The Reebok Rules

The famous Reebok Rules for creating and/or maintaining a successful in-house legal department.

This past summer , Mike Dillon, the General Counsel of Sun Microsystems launched a blog and his first post referenced the so-called Reebok Rules for successful in-house counsel. (See Obiter Dicta for a description and link to the blog.) The rules were crafted by Reebok’s former General Counsel, John B. (“Jack”) Douglass, III and refined while he was at Reebok by he and his colleagues. The Reebok Rules set out guidelines for Reebok’s legal department intended to keep in-house counsel focused on the objectives of their corporate clients and to serve as a reminder about priorities. The overarching theme of the Reebok Rules is that in-house counsel should act more like businesspeople by familiarizing themselves with the company and sharpening their business judgment. Mr. Douglas makes clear that the Rules may not work in every situation or in every legal department while emphasizing the point that it is important to be in communication with corporate clients and that the rules comport with the company’s values.

They include rules such as:

“Learn the Business” which underscores the fact that in-house counsel who have an understanding of the law and the business of the corporate client provide great value than those who simply know the law. In line with that, the Rules state that “Lawyers Should Attend All Key Business and Staff Meetings” with the goal of ensuring that corporate acts comply with law and ethical rules.

“Be a General Practitioner”, as implied by the title “General Counsel”, highlights the fact that general legal skills are most important. Specialization is fine, but what matters most to the corporate client is getting the required legal services at a reasonable cost. “Be a Problem Solver” advises lawyers to encourage their corporate clients to come to them for advice.

Other Rules are more straightforward, like the rule to “Return Phone Calls Promptly”, a simple enough rule, but one that is routinely violated. More broadly, one should respond to all requests from corporate clients in a timely fashion whether they be phone calls, e-mails, or hallway chats. Another, “Give answers: Get to the Point”, basically advises the corporate counsel to answer all questions and to be clear and unequivocal in doing so. Sound advice for any lawyer. And finally, “Make the Coffee”, or do some other act like clearing the table after lunch, etc. It drives home the point that no job is too small, and creates a lasting impression.

One rule whose title may need amendment given recent corporate legal scrapes, is that in-house counsel should “Eliminate the ‘No’ Word from Your Vocabulary”. The basis of this rule remains true, namely that it is off-putting to say, “No” to a client’s idea and that a more subtle approach may work better. Beginning with “Yes”, followed by a discussion of the legal implications will allow the successful in-house counsel to do his/her job and keep the company out of legal trouble without alienating the corporate clients. However, if subtlety is lost, a firm, unequivocal, “No” may be warranted.

In a subsequent post, Dillon provided a link to the original Reebok Rules article. To read the original article click here and follow the link provided by the Association of Corporate Counsel (“ACC”).

Source: The Reebok Rules, by John B. (“Jack”) Douglass, III, ACCA Docket, Spring 1992, the Association of Corporate Counsel, http://www.acca.com.