If an attorney's presence is required in order to guard against oral interpretations of the handbook by a supervisor, then the handbook has not been well written and the supervisor has not been adequately trained. I think a handbook is near to useless if it does not enable the supervisor to use it as a guide, and if it does not empower a supervisor to supervise and communicate directly with employees. In the group-discussion situation I've described, notes are taken about questions asked and answered, and some of those questions and answers are reviewed later with an attorney to evaluate whether the handbook should be clarified. I also recommend an attorney-run training session with supervisors, which combines an orientation to the handbook with a refresher on legal issues. We have a raging debate among the lawyers and the HR staff and management.
Printing is very expensive, updates are hard to do, etc.
But the problem is that at a summary judgment hearing or at a trial you need to hit a judge or jury over the head, and nothing quite works like a big blow up with the plaintiff's signature. I'm intrigued by the notion of monthly meetings to discuss the handbook. If not, I see a real danger of testimony that the boss told us at the meeting that this language meant that we would not be fired unless management had a good reason for doing so. A handbookis either a device for raising morale or a legal protection arrangement. If it is the latter, the meeting will seriously diminish its utility.