Kirkland & Ellis LLP advised EIG Global Energy Partners on its $500 million equity commitment, on behalf of EIG managed funds, to Rice Midstream Holdings LLC, a midstream-focused subsidiary of Rice Energy Inc. and the indirect owner of the general partner of Rice Midstream Partners LP (NYSE: RMP). Rice announced the completion of an initial funding of $375 million of this investment. The full release is available here.

The Kirkland team was led by corporate partners Andy Calder and John Pitts; capital markets partner Matt Pacey; and debt finance partners Will Bos and Mary Kogut.

Barclays Capital Inc. acted as financial advisor and Vinson & Elkins L.L.P. served as legal counsel to Rice.

RMH will use approximately $75 million of the proceeds to repay all outstanding borrowings under its revolving credit facility and to pay transaction fees and expenses, and the remaining $300 million will be distributed to Rice Energy to fund a portion of its 2016 development program in the cores of the Marcellus and Utica Shales, Rice Energy said in a release. In addition, RMH will have an additional $125 million commitment from EIG (subject to designated drawing conditions precedent) for a period of 18 months.

Read more about the deal.

The Department of Justice plans to release a set of questions in the coming weeks that companies implicated in wrongdoing can expect to be asked by investigators concerning their compliance programs, reports Bloomberg BNA.

“Andrew Weissmann, chief of the DOJ Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, told a group of attorneys meeting in Washington Feb. 9 that the department plans to publicize the list of sample questions to give the public and companies an idea of what investigators and compliance experts are concerned with,” the article says. “The list will be continually updated based on experiences officials have with companies, he said.”

Read the article.

M&A deal volume in the U.S. reached a record high in 2015, reports the National Association of Corporate Directors. The NACD is offering a complimentary copy of the summary from a recent meeting of the NACD Advisory Council on Risk Oversight, which focused on the board’s oversight of M&A transactions including understanding the board’s role during a transaction, identifying questions to consider when evaluating potential deals, and establishing a process for determining transaction success.

Topics covered include:

• Engaging management about possible deals
• Determining if a proposed deal advances company strategy
• Identifying culture and talent risks
• Measuring the success of a transaction
• Establishing effective oversight processes

Download the summary.

Three bankers have left Goldman Sachs Group Inc. after the U.S. firm determined they breached internal guidelines in connection with the bank’s advisory role on the planned acquisition of a consumer company in the Middle East, reports Bloomberg News, citing sources familiar with the matter.

“The bankers who departed in December were involved in advising a potential buyer on an investment in fast-food company Kuwait Food Co., which operates KFC restaurants in the Middle East, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the matter is private,” the report says. “Two employees were based in Dubai and another in London, the people said.”

The company is thought to have discovered that two of the bankers didn’t identify themselves as bank employees when they met with the target company attended by other financial services firms. “The third banker was aware that colleagues participated in the meeting, two of the people said, and all three were deemed to not have adhered to the firm’s internal guidelines. Other employees were also disciplined as a result of the incident, the people said.”

Read the article.

A survey report released today by public relations firm Greentarget demonstrates that while senior legal officers acknowledge the importance of communications with stakeholders during high-profile lawsuits, the majority have outdated strategies or no strategies at all to direct communications outside of court.

This lack of preparation leads to an overly conservative approach defined by decisions and actions that are often impulsive and governed by the fear of negative media attention. Ironically, these instincts can compound the likelihood of reputational damage.

This vicious cycle – an increasing number of high-profile lawsuits, deficient planning, conservative approaches, and the resulting potential negative attention – is exacerbated by the lack of accountability at most organizations, Greentarget writes in a release. The majority of respondents said that they are not ultimately responsible for communications strategy outside of court. They stated that other senior leaders in their organizations have final authority and that their CEOs were either actively involved throughout litigation or at least engaged major decisions.

The vast majority of the 73 survey respondents, about three-quarters of whom are in senior legal roles for organizations with at least $500 million in annual revenue, said they have contended with at least one high-profile lawsuit in the past year.

“Most lawyers and their clients can predict what lawsuits would be most damaging to their organizations, and they should take some level of control and prepare for what’s to come,” said Larry Larsen, senior vice president of Greentarget and head of the firm’s Crisis & Litigation Communications Group. “Companies that give forethought to potential legal situations will have more effective and timely responses. In today’s world of immediate and unending news coverage, premediated statements made at the onset of crises can save companies from substantial reputational harm and years of damage control.”

