Month: July 2018

I joined Mastercard in 2000 and initially spent seven years in our law department. Then, I spent seven years or so in a series of business roles – I was chief of staff to our chief operating officer doing strategic work, financial planning and sales planning. It was a senior staff role, which is often how lawyers can move effectively from the legal function to the business side. From there, I went to run our North America markets, and for the first time I had a P&L and actual account responsibility, which is a bracing challenge for anybody, but particularly somebody coming from a legal background. Because I was deep in that market and understood some of our challenges, I was asked to take on the role of chief product officer, which tested me in a whole new way.

One of the strengths of Mastercard’s culture is that it seeks to move people around and give them diverse responsibilities, and I really was the beneficiary of that. I joke that I was qualified for exactly none of the jobs I had except for the first one! And in a strange way, all that moving around made me better qualified to be the general counsel.

So, coming back into a legal role did not feel like a significant leap, because I had both wide-ranging previous experience in legal and risk management, as well as having spent seven years with a lot of access to the board of directors and helping to drive the company’s business strategy. In the product organization I had been given the opportunity to manage a relatively large team, and so the opportunity to come back into the law organization and drive a focused transformation agenda was very exciting.

It goes without saying that in the GC role you need to really make sure you put on your risk management hat. That isn’t to say that I didn’t feel accountable for risk management in my business roles, but there’s a special accountability here, and trying to be intentional about flexing that muscle, consulting widely with people and using my business experience to advise on legal risk was a key part of my initial agenda as GC. These were all an important part of coming back in to the law department.

One of the things that I’ve found is that as in-house lawyers, we need to always be selling, meaning that we can’t take for granted that our colleagues understand or appreciate the critical work we do. Business people tend to communicate simply and crisply, whereas lawyers can, at times, go on forever. Just being able to talk to my own legal teams about things like simplicity of communication, managing to metrics and leaning into the company’s strategy has been a pleasure to bring to the department. You need to tell your colleagues it’s a priority: you need to get their buy-in and acknowledgement, so when you are successful it doesn’t look like a random walk, it looks like very important strategic work, which it in fact is. That is so foundational, but it so often doesn’t happen. In-house lawyers need to be selling their services and their value.

We’ve really worked hard on a metrics-based scorecard of things we wanted to achieve – some strategic and some tactical. It is such a natural instinct for business leaders – every business leader manages to a P&L or some sort of balanced scorecard of hard numeric metrics. For lawyers, on the other hand, it is really hard, and a lot resist it. But at the end of the day, if you push hard enough, I think every legal function can find a metrics-based scorecard to measure themselves. That’s really powerful because it speaks the language of business, and it’s a great way of demonstrating value to your board, your CEO and others.

We are shifting a significant portion of our work from lawyers to a shared service function with our finance team. Now, at Mastercard, if you do a non-disclosure agreement with us, it’s done by staff in the shared service function, and that shared service function has all sorts of automation and it tracks – in a very rich way – timelines and response rates and so on. It has allowed us to use knowledge in entirely different ways. We are revamping all of our customer-onboarding systems to make them much more digital- and user-friendly, we’re bringing mobile-based solutions to all compliance requirements, and we’re really trying to show up as a mobile first, digital savvy organization. If Mastercard is going to grow 10, 15%, I want to be able to support that growth, but at the same time grow our expenses only by a very small fraction of that 10, 15%.

In a legal department, it’s very easy to revert to: I’m a service organization and I will do what the business brings me. That’s reactive. We have a critical role in driving company strategy: understanding that strategy, figuring out the components of it, influencing it, and finding ways for legal and policy and other things to not only enable the strategy, but to advance it.

‘I’ll give you an example. We’re increasingly seeing that good privacy policies are a competitive differentiator. In light of GDPR, my legal team has created a groundbreaking venture called Trūata – which is a method of anonymising data so that it can be used appropriately while protecting consumer privacy, consistent with the new regulations. It came about because lawyers went to the business and said, ‘Look, we have to do this but, by the way, we can get a competitive advantage if we do it well. Let’s drive this thing.’ This is an example of how, if you’re just an order-taker, marking up contracts, then you’re not doing all that you can do.

I think that there is growing demand for the GC to be a trusted adviser to boards. The GC must be the keeper and the guardian of the company’s ethics and its culture, including in areas well beyond its traditional remit. Being part of those conversations, always doing the right thing and absolutely insisting on good ethics and compliance are so important. We’ve seen how incredibly destructive some of these divisive cultural issues can be if they’re not managed the right way.

It’s really hard to overestimate how much time and effort goes into board and governance issues. That continues to surprise me, even four years into the role. Getting the narratives right to the board, not just on my own things, but helping the company do that well overall so that we have effective meetings and get to good conversations – boy, it’s time consuming. You’ve got to make sure you’re resourcing for it, because it can take over your role.

In my job, I could do nothing but government outreach and it still would be really hard to cover everything I need to. This aspect of the job is that important and demanding. Given the choppy geopolitical waters, it has never been more important to make sure you’re not just stuck in the office, but you’re out there talking to governments and stakeholders, you’re advocating and being an ambassador for the firm. The reality is that there are only a few people in an organization who can really get top engagement, and demands on GCs are increasingly high as a result.

In terms of the role of the GC going forward, I do think new skills may be needed on the external ambassadorship side. If you can give a good speech in a TED Talks style in front of 200 economists in a leading country and come off as pretty compelling, you’re adding value to your firm. The best skill you can ever get anywhere in life is public speaking. It’s not rocket science; being comfortable in a public role can be learned.

The world is going through enormous change, not just in technology, but also geopolitics. For multinational firms, from a regulatory and public policy standpoint, the future is going to be harder. Norms that have been around since the Second World War are really changing: Alliances are fracturing, we’re seeing trade issues; we’re seeing nationalism on the rise; prevalent data privacy issues. Societies are looking for private companies to take positions on social issues that are enormously complicated. So the job is harder than it’s been because of those things and I think we need new models and approaches to addressing them. Trying to do it alone isn’t likely to be successful. Being a GC, not in a steady state, or even in a growth state with known paradigms, but in a state where all the paradigms are being thrown up is difficult, and we need to do more work on our tools.

Root Insurance Company gave me my first general counsel position, apart from an opportunity I had for a year back in the dotcom days for a startup called eGovNet. There, I also marketed, I did procurement work – but it was a small enough organization that ‘general counsel’ was really a plank of what I did.

Before that, I’ve spent probably two thirds of my professional career in and around government. I’ve worked as chief of staff to the Governor of Ohio, handling regulatory agencies, and then outside of government, either with my own consulting firm or as a law firm partner. Throughout that time, I’ve had opportunities to work either directly with or for the insurance industry – Root is the third insurance company that I’ve worked for. I did the government affairs work for State Auto Insurance all over the US, and I was in senior management on the operational side of the business at managed healthcare plan CareSource.

