What are the advantages in choosing an HR professional instead of an employment lawyer?

Hiring an employment lawyer is often needed to interpret or define the actions required by a law or to ensure legal compliance. However, it takes a HR professional with solid understanding of employment law to tell you how to implement that new law or new policy, how to enforce a policy you have not been enforcing for years, and how to avoid lawsuits and litigation in the first place.

ThW decision who to hire depends on what the the task involved, and the availability/value of attorney client privilege, the skills and experience of the parties and the price.

Where the task is advice about legal matters or risk,attorneys offer a key value over others- attorney client and work product privilege. Discussions outside of privilege with a non-attorney are admissable in the event of litigation or other disputes. Therefore,even where the knowledge, price and skills are the same, using an attorney alone or where the consultant services also are needed, engaging the consultant within privilege is better.

When the task is to implement and administer the human resources environment, typically using an attorney would be undesirable where the work to be performed might blur the role of the attorney sufficiently to compromise attorney-client or other legal privilege. Often, attorneys counsel using a different lawyer from another firm or competent consultant with good judgment to conduct an investigation or do other implementation activities when it might be desirable to have that person's actions be available to be introduced as a fact witness without compromising the legal advice of the advisory attorney.
When the tasks are human resources administative or planning services unrelated to compliance or risk management, the question is whether the attorney or the consultant has the best skills and where the skills are equal, price and client preference.

This is not a question of whether the two parties are equally skilled. The fact is that when legal privilege is required, even the most bumbling attorney can provide privilege but no matter how good the human resources consultant, they cannot. It is a question the rules of evidence and other aspects of US law that give greater legal protection to advice and work product when an attorney does the work within the scope of privilege. Of course, having a competent advisor working within privilege can be a great asset. However, if things go bad and the HR advisor has counseled against or failed to advice to involve an attorney for privilege, the client and the advisor should prepare to have the discussions with the advisor be evidence. Depending on the situation, the discussions themselves may be evidence of everything done right. More often, however, the unprivileged discussion of options fuels claims even when the right outcome ultimately is reached because the discussion of the possibilities and concern provides evidence of possible improper notice.

On the other hand, my response also reflects that attorneys giving advice and their clients should exercise caution before involving an attorney providing representation in work that could compromise legal privilege.

Bottom line, both attorneys and human resources specialists need to park their egos and do what's best for the client - including using restraint about overselling their own services and using good judgement to recommend the other party when it can benefit the client.

Cynthia is right about the issue of privilege. Two weeks ago a client contacted me regarding her employee's complaint of unlawful discrimination. I recommended (as I generally do for these issues) that she should engage my firm through her company's outside counsel. This would shield my investigation via legal privilege. It would also protect from discovery my confidential report to the client (or more accurately, to the client's attorney), since it would now be considered attorney work product.

Of course, the issue of legal privilege is not absolute. Attorney client privilege can be overcome in some circumstances, and disclosure may be ordered by the court.

One other point of differentiation when deciding between an attorney and an HR professional is that normally the attorney will bill the client by the hour, whereas many HR consultants quote a fixed fee for the project. The former means the cost to the client is open-ended, while the latter provides cost certainty to the client and places the financial risk squarely on the consultant.

Horses for courses I think.

Cost is frequently an issue and generally speaking HR Professional rates are probably lower than lawyers.

But...an awful lot depends on the legal complexity and potential consequences of an issue compared with the practical application of policy in a commercial context.

When I am advising someone on a complex matter my experience of the practical issues will probably initially be of more help to a client than a technical legal analysis.

If we get to a high risk/high consequence point that does require careful legal analysis and interpretation of complex case law I will always recommend getting priveleged legal advice and if necessary formal Counsel's opinion.

I suppose the short answer is that an "either/or" approach is probably never going to be 100% right but a partnership approach often can work quite well. As I said - horses for courses.

I believe that HR Professionals are the bridge between employees and company objectives. A good HR Consultant will lead the team to reach strategic business goals while building morale and engagement for long-term success. We often times are the face of management to the broader team, therefore need to present the 'business case' and make it personal, actionable and a motivator to the employees.