The Highlights

Relentless litigation: In the last 12 months, 82 percent of respondents have been involved in at least one high-profile litigation action.

Unprepared and unaccountable: 62 percent of respondents have no crisis team identified and no plans in place, or have plans in place that have not been updated since their creation. Furthermore, only 37 percent said they were ultimately responsible for litigation communications in high-profile situations.

The boss is watching: 86 percent of respondents felt the external communications surrounding a high-profile litigation were somewhat or very important to the organization. Sixty-one percent indicated that their CEO is either actively involved throughout the process, or at least actively involved in the major decisions during the case.

A fear of critical press: Respondents said concern about negative media coverage and media attention that might negatively affect cases were by far the greatest impediments to more aggressive communications.

The seemingly careful route: 58 percent of respondents agreed that their organizations tend to act more conservatively than necessary when communicating externally about litigation matters

“Through our work with the world’s leading law firms, we see every day how smart, deliberate communications can influence and support successful legal outcomes,” said Aaron Schoenherr, founding partner of Greentarget. “While an organization’s legal strategy should take the lead, much more can be done to get communications and legal working together more effectively. That’s an important conversation and one we’re uniquely positioned to lead.”

Read a summary of the report.

Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement cases alleging violative behavior by corporate directors are rare and will only be initiated in clear cases of misconduct or when obvious signs of violative behavior are ignored, Lara Shalov Mehraban, associate director in the agency’s New York Regional Office, said in a report posted by BloombergBNA.

“Mehraban attempted to allay concerns voiced by corporations and their lawyers about the SEC enforcement cases against corporate directors and other gatekeepers, such as compliance officers, who may try to fix compliance problems and find themselves entangled in an agency investigation,” according to the report.

“While recent SEC enforcement cases have involved directors, Mehraban said such cases aren’t common and shouldn’t concern corporate directors and officers faithfully carrying out their mandates,” the report continues.

Read the article.

By Paul Williams
Partner and Co-Lead of Board & Governance Practice at Allegis Partners

Few people need to be told of the increasing degree and variety of risks to corporate entities in the 21st century. And anyone familiar with the ramifications of those risks on the governance structure knows that vulnerabilities extend to individual board members as well as the companies and shareholders they serve.

Those risks include digital breaches, corporate scandals, rising litigiousness, globalization, acquired problems in M&As, increasingly stringent regulatory regimes – and what is unforeseeable. Everyone from the C-suite and directors through senior and middle managers on down bears some role in mitigating these risks. But to inform our perspective as the global leader in legal professional search at Major Lindsey & Africa, we recently hosted a panel discussion on how the presence of senior lawyers, those who currently or formerly have served in the role of the general counsel (GCs), can play a vital role in the management and prevention of risk as board members.

I was one of four panelists corralled by Kim Rucker, former General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Kraft Foods Group, the panel moderator. Kim led a lively discussion that unearthed several important ideas and concepts from my fellow panelists: Sara Hays, Managing Director and Co-Leader of the North American Board Practice, Allegis Partners; Mary Ann Hynes, Senior Counsel, Dentons and a GC veteran of five international corporations and a board member of several corporations and non-profit organizations); and Rick Palmore, Senior Counsel, Dentons and board member for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, the Chicago Board Options Exchange and Express Scripts.

The area of risk that gets the most attention lately is cybersecurity. It’s clear from the alarming business news on digital security breaches that there is much to lose when nefarious parties hack into our information systems. These attacks can damage reputations and brands, affect employee morale and cost a great deal of money. Additionally, they carry obligations to notify third parties, to work with law enforcement, to meet state and federal compliance matters, and they might trigger litigation (for example, the class action suits by financial institutions and individuals against Target Corporation in the wake of their 2013 data breach that affected 110 million customers). This provides a good case for why board members with the background and expertise of lawyers, preferably those with GC experience, can be extremely valuable.

My fellow panelist Sara Hays mentioned an attorney she’s worked with who, while widely recognized as a solid GC, in fact developed supplementary expertise in cybersecurity. Given the list of issues that can arise in a breach or even in planning for a potential attack, is it any wonder why that particular lawyer is also an excellent candidate for a corporate directorship?