Now I’m at Root Insurance, I am the first and only general counsel (the team is just me) for a rapidly growing personal auto insurance company, learning to wear many hats and to manage everything that comes at me every day.

The business of insurance is highly regulated, and the fact that I have been a regulator in the past, have worked with regulators for decades, and have an appreciation of the big challenges and opportunities of a regulated industry is probably the greatest strength that I brought to this role.

The learning curve for me has been primarily on the corporate transactional side, but fortunately the company already had relationships with some terrific outside corporate counsel, who continue to assist. Getting up to speed and understanding the twists and turns and history of the company, and being able to put that into context to give really good advice has also been a learning curve.

The other part of the learning curve is around privacy and security. It’s not that I was unaware of restrictions in the law around privacy and security – having worked for insurance companies, and certainly working for a managed healthcare plan where health information is involved, I’ve had to be aware of the risk – but that’s another place where I’m getting up to speed.

The primary reason for me coming back to the law was the excitement of working for a startup that really is disrupting the auto insurance business. To be with Root almost from the ground up at this stage of my career seemed to be a very exciting chance to take.

We are a mobile-only personal auto insurance company. All of the policies that we sell are through a mobile device app that our customers download, and we use telematics data gathered from the customer’s smartphone in order to assess their driving. Along with other insurance rating factors, we then decide whether to offer them a quote and to help us price that quote.

I think it’s fair to say that we are, by our very nature, innovative, disruptive and focused on growing our footprint. We are always investing and innovating in our core technology and, as a general counsel in a regulated startup, I interact very regularly with our product team as they contemplate options for improving our app. They often have questions for me about how that functionality will work, and how we will describe that functionality back to our customers.

There’s an opportunity at a company like Root to work with some very bright software engineers, marketers, data scientists – folks who have significant IQs, but they haven’t been in the workforce that long because they’re young. I’m very proud of the work that they do, and I see every day I work with them as an opportunity to not only answer their legal questions, but also to use my experience to help them think about how to frame those questions, and to always make certain that we are looking at any problem or opportunity through the lens of our customer. If I had any moment of pride in my first four months, it would be that I have built the trust of this team, many of whom had never worked for a company that had a general counsel or any in-house legal staff at all.

Certainly, when I’m able to see what they’re doing with AI and large amounts of data, they are providing me an opportunity to learn a lot. They see unlimited business opportunities with the technology, and when they come to me with an idea, they are appreciative that I am going to hold the line with compliance, but that when there are gray areas, I will always do my best to make sure we err on the side of saying yes to innovation and opportunity. Sometimes that means taking some risk in gray areas of the law – for many people, their experience with auto insurance is via a relationship with an agent. In a business model where the agent is not present and we are doing our best to completely serve our customers through an app, many of the insurance laws have not yet caught up.

Because Root Insurance Company is so disruptive, I will look to use what I’ve done in the past with government affairs work to shape public policy going forward. It’s my agenda to work with regulators and to look for opportunities to make sure that the laws contemplate and permit our business model, ultimately for the benefit of the consumer.

I think there are a lot of lawyers who have a vision of their career when they first start out, but I was not one of them. I didn’t have a plan to become a general counsel, for example. I simply had the good fortune of meeting the right people at the right time and being open to new challenges. My career path has been about the people that I’ve met who have been my advocates and promoters along the way.

I started my career clerking for a judge who is now the US Senate Majority Whip, John Cornyn. He was someone who really valued his staff’s views and insights, and I wanted to be a courtroom lawyer in front of judges who respected me like the judge I worked for did.

But as I said, my path has been about the people I’ve met along the way. It was for its people that I chose to go to Southwest Airlines to be head of litigation. Southwest is an airline that was founded by a lawyer (Herb Kelleher) who made it his mission to ‘democratize the skies’ in the US – to make it possible for everybody to be able to fly. I was fortunate to have been a part of that for over nine years.

The opportunity at Spirit AeroSystems arose, and again it was due to a prior relationship – somebody I worked for in the past recommended me for the job. Spirit was an opportunity to go from an airline to an air structures manufacturer, getting to be a part of a global business with operations in the UK, France and Malaysia, as well as multiple places in the US.

To come to the general counsel role was a big leap for me, and I was fortunate that in the past I had had a very diverse litigation practice that included, for example, corporate governance issues. Also, in private practice, I had worked as part of the defence team for CEO Kenneth Lay in the Enron litigation in the US, which was, of course, a huge changer of basic corporate governance tenets. At Southwest Airlines, I also got to do a lot of regulatory oversight, corporate investigations and the integration of another airline. All of those things were very helpful for prepping me for being GC, at least in terms of the legal role.

But the biggest leap was the business, and going from an airline, which is essentially customer service, to aerospace and defence manufacturing. That was an enormous learning curve, and remains so. I read everything I could get my hands on before I got here about the industry. There were people within Spirit who I reached out to, to learn what we do and how we do it – for example, taking tours of our manufacturing facilities, walking through the plant floor to see what we make and talking to the people who make these aircraft structures, and also spending time digging in with our corporate controller to learn the very different financial and accounting aspects of a manufacturing business versus an airline.

At the time, the best advice I could have given myself is that I don’t have to learn everything today. In the first few months I was here, I felt that I needed to know everything right away and, in all of the work that I did trying to learn as much as I could, I neglected myself. Have a plan for all the learning that you need to do, but make sure you are making time to sleep. Taking the job meant moving my whole family to a new city. I have children, and I did not sufficiently take into account what that transition would be like for us on a personal level. So I think you have to learn that you don’t have to know it all on the first day. Have your plan and make sure you take care of yourself in the process.

The things that I find most rewarding really centre around people that I’ve had the privilege to lead who have gone on to do tremendous things in their careers or try new challenges. I’ve been most proud of the teams that I’ve put together and the smart people on those teams. On the flip side of that, the most challenging moments have been ‘people moments’ – learning how to adapt and work with people who don’t operate with the same core principles and values as I do. It’s really tough to stand on an island alone, but sometimes you have to do it. At Spirit, we’ve just begun the journey of shifting our culture and our values, so those most challenging moments are learning that not everybody yet has bought into those core values and principles, and having to learn how to influence people to get on board.

Fortunately, the single most valuable thing that contributed to my view of leadership was the leadership program that I went through at Southwest Airlines. I was actually the first lawyer to go through it, and it taught me the importance of having a core set of principles and values and instilling them in people across your business, so that everybody is operating from the same set of guidelines in making their business decisions. I think that’s no different from understanding your company’s risk appetite or strategy – if you don’t know what those things are, you don’t know the framework for the decisions that you need to make.

