mistakes?  If you are reviewing a subordinate's work or 'catching' up on the case so you can call me and pretend like you're tuned in, cut your time in half (at a minimum).  If you're involved in a deposition or call because you're supervising your junior attorney to make sure they don't make any glaring mistakes, bill me for your time and write off theirs.
4. Staff appropriately.  This crosses several service industries, but law firms are not immune.  I should not be paying partner rates for fill in the blank forms.  At the same time, I'm more than willing to pay the partner on the case to lead the critical deposition in the bet-the-firm litigation.  Understanding the difference should be intuitive, but if it's not - ask me.  This is one of those things where there won't be forgiveness later.  
5. Be transparent. I hate getting invoices with line items like "Attention to matter 2.5 hours" or "Discussion about...".  With a passion.  I refuse to pay for that - ever.  Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's probably research and drafting or even meeting with the team members to strategize.  But what it sounds like,  "I thought about the matter in the shower and on my commute to work today so I'm going to bill the client for it."  Give me enough detail on the invoice so that I know exactly what was done, who you talked to, and how long each task took.  I hate getting statements that have 30 descriptions on one line item for a total of 7 hours billed.  How the hell am I supposed to know what type of value I'm getting with that jumbled mess?
6. Communicate.  I know that things in the legal system don't resolve themselves overnight.  This is just as true of patent applications as it is of litigation.  But I also know there are a hundred little movements that show progress along the way and give some indication of how things are going.  I don't need you to tell me what the judge had for lunch, but do give me a fairly consistent update on the state of things.  If there hasn't been an update in two or three weeks but you're expecting one next month - tell me that.  It takes less than a tenth of an hour to draft that line in an email or call and leave a voicemail.  And it gives me something to tell my management team that is constantly fretting about it.  It also helps me have a realistic view of what type of invoice I should be expecting at the end of the month.  So if I have to ask for updates more than once you won't be getting my business twice.
7. Budget with me - then stick too.  Generally if I'm hiring you it's because I don't have the skill, expertise and/or time to handle the matter directly.  So I need you to be honest and objective with me when setting out the scope of the matter.  I have to set budget expectations for my company.   Give me a realistic view of what the matter is going to cost.  Then stick to your projections.  If you think you're going to vary by more than a couple of points, you need to tell me first.  Lay out the costs of the current strategy and alternatives (along with the costs of those alternatives and their likely result.)  This gives me what I need to go back to the CFO and get more money if necessary.  When my numbers are wildly off, I look bad.  If I look bad, you look bad.  Don't make us look bad.   
8. Watch the third party costs and pass thru overhead.  When I see an invoice that has a $60 charge for a database or copying while I'm paying a couple hundred for the hour of work that accompanied such charge I start to think that you are bad at negotiating your third party vendor contracts or your algorithm for how you allocate costs is inefficient.  When I see a pass thru cost for a $80 dinner in the office while you worked late to get that motion finished on time I again think you might be inefficient and that it must have been a very nice dinner that I'm not paying for.  When I travel I'm limited by company policy to a reasonable per diem and coach travel arrangements.  Please follow suit.  It's impossible to justify to finance why they need to approve and pay an invoice where our vendors are passing through costs that are much more lavish than those allowed our own employees.  
9. Don't charge me for client development.  I really wish this wasn't a thing.  If you are sending me updates on your area of law, you are showing me that you stay current and are an expert.  If you are alerting me to some movement that one of my competitors is taking that may be adverse to me you are fishing for business.  When you come into town and ask me to have lunch/dinner with you, you are establishing or strengthening a relationship that you hope will lead to more business either directly or by referral.  I understand this is how your business is done and I put up with the incessant updates and invitations and try to play nice in return.  However, do not charge me for that favor.  If I see even one tenth of an hour charged to "updating client" or worse, researching the current state of affairs on my behalf without my asking you to first,  I will blow my top.  You will be fired and every other in house attorney I know will hear about how incompetently you manage your relationships.  
10. Don't go around me.  I know you're trying to get the business.  But going to my boss or one of my business partners directly trying to sell how you're an expert in x area is not doing either one of us any favors.  I have a strategy for how I assign work to my firms.  When I'm having to spend time justifying my strategy or explaining to the CFO that although you've got a great golf game there's someone else who is better fitted to this particular matter, I'm not going to be happy.  And that means you won't get any more work from me.  Because no matter what you do or say with by business partners, legal spend is my responsibility.  And they already trust me, that's why they hired me.  So there won't be much of a fight when I say that we should go with a more economical/more expertise than you have for every new matter.  

So those are the sins that will get you kicked off of my firm list.  Have any more to add?