Also, in October 2015 a California federal judge ruled that whistleblowers may seek compensation from company directors. This was a definitive expansion of liability in cases where directors might be judged for retaliating against such individuals. This same level of responsibility extends to instances of product failure, fraud and tort actions.

Perhaps foremost on the minds of directors and officers are the implications of the Department of Justice’s “Yates Memo,” where Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates directed federal prosecutors to focus on individuals and hold them accountable when investigating and resolving allegations of corporate misconduct (of either a civil or criminal nature). This promises to significantly impact how corporate internal investigations are conducted, including by in-house counsel. Again, a director with a broad business understanding complemented by a granular understanding of recent courts rulings might prevent as well as fix adverse situations.

The panel discussed other issues that elevate the importance of a legal background in key decision-making and oversight. I pointed out how in the case of a merger involving a foreign-run business we unearthed a significant issue relative to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) that could have been of concern to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In my role as a GC, it became clear we need to self-report to the SEC. Note the other party wasn’t trying to cheat but instead was simply acting within their own country’s business culture (i.e., they didn’t understand U.S. regulations). These are the kinds of things that directors are at an advantage to consider as early as possible in the M&A process.

Risk planning includes establishing priorities

My colleague Sara pointed out there is a tendency in risk planning to think a preconceived structure such as a risk management plan covers off on risk. I’ve observed this too and feel that everyone owns risk – and at all times. This includes all board members and every board committee. Perhaps what might Riskbe more important is to know when to elevate an issue to other parties. Mary Ann Hynes related a scenario of a cybersecurity breach that ultimately required calling in the FBI. The GC had to work with the CFO, the CIO and the audit committee, all of whom had to work “hand in glove” with their respective board members. This is why I personally advocate for having a board-adopted crisis management plan, where you can work through a hypothetical process that would identify ideas on how to act as well as which people need to be involved.

Mary Ann asked who among us had worked with a chief information systems officer, a CISO. We agreed this is more common in larger companies, those with as many concerns about brand and reputation as they have about potential litigation. But even in cases where the problem is low profile (i.e., no media) there very often can be a huge impact on the enterprise in information systems-related litigation.

The characteristic of good GCs is that they are “steady Eddies,” with a composed demeanor in the face of crisis. They have a sense of where and how to separate legal and compliance functions. They also understand the tension points in risk-containment scenarios – which include external communications and board member liabilities. Again, these are the kinds of considerations that a GC should be attuned to if he or she wishes to be considered for a board appointment.

A point on which all panelists agreed was the need to plan: Develop a framework for managing in a crisis. It has to be adaptable to the variety of known and unknown risk scenarios because one size does not fit all, so to speak. This is where, as panelist Rick Palmore pointed out, you set the enterprise priorities. The board may determine that litigation ranks first or fourth or somewhere in between – knowing that much in advance, calibrating possible outcomes, helps everyone move quickly toward a resolution, to adopt positions and to communicate with consistent messaging. Regardless of the intensity of a situation, a GC will typically understand you cannot operate effectively “with your hair on fire;” rather, everyone up and down the ranks will take their lead from the steady Eddies at the top.

Anticipate the most probable scenarios

This is not to say the crisis/risk planning process shouldn’t on some level address known probabilities for certain kinds of risk. Sara related to the panel how the board of a company where she was the GC did an annual “deep dive” to explore potential risks. From the short list of what might happen they were able to determine which committees and individuals would assume oversight responsibilities. From there, those individuals were tasked with providing quarterly updates on various scenarios – which might include running practice drills and developing a framework for messaging and identifying who delivers the message (note: something as simple as having up-to-date personal and business phone numbers of board members and officers should not be overlooked).

To be clear, there is some risk in documenting risk. While it needs to be approached on a case-by-case basis, the board should consider how and where such documentation might later be used against the company and its governance structure – another reason why a board member with GC experience can provide fundamentally important perspective.

There are some ways in which even a seasoned attorney on the board could be problematic. First, he or she shouldn’t simply put up roadblocks due to a known or suspected legal risk. The lawyer has to have sufficient business acumen to propose two or more workable alternative solutions. Second, that individual should not be mistaken for legal counsel; it’s not the board member’s responsibility, and would likely trip on what the company’s actual GC is engaged with every day.