Since I’ve been here, I have expanded my leadership to our compliance team, I have taken on our global contracts team, and I will be taking on the information security team – the chief information security officer we’ve just hired will report to me. As you see the general counsel role expanding to really influence business strategy, I think it will also expand to have more leadership of some of these non-legal areas because of the interconnectedness of them. Most businesses will benefit from a general counsel who has some oversight and an intimate involvement with all those other foundational elements of the business.

There are other things throughout my career that helped prepare me for my job at Spirit. I had stepped into my role at Southwest Airlines at a time when e-discovery was just coming into effect, and so I was able to be pretty innovative in the leadership there in getting us to a sophisticated state in our litigation practice. Coming to Spirit, I would say I’m bringing innovation, but it’s not new things; all of the things that I did at Southwest I’m bringing here now. Spirit just hadn’t had the opportunity or the need to get current in the same way.

For example, I have started doing something that’s pretty common in our industry, but wasn’t common at Spirit, which is unbundling the legal services. We’re not hiring law firms for every aspect of a litigation matter or due diligence, for instance, because there are non-traditional legal service providers that you can couple with a law firm, which are a lot more cost-effective. We’re bringing in things like technology-assisted review and artificial intelligence, which started in e-discovery and now we’re expanding over into revamping our contracts management. If you can use tools like AI to help you gather more information about your state of compliance and contracts management, then you’re going to equip your lawyers to deliver much more efficient and practical legal advice.

I think this represents a broader trend. I’m surprised we still have as many very large law firms as we have. At Spirit, we do hire large multinational law firms, but I am personally a fan of smaller practices that I think deliver better value for the client, depending on the matter. There are times when you need a firm with a global presence, but I continue to believe that we’re going to see more boutique-style law firms that really understand their clients’ need for practical advice that furthers their business goal. And I really think we’re going to see more service providers in this area where we’ve unbundled various things. There are companies that are not law firms, but which have lawyers you can use on a project basis with your law firm partners on matters – sort of an ‘à la carte’ menu where you can piece together what you need. More law firms will, I hope, start to see the benefit of partnering with those non-traditional service providers.

I think that coming from an in-house role to the GC position is an easier transition than going directly from being a partner in a law firm, because the role is so different. Being the outside lawyer, you don’t have the perspective of the consigliere. Although folks can obviously be successful that way, I think that’s a bigger jump.

I would have loved to work in more industry sectors! But I think the unique thing about entertainment is that once you’ve started down that road, if you try to interview outside of the industry, there’s a lot of scepticism. People wonder why – it’s a desirable, sexy industry and people are more often trying to break into it rather than break out of it.

I have loved the job since I’ve been here because of the variety that it presents. One day I’m working on an FCC filing, the next day it’s a shareholder litigation, the next day it’s a big contract with our biggest licensing partner. I also like the opportunity to really feel like you are making an impact at the highest levels on the direction of the company – that’s something I hadn’t experienced before I became general counsel.

Just as I was starting the job, Starz went through something that was pretty unprecedented for the company – it was dropped from one of its distributors. Going through that entailed a lot of regulatory and political work, as well as transactional negotiations that was a huge challenge for me and for the rest of the company. Coming out of it with a deal was something that I’m proud we were able to achieve.

The general counsel position is in essence a generalist role. You’re not just the transactional lawyer, you’re also looking at litigation, regulatory issues, political issues, all of those things, and I don’t know that it’s very easy to get that experience prior to taking on the role. I was primarily a transactional lawyer – IP and entertainment – so I had done the corporate M&A stuff, the securities stuff, and also done IP and entertainment licensing and distribution, but I hadn’t done litigation. I had been involved, but I wasn’t the one leading litigation. I hadn’t done production work to the extent that I’m now responsible for. The best preparation you can do is to get involved in a lot of different things and try to get the broadest experience as you can. Even as a transactional lawyer, I would support litigation, which was useful experience.

When I was at Sony, I had been doing a certain type of entertainment work; I was good at it and it was my area of expertise. But after five plus years of doing that, I obviously wasn’t learning as much – it was like the back of my hand. I was looking around at other opportunities within the company and somebody advised me to consider another area in order to get experience I didn’t have. My response was: ‘Yeah, I’d be willing to try that, but I wouldn’t want to give up what I have now.’ I wanted to take on new things, but I didn’t want to let go of what I had.

The person wisely said: ‘You already know that stuff, it’s on your résumé, nobody can take that away from you. Everybody will know that you are an expert in that stuff after having done it for five or six years, so it’s ok for you to let that go in order to take on other responsibilities – and it will be better for your career growth.’ He really encouraged me to let go and make room for new things, and I thought that was really great advice. As soon as you’ve mastered something, it’s time to move on and get some other experience.

I’ve always told my teams, whether it was at Sony Pictures, Lionsgate or at Starz, that we need to advise the business not just from a legal standpoint, but from a strategic standpoint. When you think about a contract, the parts that are purely legal are all pretty boilerplate and a very small part. Our role is to bring up all of the concerning business points that might come up in a contract: does it really make sense for this agreement to be non-exclusive, does that fit with our strategy? Does it make sense for this to be a long-term deal? Maybe we want more flexibility to do this other thing next year? It’s really advising on the business strategy and what you see coming up in the future to help them achieve their business goals. I feel like I’ve been doing that since I started being a business lawyer and this is just a little bit more official now that I am general counsel.

I’d like to think that there was a move towards having more women in the GC role. I don’t know if I would say that mentoring and nurturing of diverse attorneys is increasing in the entertainment industry, but the Weinstein scandal may bring on some change. Maybe it will make women feel a little bit more emboldened to speak out about the need for diversity in the workplace – they can now point to that, so it doesn’t have to be so personal. Companies are letting go of people for all sorts of reasons related to the Weinstein issue, and it’s exciting to see that change is happening. I don’t know if it’s going to be sustainable, but there’s definitely more awareness and sensitivity than there ever has been before.

Working at a dotcom was the first time I really got inside a business and became part of the leadership team – and obviously the dotcom era was a moment in time that was incredibly instructive for people to understand what a bubble looks like.

Some things were very different to my role now at Nielsen, and some things were very similar. It was more of a start-up environment, the legal department was much smaller, and it was largely a US-driven company. Nielsen is a much larger department, and it’s a much larger, global company. That said, the fundamentals are pretty consistent across the board. You’re trying to help grow the company, do so in an ethical, compliant way, and you’re continuing to try and be creative as you address issues.

