Craig Johnson
Virtual Law Partners

Just press on the arrow to listen:

Time: 14:17

There’s a lot here; listen for some interesting stats and a compelling vision. Legal headhunters may also want to click away and reflect on how a firm like VLP can tap into a large number of potential recruits within a week of going public.

I have a few thoughts, but I’ll save them for next week.

(I apologize for the static at a few points, it does clear up, and it’s not VLP, it’s my conference call provider. Or rather my ex conference call provider).

The idea and initial execution of VLP is simple and refreshing: combine talented lawyers, subtract big firm bureaucracy, and the result might equal something great.

One industry observer (quoted by Zusha Elinson), while praising the senior founder’s intellect, felt constrained to observe that VLP is not the “next big idea.”

I’m not so sure. But before I say why, let’s go to the source.

Right here, tomorrow, one of VLP’s co-founders, Craig Johnson. In his own words.

Unlike many online pieces, it has a good number of links to other sources and material. Some of the mainstream borrows without such helpful attribution. (And the article mentions, among other new-thinking firms, Eversheds and Valorem Law Group; but it seems to have missed Tucker Ellis & West).

We do know, of course, that the billable hour will be with us in some form long after our children retire. So the “time is running out” title is a bit premature. And as far as the article’s neat graphic is concerned, there’s not enough sand in the world to fill that hourglass.

But related issues, such as the curious PEP fixations and escalating cost structures of major law firms, still seem to fly under the radar unscathed.

[editor’s note: For a seminar series that’s looking at these broader issues, see the post below…]

The Wired GC offers answers to these questions and more with a new seminar series, Wired GC-Off The Meter.

The first edition is next Thursday, July 17, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. EDT/11:30 a.m. PDT. The subject is “Using Discovery as a Learning Tool” and features leaders in the discovery arena: David Galbenski, Jim Daley, and Gary Hayden. I will moderate the seminars and intend to facilitate real discussion and provoke the occasional debate.

The series available to the legal community without charge thanks to our exclusive sponsor, The Vallex Fund. This is not your typical web-based seminar: each every-other-month installment will be fast-paced, insight-oriented, and short (less than 45 minutes; or about 0.7 hours for our law firm attendees).

Full details are on the dedicated series page; registration is quick, and allows you to attend the seminars live, or view them on-demand after. Also, when you confirm your subscription, you will get a copy of the series white paper: “Changing the Law: Metrics and Milestones.” It gives some hints as to future seminar topics as well.

Take 30 seconds to register; we have a virtual seat saved with your name on it.

The series press release is out and available here.

Bruce takes a discussion from Legal OnRamp and puts it out there for all to see (his mention of Paul here refers to Paul Lippe, Legal OnRamp’s CEO). The subject is whether GCs really want change in the legal industry, and Bruce bravely answers “no”:

But I actually have a more subversive suggestion, which falls under “E. Other” in Paul’s schema: I don’t believe GC’s really want things to change, for all their trashmouth game talk. GC’s want their backsides protected by the imprimatur of the Magic Circle, the New York Elite, or the Skadden/Latham brand name. GC’s don’t want “good enough” quality; they want top-drawer quality.

It sure beats your run-of-the-mill “recent developments in trover and replevin” blog post.

I actually agree with Bruce on one level. GCs don’t want things to change. Who does? Change is hard to face and harder still to make work.

Where we part ways is over the conclusion that many GCs use top-tier New York and London firms on major deals and litigation because they don’t want change. It could just be the right tool for the job. And I really disagree about saying this is an exercise in CYA. GCs I know don’t think that way. (Maybe I’m just a hayseed from the Heartland…)

For most GCs, major deals and litigation are a minor part of their budgets, smoothed out over X number of years. In the rest of the spending, I actually see more signs of change, and a desire to change, than ever before.

Any one general counsel can turn a back on change. It may work for awhile, but over the long run, there’s a name for the person who will force the issue. Your CEO? Perhaps. Your CFO? More likely.

Most likely: Your successor.

You really owe it to yourself to pour a glass of cabernet and read through Bruce’s entire post. It’s excellent.

How general counsel can navigate change is a subject that I have been spending a lot of time on recently. I’ve mentioned two projects it in my Wired GC — Select newsletter in the last few months, and I’ll touch on both here shortly.

One thing we can agree on: for the legal market, change makes glaciers look fast. You better stand back at the right moment, however…