In wrapping up, several panel members stressed how the risk management strategy needs to line up with the overall company strategy – all the more reason why having a seasoned attorney on the board means having a business-minded attorney. In fact, my colleague Sara Hays herself has an MBA, made all the more valuable in one appointment because of her experience in the construction industry. “The mistake some GCs make is when they think of themselves as just being a lawyer,” she said, noting how this goes against the grain of conventional wisdom that attorneys can only advise on legal questions. The value proposition for filling a board seat is different from what makes someone a good GC, she told us.

What does success look like when a board manages risk with an attorney as part of governance? It is when instead of risks being siloed, with attorneys picking up the pieces after the damage is done, that instead everyone thinks about risks, adopts them as a fact of life – and acts proactively to minimize or mitigate problems before they occur or are able to cause meaningful damage.

Dallas-based Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, LLP, has bolstered its corporate transaction and counseling services with the addition of former Fortune 500 general counsel David W. Black.

“Of the roughly 1 million attorneys in the United States today, there are only a handful in private practice after serving as GC at two Fortune 500 companies,” says Carrington Coleman Managing Partner Bruce Collins. “David possesses a profound and virtually unmatched understanding of the challenges facing corporate leaders of emerging, middle market and global companies.”

Black is the former general counsel for both BearingPoint (formerly KPMG Consulting) and Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), and most recently served as counsel for a private equity firm. He joins Carrington Coleman as a partner and will work with the firm’s corporate team on matters relating to a diverse range of business issues, including:

• Corporate governance
• Corporate finance and securities transactions
• Corporate compliance
• Mergers & acquisitions
• Venture capital and private equity
• Commercial banking and lending
• Retail and wholesale operations
• Information technology
• Business process outsourcing
• Managed software services
• Software licensing
• Marketing, branding and endorsement agreements
• Commercial real estate
• Hospital health care providers

In his prior role as general counsel, Black was responsible for global business operations including building a corporate legal department, handling compliance matters arising from investigations by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice, and day-to-day corporate operational concerns. In addition to leading more than 150 acquisitions, he also directed KPMG’s $2.3 billion initial public offering in 2001, the second-largest in NASDAQ history at the time.

Carrington Coleman is a 46-year-old Dallas-based law firm focused on litigation and transactional services in the real estate, oil and gas, securities, construction, information technology, professional services and health care industries, among others. The firm also represents public entities and provides counsel in the areas of corporate transactions, corporate governance, banking, bankruptcy/restructuring, intellectual property, employment, and estate planning.

Akerman LLP announced the expansion of its national Corporate Practice Group with Chicago partners Paul Quinn and Mason “Max” Drake. They work in middle market M&A, private equity and investment funds.

Drake arrives from Greenberg Traurig, Quinn from Paul Hastings. The lawyers join Akerman less than a week after the firm announced it is more than doubling its physical footprint in Chicago. The office has grown fivefold from eight to 44 lawyers since opening just two years ago in February 2014, the firm said.

“Max and Paul are accomplished lawyers who bolster Akerman’s national strengths in middle-market mergers and acquisitions, private equity and venture capital investments, as well as investment fund formation,” said Mary Carroll, chair of the Corporate Practice Group. “Their arrival in Chicago extends the firm’s growing presence in a market of rising importance to our clients across several industry sectors, particularly financial services.”

Quinn represents private equity funds and their portfolio companies in leveraged acquisitions and dispositions. In addition, he advises private companies and portfolio companies in connection with general corporate governance and management teams with respect to employment and compensation arrangements. Quinn also counsels distressed-focused private equity funds in connection with acquisitions through Section 363 asset sales processes, reorganizations in bankruptcy, and out-of-court restructurings, as well as private equity and venture capital funds in minority growth equity investments.

Quinn is a former certified public accountant and has worked with clients in the healthcare, financial services, technologies and manufacturing sectors. Quinn is co-resident in Akerman’s Chicago and Fort Lauderdale office.

Drake concentrates his practice on mergers and acquisitions, private equity and venture capital investments, and investment fund formation. He also advises clients in connection with secured debt and structured finance transactions and employment and compensation arrangements. Drake counsels business entities and their owners through all stages of development, from startup, to growth financing, to ultimate sale. He also represents minority investors and management teams and individuals in related transactions. Drake is co-resident in Akerman’s Chicago and New York offices.