In legal services, I think there are certain consistencies and evolutions. Technology is very different now to when I was in-house last time, and I think technology will likely be very different five, ten, 15 years from now.

If you’re in a small organization, the opportunity to have a broader role is greater. As an organization grows, things tend to get a little more siloed and remits tend to narrow a bit. But on the other hand, CEOs for the last decade or so have really begun to see that general counsel with certain skillsets and temperaments can add value in areas beyond the traditional scope of work assigned to a GC or CLO.

One thing I’m seeing in other companies – and have experienced myself here at Nielsen – is that the remit of the general counsel tends to be expanding. For instance, I joined Nielsen as the CLO and had responsibility for the legal department. Since then, my remit has expanded to include security, corporate social responsibility, government relations and public policy, as well as enterprise risk management. The job is becoming broader (which I happen to like) and I think boards and CEOs are recognizing that a GC may bring a host of skills that extend beyond simply running a legal department.

I don’t know exactly what I expected when I became general counsel at Nielsen, but it is different. In a law firm, you’ve got a large portfolio of clients, but once you go inside, you have one client. It can be a large, complicated client, which Nielsen is – with around 45,000 people spread across the globe in more than 100 countries, and multiple businesses in various legal and regulatory regimes.

You get much more involved in the business of the company in a leadership role. The kinds of things that cross your desk are incredibly diverse, and as diverse as private practice was, this is much more so.

Another key difference is that as outside counsel you try really hard to develop close relationships with your clients, but there’s a certain distance that you’re never going to be able to overcome, regardless of how good you are. Ultimately, you give advice and then the client takes that advice as an input and makes a business decision. When you’re inside, you give that same advice, but you live with that decision. You can’t walk away, so you have to own it from a perspective that’s not simply about what the law is, but what the company’s risk analysis is, what the business’s objectives are, and a whole host of other factors that you need to synthesize.

The hierarchy of a corporate structure is much more defined than the hierarchy of a partnership. That colors a lot of how I think about my own behaviors. For instance, when I speak to people, I know that often they are hearing the chief legal officer, they’re not necessarily just hearing a colleague. So trying to think not only about the matter that I’m discussing with them, but also their frame of reference, is a little different than in the past.

In a law firm, they have partners and associates. I initially analogized my position at Nielsen as me being a partner and the rest of the department being associates. I quickly learned that this was a poor analogy! A better analogy is more along the lines of being a managing partner in a law firm and that there are a lot of other partners, as well as associates. At Nielsen we have really smart, accomplished, independent lawyers who have great judgement and can run with matters often with little-to-no input from me – they know how to reach out to me, and I view my role as largely to help them do their jobs and clear obstacles and work through issues when they want a sounding board. That’s a very different dynamic than the frame of mind I came in with.

I read everything when I took the job at Nielsen – I read books, I read articles, I talked to people who were current GCs and former GCs, and there were a lot of themes that came out of that research. First of all, you really need to get to know the business. Second, you really need to develop relationships with people that you’re going to be working with, both vertically and horizontally in a matrix organization. Third, you need to recognize that the breadth of the practice is significant. You can’t be an expert in everything, but you have to have a good working knowledge in a lot of areas. I’d encourage people to go as broad as they can in their current position, whether in-house or in law firms, to make sure they really understand the dynamics that exist beyond their specialty.

I’m not sure that the general counsel’s skills are going to be radically different ten years from now. GCs are always going to have to know the business very well to be effective. They’re going to have to develop strong relationships with executives and with business leaders, and developing leadership skills is going to be critically important. Finally, where GCs are going to excel or not is in having great judgement and being able to communicate their thoughts into a rationale for what they’re discussing. Technology and tools will change over time, but those are just ways to do our job – the skills are going to be the constant.

I think in the future, routine work will be technologized and repetitive jobs will go away – and go away could mean offshore, it could mean go to non-traditional legal service providers, but it’ll likely not be done in-house or by law firms.

People use the word innovation a lot these days, and it means a lot of different things. People naturally think of innovation as connected to technology, and a potential value is that you can create data from experience, which can help from a consistency perspective. At Nielsen, we’ve tried different technologies and software from time to time, and we’ve also worked to create and implement processes to help make our work more efficient and more consistent. We’ve created model forms, knowledge management databases, and certain practices and policies which, coupled with training, teach our department and our internal clients how to accomplish their goals in a more streamlined fashion. We’ve also engaged RFPs in select areas, which has helped reduce costs significantly during a time when, as a company, our revenue has grown – which is a big win.

I think, in future, the pendulum will probably swing back and forth about whether legal departments grow or more work is outsourced but, by and large, my guess is that more work will be insourced. I think it’s ultimately more cost effective to have insourced work, and as you start to focus on paying for the highest value work – it comes back to judgement and expertise – you’ll go outside for that if you happen not to have that in-house, and you’ll pay for that. But you won’t pay for the lower-end work. You’ll either take that in or, more likely, you’ll outsource it to third parties who can do it more efficiently than a law firm.

When I was growing up, there was a TV show called The People’s Court, and I fell in love with the law through watching that show. My parents would tell you that when I was three or four, we used to watch The Paper Chase, and I said I wanted to be a lawyer even then! But I actually did not plan on going in-house when I started practicing law. In fact, my path to becoming a GC is a result of being willing to try new areas of the law, being flexible and, at various points in my career, expressing an interest in taking on more responsibility.

I started my career as a litigation associate at a big New York law firm, where I spent some time working on labor and employment matters. I found myself enjoying them a great deal – in part because the legal team was smaller than a typical commercial litigation team and I had more client interaction. I left my first firm and joined another large firm known for employment matters. After being there for a year, I joined Viacom Inc., a client of the firm’s, as a litigation counsel. While at Viacom, I worked with a strong set of attorneys (both in-house and outside counsel), and they continued to train me and mentor me.

Fast-forward to December 2005, when Viacom and CBS split into two separate companies. I transitioned to CBS Corporation, expanding my skillset by taking on new responsibilities in the compliance realm, and ultimately becoming the corporation’s chief compliance officer in 2009.

After six years in that role, I was promoted to GC at Simon & Schuster, a CBS business unit. I didn’t have much experience in the publishing industry, and also I was six months pregnant with my second child when I started in the position! I did not hesitate in making the transition though, because I welcomed the opportunity to partner more consistently with a defined set of business clients. I also wanted a better understanding of the business from the operational side, which I would not necessarily gain from a seat in corporate. And, both my S&S CEO and CBS Corporation GC were very supportive as I got up to speed with my new responsibilities.