So to answer your question : HR consultants what 'additonal' value or benefit do you believe you give over lawyers?

We give the human element- the face people trust and listen to. To add that value an attorney needs to be trusted by the people. And that is sometimes a hurdle to overcome, just based on their title.

I agree with all the comments... the ideal answer is a partnership between the two roles. I would never consider providing legal counsel. I partner with a sharp attorney who specializes in employment law. On the other hand, she allows me to provide the strategic plans and direction then provides oversight on the policies and their impact. We wear two different hats with the same goal; providing safe, healthy and profitable work environments.

It depends on the job - are we talking strictly about an HR job that would deal with aspects of employment law? If so, then I think the biggest advantage is that a HR professional will have more of a rounded knowledge of the field. They may not be an expert in the law, but the HR professional should have the resources to find the answers they need. The HR professional will most likely have experience in employment lifecycles, payroll/staffing, job assessments and conflict resolution. I am not an employment lawyer, but I imagine their focus would be on the laws affecting employment.

A seasoned HR professional and an employment lawyer often work hand-in-hand. The HR Professional takes the issue up to the point where it requires legal action or involves expertise that is very legalistic in nature. Likewise, a good employment attorney knows the value of having the HR professional do a lot of the ground work. When both know each other's roles and respects what the other brings to the table, it is a very synergistic relationship. Many of my best referrals come from Employment attorneys.

Victoria Mavis, HR Consultant, @victoriamavis

Thank you for your input Tracey and Victoria, but my question was more from a marketing point of view. I am considering what would influence a potential client to choose a HR Professional over an employment lawyer or vice versa.

As a lawyer I cover everything that HR professionals do, in addition to having legal expertise. So my goal is to influence clients to choose me over HR professionals as well as over other employment lawyers when seeking new business, althugh I do also work alongside many HR professionals.

So i suppose my real question is, as HR consultants what 'additonal' value or benefit do you believe you give over lawyers? Once again thank you for your input so far and any further comments would be much appreciated.

Ditto what Bob and Mark wrote!

The British System is steeped in laws and precedences. The US seems to be more people centered.
Your question seems to suggest that HR specialists are deficient, when compared to solicitors. I have seen deficiency in both mostt especially bumbling egoistical attorneys.

Many thanks for all your input. Very informative and useful points for me to consider.

For the record I was in no way suggesting anything 'deficient' about HR professionals, that is certainly not my view . I work with many first class HR professionals some of whom are also longstanding clients. The sole puprose of my query is, as Bob said, to have a greater insight into their marketing strategy, which i now do, given that our professions overlap so often.

Thank you all again.

I think that having a seasoned HR Professional, assisted by a lawyer would be the ideal situation. As HR professional has the passion towards serving people, while professional lawyers have the tendency towards the application of rules and regulations regardless of the emotional and psychological aspects surrounding the situation. Having both professionals together will ensure the compliance with laws while having human touch in application.

I think a bit more context to the question is required for a comprehensive answer. For example, I would think that the perspective for the US market would be considerably different from other locations (in the Middle East, even with big internationals, they rely mainly on HR professionals and have legal advice on all matters, including HR, as a different service).
I agree with a number of answers above, especially Bob's, but an aspect that is not covered is the impact the choice may have on the employees. I am not sure it will contribute to a healthy environment and culture amongst staff. For the most of my experience, in healthy organizations, HR is where staff can go with their issues and matters they can't discuss with the supervisors. If employees will only have a company employment lawyer to deal with, this may already contribute to a confrontational perception of the company position towards staff.
As already mentioned, horses for courses, but the view must be comprehensive.

Though I frequently call on a laywer for help, it is my job to know the laws of any country I work in. In Europe and MEA, I have a list of lawyers that I use, and I only call them when I have really need of them.

An HR professional is cheaper and an HR professional is more likely to understand the bsuiness whereas a legal professional understands the law.