Wilson Elser announces that corporate attorney William Tolin Gay has joined the firm’s Los Angeles office as a partner.

Gay brings to Wilson Elser 30 years of experience representing domestic and international clients in their business matters. His current transaction-focused practice encompasses all aspects of corporate law, including entity formation, mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, licensing agreements and technology transfers. He also has extensive experience working with domestic and foreign clients in securities, real estate, intellectual property and franchising, the firm says in a release.

“Bill is a welcome addition to the firm’s growing corporate law practice,” said David Eisen, regional managing partner of the Los Angeles office. “Over the past 12 months the firm has acquired a number of laterals in offices across the country focused on domestic and cross-border matters including transactions, mergers and acquisitions, contracts, joint ventures, and others.”

Fluent in Japanese language and law, having practiced in Tokyo for many years, Gay represents U.S. companies in their Japanese operations and Japanese companies in their U.S. operations. He also partners with immigration lawyers on obtaining immigrant investor visas primarily for Chinese clients.

Gay has earned an AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell and was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America, including earning its highest honor, “Lawyer of the Year,” in the Corporate Law category in Orange County, CA (2009, 2013, 2015).

Gay is an active member of the State Bar of California and is currently serving a three-year term on the International Law Section’s Executive Committee. In addition to holding this and other state bar positions over the years, Gay has assumed leadership roles with the Orange County Bar Association.

Gay earned his graduate and undergraduate degrees from the University of Washington, including his J.D. and LL.M degrees from the School of Law (1982 and 1984, respectively); his M.B.A. degree from the Michael G. Foster School of Business (1983); and his B.A. degree in economics and East Asian studies (1978). He is a California Real Estate Broker certified by the California Department of Real Estate.

Andre Fiebig, a partner in Quarles & Brady LLP’s Business Law practice group, has recently published two books. He co-authored the fourth edition (2016) of one of the leading works on international antitrust: “Antitrust and American Business Abroad,” published by Thomson Reuters, and is the author of “EU Business Law,” published by the Business Law Section of the American Bar Association.

“Antitrust and American Business Abroad: (4th ed. 2016) builds upon the work of previous editions and discusses recent developments in the ever-changing world of international antitrust law. Divided in six parts, the result is a comprehensive look at the contemporary landscape of international antitrust that is grounded in historical context.

“EU Business Law” is an analysis and explanation of European Union business legal issues ranging from competition and antitrust law to electronic commerce and consumer protection.

Fiebig’s practice focuses on corporate and antitrust law with an emphasis on mergers and acquisitions, international joint ventures, and commercial law.

He is currently an adjunct professor at Northwestern University School of Law where he teaches Mergers & Acquisitions. Andre also teaches regularly at Bucerius Law School in Hamburg, Germany and Hong Kong University.

“I am happy to be able to provide American-based corporations with an understanding of international business issues, and share practical information on issues affecting companies that do business abroad,” said Fiebig.

Irving, Texas-based Nexstar Broadcasting Group Inc. finally won a contentious and long-running bid Wednesday to become one of the nation’s largest media players, according to a report in The Dallas Morning News.

Nexstar announced plans to merge with Media General, edging out publisher Meredith to consummate a deal valued at $4.6 billion.

“Nexstar will acquire all outstanding shares of Media General for $10.55 a share in cash and 0.1249 of a share of Nexstar Class A common stock for each Media General share,” The Morning News reports. “Media General shareholders also are entitled to proceeds received from the sale of Media General’s spectrum in an incentive auction set to be held by the Federal Communication Commission.”

Read the story.

Board members are now facing lawsuits after large-scale cybersecurity breaches because the security breakdowns are considered a failure to uphold fiduciary duties, reports CIO.com.

Department of Justice guidelines for cybersecurity awareness provide some idea of what should be shared with board members. “The CIO now has a responsibility to communicate the cybersecurity strategy to board members and make them aware of critical risks to help avoid personal liability,” CIO.com says.

“Details of day-to-day activities like software monitoring and firewall setup are important for the IT team and CIO to understand, but that level of granularity is not necessary for the Board. However, at a minimum, the Board should understand how cybersecurity failures can impact the business.”

Read the article.