My experience and background in litigation and compliance serve me well, as I’m used to jumping head first into trying to develop a subject matter expertise in the context of a litigation – for me, that keeps things interesting. I applied that same skillset in getting up to speed on issues that affect Simon & Schuster and the publishing industry as a whole. I’m one who learns by doing and it was very important to me to get a sense of what it’s like to see a manuscript proposal before it’s even acquired, and to understand how it becomes a book and ends up in the hands of a customer, or digitally on a customer’s e-reader.

There is a significant transactional component to my role. When I’m drafting an agreement, I’m mindful that it could be years from now when there’s an issue about its interpretation, so it’s not just about clarity in the moment, but creating language that in the long term does not have ambiguity and does not expose the company to risk. I find my litigation background to be helpful in this regard, as well as in advising the clients about potential pitfalls.

As general counsel, I manage the legal and contracts departments and our team handles much of the day-to-day agreement drafting and review, manuscript vetting, and general counseling and advice. When we work with outside counsel, we base those decisions on counsel’s areas of expertise, their fit, their ability to develop favorable and flexible rate structures, and our focus on ensuring that we work with a diverse pool of lawyers.

General counsel are becoming increasingly adept business leaders and strategists. There are many aspects of the role that go beyond traditional legal advice and expertise. A mastery of a legal specialty might get you into this role, but it’s certainly not going to keep you in it. You have to be able to articulate legal advice in a comprehensible and succinct way, to weigh, balance and forecast risk, and to understand business strategies and implications – which frequently present in ways that are not obvious. Sometimes, the general counsel’s role is viewed as limited to providing legal advice for the c-suite, but you also must work with other people at all levels in your organization and learn the ins and outs of your business. Otherwise, you are not getting the full perspective that you need to be a strategic partner.

You need a certain mindset in order to think strategically. Part of that is about possessing some financial acumen and a better understanding of business concepts. It is also about being willing to step outside of your comfort zone. If you are a lawyer who is interested in the legal substance, but not operations or marketing or how deals are negotiated or the factors that might impact into your business, then a GC role is likely not for you.

Obviously, we lawyers also have to set an ethical tone and lead by example. One consideration for me (particularly as a former CCO) is: how do you do that in way that does not feel too prescriptive? One of my mentors described it as being mindful of overly medicating a patient – we must consider ways in which we can embed ethics into business practices without making colleagues feel like they’re being hammered over the head by Legal.

Honestly, EQ is a big component of that as well. It’s about the ability to relate to people. One of the ways in which you can learn is by being an approachable person; you then are a partner and a collaborator, so people don’t feel they are running to the principal’s office every time they talk to the legal department. Business teams need to feel that they’ve got someone who’s going to sit down with them and figure out how to get from point A to point B in the most effective way. When you read the newspapers and you see situations where things have gone awry, sometimes it may be about a lawyer’s advice not being followed, but other times it’s because in-house lawyers have become siloed.

If I could speak to my younger self, I would tell her to trust her instincts and to know that she has good judgement – which is a critical component of being a strong lawyer. I’m a first-generation American (my parents are from Barbados), and I’m also a woman of color. Sadly, as I pursued my law degree, I didn’t know many attorneys of color and I didn’t see many in high positions in the legal community either. As I look back and think over my career, there have been several points where I have thought about not raising my hand, not giving my opinion, or doubted myself out of fear. I definitely had to affirmatively say to myself: ‘Trust yourself. You’ve got this.’ That attitude has served me well.

At Simon & Schuster, and at the CBS corporate parent level, we have internal committees and policies that are focused on areas of diversity and inclusion. We have a law department committee that’s charged with focusing on the diverse outside staffing of matters and, along with other internal committees, we focus on ensuring that a diverse pool of candidates is considered for our open positions.

It’s important for people to share their experiences, and that’s one way that I have been able to grow and blossom both as a person and an attorney: by spending time talking to people with more experience about the legal profession and their personal journey. I’m acutely aware that I did not have the opportunity until I was in college and law school to be exposed to people of color who were in the legal profession. So, I stay in touch with the next generation – at all stages of their paths. Future generations (particularly diverse individuals) must have a lifeline to those who came before them. That can be through mentoring and sponsorship, and also by providing a realistic picture about what life as an attorney is like. Each person should have someone who dreams bigger for her than she can dream for herself. That’s worked for me and I hope I do that for others.

New entrants into the world of the in-house counsel have a unique vantage point: they are a blank slate, and while they can enjoy the benefit of decades of experience and cascading knowledge of long-serving general counsel, they can also bring fresh perspectives to the table.

The newly-minted general counsel will often straddle the boundary between experience of an already established career and the unfamiliarity of a new one. But despite that, the groundwork for the general counsel role begins early in the legal career, even if they don’t know it at the time.

Amy Sandgrund-Fisher, who became general counsel of The Clinton Foundation in 2017 after nearly 20 years as an employment lawyer, found that her experience working in-house with many different companies served her well in making the leap.

‘To get that exposure, it was key to work at different organizations, with different risk appetites, different business models and different types of leadership. Exposure to a diversity of legal problems and problem-solvers prepares you for a job like this,’ she explains.

‘Given my own experience, my advice to attorneys looking to move into a GC role is to take chances and don’t hesitate to try different organizations and different types of roles, and don’t get stuck. Being at one place for too long can make it hard to have the flexibility and exposure you need to take on a role like general counsel.’

Digging in

Of course, all the preparation in the world can’t replace a thorough and candid conversation with senior leaders and function heads upon arrival at the business. This is done to glean a clear understanding of how they view the role, its parameters, any gaps that need to be filled, and any necessary points of continuation – or divergence – from the predecessor. In particular, such conversations can be just as necessary for internal promotions as for external hires, in order to align the vision of the c-suite with that of the new arrival in terms of scope.

‘People make assumptions and they’re not necessarily true. A lot of times there’s probably not a common understanding of things like that – foundational aspects of the job,’ warns Mark Ohringer, general counsel of Jones Lang LaSalle.

Our newer general counsel all understood that their value to the business is directly proportional to their understanding of the business. If the general counsel wants their team to provide actionable advice, then this must be grounded in acute insight into the issue in the context of the business itself, at the most granular level possible.

Those new to the company, and especially those new to the sector, all reported investing significant time and energy into gaining a thorough understanding of their new business – including scouring annual reports, rounds of meetings and tours of the shop floor.

Throughout this process, our interviewees were quick to advise the importance of asking even the simplest of questions, not only because it adds granularity to the GC’s grasp of the business, but because it could also benefit the organization.

‘Oftentimes, including a fresh perspective causes people to rethink and re-evaluate things, which is never a bad thing,’ explains Hannah Lim-Johnson, general counsel of Kelly Services.

Governance

The next step on the road to orientation in the GC role is adjusting to new obligations relating to governance and the board. Those with a corporate secretarial background have an edge here initially, but for many, being a direct line to the board, with the attendant educational, counseling and fiduciary responsibilities, is a new and absorbing dimension to even a longstanding in-house career.

