I hate legal bills.  Reviewing them is one of my least favorite jobs.  Lawyers bill based on time and material.  Time is measured in six minute increments, in tenths of an hour.  It’s ugly.

This past week I reviewed a bill and found some “spread billing”.  There were three closely related files, essentially one matter in three different flavors.  I got billed two tenths of an hour on each file (a total of 36 minutes) for someone reading a one page letter that applied equally each file.  I simply don’t believe the letter was read three times.  I also don’t believe it took more than a half hour to read a one-pager.  A fifth grader could read it in less time.  It was a “for your information” type letter.  Yet this is the type of thing I continue to find and why I hate legal bills.

A tenth of an hour might sound nit pick.  But let me put it in perspective for you.  Many lawyers charge more for one hour of their time than some people make in a week.  I’m not saying they’re undeserving of their rates, but I am saying that I expect fair value for what they do and no billing hanky-panky.

If I hate legal bills, I can only imagine how much non-lawyers hate them.

With belt tightening being on everyone’s mind, I’m going to use the next few blog postings to offer some suggestions for containing legal costs.

Today’s tip: communicate your business goal clearly.

Let’s say you’re having a contract reviewed.  Don’t assume your lawyer knows what you’re trying to get out of the deal.  The contract is not necessarily self explanatory.  It could be missing some deal points and unless you tell them how you think it’s supposed to work, they’ll never know.

If, for example, you’re licensing some software as a short term solution until a customized program can be implemented, you’ll be more interested in the termination provisions than if the license were long term.  Knowing what’s important to you and how it plugs into your business objectives will assist counsel in protecting your interests and prioritizing risks.  

The same goes for lawsuits.  Let your lawyer know what “winning” looks like to you.  It might mean crushing your opponent in court.  Or, it could mean positioning yourself for a favorable settlement.  Letting counsel know where you ultimately want to end up can save on research costs, among others.

Altogether, good goal setting up front helps your legal dollars go farther.  It creates more value added and a better return on your investment.

Today is Election Day in the United States.  Those participating in democracy by casting their vote for president will be making history today.  We will either have the oldest president to take the oath of office or the first African-American president.  Either will be a first and both require looking past stereotypes about age and race.

Stereotypes are mental shortcuts and broad brush generalizations about what certain characteristics represent.  They are an opinion.  Opinions are fine.  But in the workplace, when decisions are based on such generalizations without additional objective support you can wind up with bias and unfair favoritism.   

The law bans certain biases.  It calls them illegal discrimination and employers looking to avoid lawsuits will profit from understanding what type of behavior constitutes illegal discrimination and how to avoid it.

The first part of the task, identifying what is illegal discrimination is relatively easy.  Figuring out how to avoid it is much taller order because it challenges stereotypes we may have grown up with, “comfortable” ways of thinking, and in some cases deeply entrenched cultural expectations. 

Take for example the subject of pregnancy discrimination.  Thirty years after discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was made illegal in the U.S., data shows that between 1995 and 2007 the number of pregnancy discrimination cases increased 65% even as national birth rates dropped.  That’s sad. 

You’d think avoiding pregnancy discrimination would be pretty straightforward, but it’s not as Michael Maslanka points out in his humorous article titled Check Assumptions at the Door in Employment Law Matters.

The laws may differ internationally, but persistent gender stereotypes continue to hamper gender equality in the workplace and often contribute to actionable pay gaps. 

Most employees don’t bring an economic, tax, or other political agenda to work with them.  They just want to do a good job and be treated fairly.  So let’s jettison the stereotypes and get down to business.  Objective decision making is not just the smart thing to do; it’s the ethical and right thing to do.