Strong economic growth coupled with low interest rates resulted in a perfect storm for acquisition finance, with plenty of cheap debt available to fund deals, MergerMarket reports in its Global M&A roundup for 2015 for legal advisors.

During 2015 the value of cash & equity transactions increased to US$ 699.8bn, up 43.5 percent, compared to 2014’s annual total (US$ 487.7bn), reflecting a balance between cheap loans and cash piles on balance sheets.

Law firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher holds on to the number one spot for deal value for another year while Latham & Watkins jumps from fourth to second last year. Cravath, Swaine & Moore makes an enormous leap from thirteenth place in 2014 to third in 2015, the report says.

“Attractive tax laws have resulted in Ireland and the UK becoming the most targeted countries by US companies in 2015. Ireland (36 deals, US$ 190.7bn) received the bulk of investment from the Allergan/Pfizer deal, whilst the UK (244 deals, US$ 61.8bn) benefited from the US$ 18.2bn acquisition of Visa Europe by US-based Visa Inc.,” according to the report.

Read the report.

No challenge is ever too big for a chief compliance officer, but such an attitude comes with a cost, warns Michael Volkov of the Volkov Law Group in his look at trends in compliance and ethics for the new year.

In his article, he discusses the elevation of the CCO in the boardroom, the consolidation of the CCO-CEO relationship, technology leveraging, the Justice Department’s hiring of Hui Chen as a Compliance Counsel, and ethical decision making.

Read the article.

The pursuit of legitimate corporate strategic goals is increasingly running into the concerns of corporate officers who see themselves at greater personal legal risk if there are ever allegations of corporate misconduct, writes Michael W. Peregrine, a partner at the law firm McDermott Will & Emery in an article in The New York Times.

He writes that new enforcement policies from the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission regarding individual culpability of corporate officials contributed to this tendency.

He outlines some that proposals that “should help reduce the anxiety of gatekeepers and other management team members concerning their personal liability exposure. In so doing, these steps may remove unnecessary barriers to the use of corporate strategies.”

Read the article.

Michael Volkov of the Volkov Law Group writes in his blog that corporate lobbying interests are pushing a new and dangerous agenda in hoping to avoid compliance issues, one that is shortsighted and certain to create problems for chief compliance officers.

He writes that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is proposing reliance on independent certifications of effective compliance programs and possible access to a compliance defense or safe harbor. “In support of this misguided approach, some are spending more time defining standards for such certifications and possible incentives for companies to be rewarded for such efforts,” he writes.

But that plan would give prosecutors “a license to conduct detailed and in-depth grand jury investigations into corporate compliance programs – bringing to light more potential violations and greater liabilities. Prosecutors will enjoy rummaging around corporate compliance programs.”

Read the article.

Shearman & Sterling has published its 2015 Corporate Governance & Executive Compensation Survey of the 100 largest U.S. public companies.

This year’s Survey, 13th in the series, examines some of the most important governance and executive compensation practices facing boards today and identifies best practices and merging trends. Senior partner Creighton Condon writes that the analysis provides insights into how companies approach governance issues and will allow readers to benchmark their companies’ corporate governance practices against best practices.

An introduction to the survey is published on the website of the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation. And Shearman & Sterling has published the complete report on its website.

Legal operations leaders are driving an unprecedented level of focus on discovery processes, data security, and the efficiency of outside litigation teams.

Ari Kaplan Advisors presents the benchmark 2015 Corporate Legal Operations Survey (sponsored by Recommind), providing both quantitative and qualitative insight into:

• cloud readiness
• eDiscovery key performance metrics
• investigations activity
• data security and consolidation strategies
• critical process pain points

Learn what key corporate legal operations leaders are doing (and not yet doing) to optimize visibility, security, and efficiency.

Download the white paper.

The effort to measure and manage legal risk pays dividends in the reduction of real losses from legal issues. It also pays dividends through improved collaboration between the legal team, operations, and senior management, writes Mark Little, compliance and risk management technology executive at Berkman Solutions.

In an article published on Medium.com, he presents the proper answer for a member of a corporate legal department who faces the requirement: describe how you will review all outstanding issues, set priorities that almost never change, improve interdepartmental trust, and make customers happy within an acceptable timeframe.

The answer, he writes, involves implementing a qualitative risk model to measure and manage legal risk.

Read the article.