‘It’s really hard to overestimate how much time and effort goes into board and governance issues. That continues to surprise me, even four years into the role,’ says Tim Murphy, general counsel of Mastercard.

‘Getting the narratives right to the board, not just on my own things, but helping the company do that well overall so that we have effective meetings and get good conversations – boy, it’s time-consuming. You’ve got to make sure you’re resourcing for it, because it can take over your role.’

Learning to function as the board’s lawyer, as opposed to a mere ad-hoc dispensary of advice, requires an ability to both find the right tone for engagement with the board and earn the trust required for developing robust and durable relationships with its members. Those with the benefit of being introduced via a sound succession plan have a leg up. Those without will have to put in significant face-to-face time to build a rapport strong enough to reach their potential.

In addition, finding an equilibrium between acting as a manager of the business – and the juggling act that this entails – with the independence needed for advising the board is a challenge that will be new to most first-time general counsel.

The personal touch

Newcomers looking to acclimatize to the general counsel role will be well-served by a knack for relationship building. Intra-business relationships will be fundamental in maintaining trust within the business and developing a knowledge base from which to operate within the new environment. This, in turn, is the ticket to a full appreciation of the culture at the top echelons, which the general counsel must negotiate.

‘I didn’t realize how complex the landscape could be, and I’m talking about relationships with the senior leadership and the board itself, the significant players who were truly in the inner circle,’ recalls Tom Sager, former general counsel of DuPont.

‘Be sensitive to your landscape. There’s always the political side: who’s in and who’s out in terms of their relationship with the CEO. What is their tenure?’

Solid relationships with the c-suite, and a commensurate understanding of its challenges and priorities, will inform the GC’s ability to add value to the company at the strategic level. But looking around as well as up is a prerequisite for gaining an appreciation of the company at the grassroots level, as discovered by James Zappa in those first months after arriving at CHS from 3M:

‘I spent a tremendous amount of time with my direct colleagues and the board of directors, but I should have done more to get to know the business unit leaders. They are the people who are most important to the operating rhythm of the company and to the risk management practices. Most employees in the company will look to their business unit leaders for guidance relating to culture, appropriate behavior and day-to-day leadership, and had I accelerated my learning and meeting those people, I think I would have known more about the company earlier.’

Developing all types of relationships is essential for achieving that delicate balance between ‘business professional’ and ‘company guardian’ – but just as the role has expanded in recent years, the GC’s sphere of influence has extended further, even to outside the organization.

David Yawman, general counsel of PepsiCo, characterizes the role as achieving mastery of ‘different vectors of influence’.

‘When I look to the north, I see a CEO and a board and the shareholders, and I have to influence them on the things that matter most to them. When I look to the south, I lead multiple functions, and I’ve got to ensure that there’s the right talent and skills and that I can grow the team individually as well as overall. To the west, I see my peers, and whether it’s head of human resources or the chief financial officer, I need to be able to understand their perspectives on things in order to collaborate. To the east, I see a lot of external parties, from government officials, to NGOs, to competitors and industry groups that I also have to engage.

‘In the past, some individuals would be good at one of those vectors and maybe two, maybe three. But now, I don’t think there’s any one of those vectors against which the general counsel can afford to be ineffective.’

Navigating the needs of, and pressures imposed by non-company stakeholders – what Mastercard’s Tim Murphy dubs the ‘external ambassadorship’ component of the GC role – requires a skillset that is even further evolved from the ivory-tower lawyer of yore.

‘If you can give a good speech in a TED Talks style in front of 200 economists in a leading country and come off as pretty compelling, you’re adding value to your firm. The best skill you can ever get anywhere in life is public speaking,’ he explains.

Talent contest

When Ben Heineman started at GE in the late ‘80s, he had 33 direct or dotted-line reports. He fired 30 of them within the first three years.

‘The most important thing that a new GC does is to assess the talent that is in the legal department immediately and determine whether or not they keep those people. Creating your team is one of the first paths, do not wait on personnel,’ he says.

Hired from outside the company with a brief to create change, Heineman was keen to build the legal organization from a blank state. Compare this with the approach taken by Ford’s Bradley Gayton, a company ‘lifer’ with already-established relationships within the company. Gayton took a softer line with the talent around him.

‘Having grown up here, the relationships that I had were now different when I became general counsel. I sat on the operating committee of the office of the general counsel with my peers, all of whom were very talented and any one of them could reasonably have expected that they would be GC,’ says Gayton.

‘So part of this job on day one was re-recruiting my peers, and acknowledging just what incredible lawyers and leaders they are, and reaffirming that all the fantastic work we had done as a leadership team was going to continue.’

No doubt, the incoming general counsel’s approach to talent will be influenced by the condition in which they find their new department. But the GC should curate the department according to the new reality, and not old models, as Eric Dale learned at prominent data company Nielsen, which he came to from 13 years in private practice.

‘I initially analogized my position at Nielsen as me being a partner and the rest of the department being associates. I quickly learned that that was a poor analogy! A better analogy is more along the lines of being a managing partner in a law firm and that there are a lot of other partners as well as associates’.

Team members who are not micromanaged but are empowered, independent decision makers and are fully credited for their contribution, are fundamental to developing what Tom Sager calls ‘collaborative intelligence’ – a willingness to raise issues and reach out to others about problems, rather than cover them up out of fear of criticism. He quotes former US Secretary of State and retired US Army general Colin Powell: ‘The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them.’

Thinking diversely

The concept of ‘diversity of thought’ has permeated the corporate landscape, and legal teams, like other business teams, have woken up to the fact that finding the best talent means looking at all talent available; seeking it out if it does not arrive at the door easily.

The new general counsel could do worse than to take a leaf out of Bradley Gayton’s book when he was building out the legal team at Ford. As the company’s first black general counsel, he has considered the topic in much detail.

‘I think about it in terms of diversity of our office, and then I am also thinking about the pipeline to law school. And there, what we’re thinking about is both late-stage pipeline, maybe people already in college, and we’re thinking about early-stage pipeline, so: should we be thinking about helping kids in sixth grade in debate club?’ he says.

‘And then the thing we’re giving a great deal of consideration to in the office is: should we use the “Mansfield Rule” as a way to recruit, which says you should ensure that 30% of the applicant pool you’re going to put through the funnel is diverse, because then, when you pick the best candidate, you stand a good chance of driving diversity. It’s not a quota system – you don’t only pick people from a diverse pool – you just make sure that the applicant pool is significantly diverse. I’d say we’re mid-level stage of considering what does that look like, how would we implement it, and having really good discussions about that.’

General counsel are in a unique position to drive diversity in the wider general profession – ‘the east’ in terms of David Yawman’s vectors of influence. The competition between external law firms gives in-house teams leverage to select for those whose values align with their own. If firms want to win the business, they will have no choice but to adapt.

PepsiCo has devised practical steps to encourage diversity among law firm partners, launching an outside counsel diversity initiative under the leadership of Yawman’s predecessor Tony West [now at Uber].

‘We demand a lot of metrics from outside firms and then, through a weighted formula that we’ve created, we ascribe a diversity index score to each firm [within peer group – Big law, large firm, small-medium firm]. We are disinclined to provide new business to those firms that have a diversity index score below the median in terms of diversity within the US population of the firm, and particularly for those people working on matters for PepsiCo,’ explains Yawman.

‘In 2017, roughly 85% of new matters that we placed with outside firms in the US went to those firms with diversity scores above the median. We’re trying to put our money where our values are in terms of driving the legal profession to be more diverse, rooted not just in providing individuals with opportunities, but believing that there are better legal services on a qualitative basis when you have a more diverse team.’

Back at Ford, meanwhile, Gayton is applying his thoughtful and nuanced approach to promoting diversity among Ford’s external network, that doesn’t rely on a stats-focused system of measuring diversity metrics.

‘You can tell me that you have three women on your team, but what I really want to know is: what are you doing to develop them? Are they on track to be partner? What kind of work do they have? I’d almost rather that instead of five women doing low-level work, you’ve got two, but they are two that you’re really invested in and I can see that they really have good assignments that will build meaningful expertise over time. This is part of the challenge isn’t it?’ he reflects, adding:

‘We’re going to identify a handful of alliance partners and really work to understand this issue with them, so that we can go beyond the list of top-line numbers.’

A vocal proponent of diversity in the law, Tom Sager has a Minority Corporate Counsel Association award named in his honor. According to him, achieving, maintaining and promoting diverse teams, particularly within the wider profession, continues to be a struggle for general counsel, as with other business leaders.

‘This is a slow process and the gains are incremental – in fact, the numbers may keep regressing depending on the state of the economy. So I remind everybody in this space to celebrate the successes: we’ll have some setbacks, but it pays to persevere,’ says Sager.

‘The whole commitment to diversity can change overnight with a change in leadership – in the corporation or in the law firm – so you’ve got to get the culture built in.

‘Create a culture and this is part of your strategic direction, because some people think it’s no big deal, but I’m telling you, those that understand this and drive it are going to be far more successful than competitors that don’t.’

Driving strategy

Once the new general counsel has established a penetrative understanding of the business and assembled a team of their choosing, the more substantial value-add can begin: bolstering the company’s strategic direction, and then helping rather than hindering the progress toward achieving the goals of the business.

‘A lot of times, lawyers are very good at highlighting the risk, and saying that it’s a “big risk” or that it’s a “material risk”, but I think in order for us to really effectively influence, assist and counsel our business clients, we actually have to be willing – and a little bit more evolved in our ability – to put a value on that risk,’ says Yawman.

‘[That means] a business leader can ultimately weigh [the risk] against the value of the resources, time or energy that he or she might have to place in order to mitigate that risk.’

Practically, this can manifest in many areas. A number of our interviewees describe how a sound apprehension of company strategy can help to appropriately color the day-to-day activity of the legal team, and ensure they are furthering strategic goals both now and in the future, while taking care not to stifle potential opportunities.

But in-house teams can add even more value if they view potential legal problems as opportunities to create competitive advantage. At Mastercard, Tim Murphy and his team took the challenge of complying with the recent GDPR data privacy regulation in Europe into an opportunity, by creating an innovative data anonymization venture. At healthcare giant McKesson, GC Lori Schechter’s team formed a cross-company task force to brainstorm ideas to tackle the US opioid crisis, which resulted in a white paper shared with legislators.

But, counsels Murphy: ‘You need to tell your colleagues that [leaning into the company’s strategy] is a priority and you need to get their buy-in and acknowledgement, so when you are successful it doesn’t look like a random walk, it looks like very important strategic work, which it in fact is. In-house lawyers need to be selling their services and their value.’

Another essential tool for demonstrating value in the profit-and-loss-focused corporate world is managing to metrics, and general counsel who have not viewed legal work through this lens would be well-advised to start.

‘For lawyers, it is really hard, and a lot of lawyers resist it. But at the end of the day, if you push hard enough, I think every legal function can find a metrics-based scorecard to measure themselves. That’s really powerful because it speaks the language of business,’ adds Murphy.

Innovation

Much has been written and said about the supposed intransigence of lawyers, and their tendency to fight the tides. But the general counsel we spoke to were all concerned with embracing change and innovation within their departments. Much of the innovation being enacted or contemplated centered around adopting new technology and processes to enhance efficiency, such as contract, knowledge or risk-management systems, many involving artificial intelligence.

But Jones Lang LaSalle GC Mark Ohringer advises less-experienced GCs to avoid rushing into changes without a full consideration, not only of what the legal department could achieve, but of what business leaders really need and want.

‘Do you want a very industrialized and efficient law department? That could mean asking the business to do more self-service, for example with contracts. But maybe they don’t want to do it; that may not be the smartest thing to do if that’s taking them off the street from selling or doing other more high-value-add jobs,’ he explains.

Instead, he says, the GC should gauge the appetite of the business for wholesale transformation before implementing any innovation plans. He warns that while creative thinking could enhance productivity, business colleagues might not be comfortable with entirely new ways of engaging with the legal function, such as offshoring or outsourcing arrangements. Maintaining an interface that looks coherent with a more traditional way of working might be more effective in some circumstances, for example.

‘What innovative things can you do behind the scenes that make it more effective for the legal team to deliver their services, but when a business person calls, a lawyer is still answering the phone? Which I think a lot of business people want and deserve. That’s very different from having some kind of central legal function based in Mumbai and all the bid people are calling and getting different people – which may be fine for some companies and not fine for others, or fine for some parts of the law department and not fine for others,’ he says.

New might not always be better. But this is very different to adopting a head-in-the-sand approach to innovation, he stresses.

‘You need to know how cool you could be – but then check it out first.’

Ohringer’s own legal team, for example, has leveraged the skills of data scientists within the company to mine existing company data for patterns of behavior that could be red flags for fraud, bribery or other ethics violations.

‘It’s exciting to me, and the data guys like it because it’s fun for them. It wasn’t so obvious for them and it’s not really what they got hired for, but they can add a lot of value for the company,’ he explains.

The Jones Lang LaSalle team has also hired a graphic designer to work on presentations and documents, in recognition of the fact that when training documents and other reports look visually appealing, people actually read them: ‘I’m always amazed when law firms come to give presentations. They’ll put up a slide that’s got very tiny print, and is full of words, and somebody’s talking and you don’t know whether to listen to that person or read the slide. It’s a mess.’

In many cases, the general counsel we spoke to were new enough in their post that they had yet to formulate transformative plans for the legal function. But all backed the notion of keeping abreast of technological and societal developments as key to keeping the legal organization agile and poised to add value – something to think about sooner rather than later for a new GC shaping their legal department.

I have spent my entire career here at Ford, and it’s a special story that I’m really proud of.

I grew up in Syracuse, New York, and I went to undergraduate law school in Buffalo. My wife was a year behind me in law school. We looked at law firms in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse – it’s a beautiful part of the country and we really had a desire to stay there. But as you scanned the major law firms at the time, I don’t believe there were any black partners, there were very few women, and I couldn’t identify any gay or lesbian partners. We therefore concluded it was not likely that I would be successful in any of these firms if others that looked like me had failed to achieve success. So I didn’t even look for a job in the area where I grew up and wanted to live. But we did see a diversity of lawyers achieving success in places like New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC. And so that’s where we decided that I would look for a job.

It only happened to be that Ford was at a Black Law Students Association job fair, and I was intrigued by the company and in-house practice. Up until that point I had really only thought about going to a law firm.

After my second year at law school, I clerked at Ford for the summer, and when I went back to law school in my third year, I was given an offer of full-time employment, contingent on finishing law school and passing the bar. I vividly remember taking the bar exam on the Wednesday and Thursday, taking the weekend off and starting work the following Monday.

The thing that attracted me to the idea of being in-house at Ford was that it was the size of a good law firm. Today, globally, there are 620 in the legal office, but at that time it was significantly larger. Ford’s legal department handled its work predominantly in-house, and the idea of being able to see the issues from inception to conclusion and then living with the business consequences is what intrigued me, as opposed to working on discrete issues – where you may not understand the business imperative.

The way I’d describe the company and the way the legal office is run, is that it’s as close as I’m ever going to get to an entrepreneurial experience inside a company. The company has always been very innovative and very open to new ideas and new thoughts, and there has always been a keen focus on talent development. The intellectual challenges here are just so rich, I also had the opportunity to take on new assignments every three or four years within the legal office, and I have continued learning and growing – so I’ve stayed.

Being the assistant general counsel was helpful in taking on the general counsel role, in part because I was also the corporate secretary. So I wasn’t getting to know the board for the first time when I became general counsel – I understood the governance requirements and the CEO and board responsibilities at that level, so that bit of the transition was quite natural.

Having grown up here, the existing relationships that I had changed when I became general counsel. I sat on the operating committee of the office of the general counsel with my peers, all of whom were very talented and any one of them could reasonably have expected that they would be GC. So part of this job on day one was re-recruiting my peers, and acknowledging just what incredible lawyers and leaders they are, and reaffirming that all the fantastic work we had done as a leadership team was going to continue.

And then relationships with the rest of the c-suite were a little different. As corporate secretary, you’re helping to facilitate the needs of the c-suite, and so moving to become their peer was a great opportunity to interview them about their perceptions of the office. I tried to take on what I perceived to be misperceptions about the risk appetite of the office, and asked the question, ‘How have your business imperatives been constrained by the legal advice you have received?’ My objective was to understand the real barriers they’re dealing with as they’re trying to advance their business objectives, and what are the barriers that are perceived which we could eliminate.

When I found out about getting the GC job, there were three things I did: I told my wife over lunch that day, I started re-recruiting my peers, and then I took time to sit down and come up with a transition plan. I had the privilege of having two and a half months where I had overlap with David Leitch, our former general counsel, and in that period of time I focused on developing external relationships. I’d done a fairly good job of establishing networks as I moved up, but that peer group isn’t all moving up to general counsel at the same time. The general counsel role is so unique that it is just so helpful to have other GCs to call on, because there isn’t anybody on your team who’s experiencing the same thing that you’re experiencing. That network of GCs is just so important to be able to tap into to bounce ideas around some of the challenges you are facing.

I also spent time getting ‘boot camps’ by going to different law firms, based on their expertise, to go deep in areas of the law where I hadn’t practiced before. I also started to spend time with senior folks at law firms so that I could develop a crisis management plan. My instinct was that I needed to find a good set of lawyers that could really help me if I had a crisis – lawyers that are battle-tested and have been through crisis before, so that a team would be already in place should the need arise.

I rise at 4:30am every day thinking, ‘How am I going to beat my competition?’ I’m fiercely competitive and so are our lawyers, and innovation is a big part of that. I think of it in three phases – now, near and far. I draw a circle for ‘now’, I draw a bigger circle around it and I call that ‘near’, and I draw an even bigger circle around ‘near’ and I call it ‘far’. I obviously have to spend time in all three areas, but where my most significant value can come from is thinking about the ‘far’, because if we can anticipate both where the law is going and where the business is going, we can identify solutions that are out in the far and then try to bend them back to today. If I can reach out toward the future in how I’m thinking and bring those solutions back to today, the curve that comes back is my competitive advantage – that’s how we can contribute to beating the competition.

What that practically means is that in the now, I am using firms that are using AI for e-discovery. But as I think about the far, we also have a team of people thinking about how artificial intelligence can actually be used to write patent applications. We’re in the process of exploration about what that could look like, and there’s a number of tech firms who are experimenting in this space, so we spend time with them, considering issues like, do we do we enter into things like a joint development or joint venture agreement with them to more fully explore it together?

We are also considering artificial intelligence solutions in the contracts space – not just in terms of writing basic agreements, but is there a way to use AI to really help evaluate the aggregate risk that we have in our contracts portfolio, and is there a way to help people make good choices about the trade offs they’re making when they’re negotiating contacts? Which vendor to go with, what jurisdiction is going to govern, indemnity provisions – there’s all kind of trade offs people make when they’re negotiating contracts, but can AI help optimize results for us relative to our total portfolio of contracts?

In the future, I do think that the way we work will be very different. Just imagine a technology-enabled practice that has more virtual reality to it. It’s not that we’ll be interacting with holograms necessarily, but it could be that we shorten the distances between each other globally. Why isn’t there the technology to support better video interface so that it feels as if people are appearing in the chair across from me so that we can have a much more human interaction than say, the telephone or low-definition video? I think that will help in relationships with law firms, but I also see it being really beneficial in courtrooms as well – in interactions with witnesses and judges. I see ultimately advances there where the level of pro bono work we’re all doing to provide people with access to justice will be technology-enabled, and will be able to help more people to get access to justice.