In Defense of the Older Worker

“How to Bullet Proof Your Career in Your 40s and 50s.” This is the title of an ACC Chicago Chapter Program attended by well over 90 in-house attorneys at the East Bank Club in Chicago. When I heard the title I questioned why, in a lawyer’s prime years, must she think about bullet proofing her career just because she turns 40?

I have always believed, and I am confident that I am absolutely correct, that we become better lawyers with age. Of course this is not simply due to age. Age is a measure of time, not ability. However, as we move through time, we continue to add to our experiences, legal and otherwise. This naturally leads to more personal observations, broader perspectives, situational experiences with outcomes good and bad, substantive and practical knowledge or what I dare to sum up in one word – wisdom.

What is wisdom? The ability to discern or judge what is true, right or lasting, insight, common sense, good judgment, the sum of learning through the ages (Dictionary.com). Over the course of a career, a lawyer is involved in hundreds of situations in which people at various levels within an organization rely upon her to exercise good judgment, avoid pitfalls, maximize profit, provide insight, reduce risk, counsel, guide, sometimes cajole and always protect them from harm. There is no substitute for these experiences in terms of gaining wisdom. No book learning can take the place of actual hands on experience. So then, wisdom is an extremely valuable asset for an in-house attorney to offer her client.

The following words capture the essence of this value:

And if riches be a desirable possession in life, what is more rich than Wisdom, who produces all things? And if prudence renders service, who in the world is a better craftsman than she? … Again, if one yearns for copious learning, she knows the things of old, and infers those yet to come. She understands the turns of phrases and the solutions of riddles; signs and wonders she knows in advance and the outcome of times and ages. Wisdom 8:5-8

Generally, I would guess that practitioners of most occupations benefit from years and years of experience. Who doesn't feel better as they get on the plane when the pilot has a bit of silver in her hair, or when wheeled into the operating room, the surgeon has a slight grandfatherly appearance? But at the risk of offending fellow professionals, lawyers seem particularly well suited to becoming better with age. Of course, age does not equal wisdom, but it suggests it. One can rarely achieve the same level of wisdom without the passing of time as with it, the more the better.

So, I am truly perplexed why any potential employer would look at a seasoned lawyer and believe for a even a moment that she is “too old.” Rather, I would expect that the hiring committee would welcome a bit of silver in the hair, a few wrinkles, an age spot or two. I cannot help but to cite from the Bible once again to make the point:

A great number of wise men (seasoned in-house counsel) is the safety of the world (corporate client), and a prudent king (CEO), the stability of his people (shareholders); so take instruction from my (GC) words, to your profit. Wisdom 6:24-25

Now those are wise words!

Humility

Humility - the quality or condition of being humble; modest opinion or estimate of one's own importance, rank, etc.  Dictionary.com

How can an in-house counsel balance this most important of virtues with her efforts to build confidence in her client that she is trustworthy, her advice competent and her leadership and guidance effective?   Doesn't an effective lawyer have to demonstrate assertiveness (even aggressiveness), boldness, strength and confidence to meet the expectations of her client?

The answer is yes – she must exhibit these traits, but I suggest it must be done from a perspective of humility.  A true humble nature residing in the heart of the lawyer will do much more to build a strong relationship with her clients and help her serve the business more effectively.  To be clear, I do not mean to confuse being humble with being hesitant, reluctant or afraid or in any way lacking in confidence.

  

There is a sure air of confidence and a certain je ne sais quoi surrounding people who are highly effective at what they do, yet are self-effacing.  Jim Collins, the author of “Good to Great”, a recent management book about eleven of the most successful companies in the United States, says, “There is a direct relationship between the absence of celebrity and the presence of good to great results.”  There are many reasons for this according to Collins, but I want to focus in this short space on why humility is a necessary element of success. 

As you contemplate the level of humility you reflect onto others, think about how you view this trait in your peers and colleagues.  Are you motivated by clients or company leaders who are inconsiderate, egotistical, bombastic, grandiose?  Do you champion their cause, give them the benefit of the doubt when challenged, support their initiatives wholeheartedly and honestly?  Or, do you find yourself aligning with people within your organization who are kind, gracious, self-effacing, understated, all the while being highly effective?  I believe the answer is obvious, at least for me.

 

The in-house lawyer has the challenge of performing under the client’s perception of what a lawyer should be (often not a flattering image of the lawyer) and maintaining her professionalism and integrity.   I believe that this can be done by maintaining a servant perspective, reflecting modesty and respect for others and their opinions, but standing strong (respectfully) on issues for which there is no compromise.  None of us have all the answers to every clients every question and we shouldn't act like we do. 

To be effective a good lawyer must be assertive, confident, bold, decisive, and at times strong-willed, aggressive, forceful and sometimes obtrusive.  In doing so she must not give up her kindness, modesty, politeness, professionalism, integrity, respect for others, acknowledgement of authority and understanding that she is not perfect, in a word – humility.  This is a tough balancing act for the in-house counsel.  I encourage you to think and reflect about why humility might be a good thing for you to consider as you approach your clients.    

It takes Great Courage to Do the Right Thing

“Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others.”

Winston Churchill

I wrote a column a while back in which I discussed a difficult decision that might one day be faced by every general counsel – whether to “press the button” that could kill their career for the sake of doing what is right or to preserve their future by towing the company line (Courage, Influence and Civility).  Reflecting on this column triggered memories of a past experience at my former company.  In 2002, Spiegel, Inc. was experiencing a perfect storm – SEC compliance failures, alleged fraud on the part of the directors (who have denied any wrongdoing), problems with the company's credit issuing bank and the secured assets it leveraged to generate cash, issues with its lenders and breached loan covenants, a crashing retail environment and defaulting credit card holders. 

I had the privilege of working for a general counsel who walked the walk when faced with the “press the button” decision.  My personal commitment to ethical behavior was affirmed and strengthened through my mentor’s example. 

When Bob Sorensen came to Spiegel in June 2001, it was to be the capstone of a very successful legal career.  He would end on a high note as the GC of a Chicago institution, a grand catalog company with national retail operations (Eddie Bauer) and one of the most lauded internet sites of the time.  With revenues upwards of three billion dollars, Spiegel was one of the big retail players. Sales were strong, or so it appeared, and the company was doing reasonably well. 

However, under the surface, trouble was brewing and it was about to become public. The SEC was investigating Spiegel, the OCC was investigating the bank it owned, outside counsel was forced to “noisily” withdraw from representing the company and sales started to dive.  

So, not long after becoming the General Counsel of Spiegel Inc. in June 2001, Sorensen was put in the unenviable position of guiding a sinking ship through waters fraught with compliance issues.  Rather than set forth the sordid details in this brief column, I refer the reader to the SEC Independent Examiner’s Report (Crimmins Report) – an excellent read and a very good tool to help lawyers gain a real sense of what it means to be faced with a career ending ethical decision.  I strongly urge all in-house counsel to take the time to read the report. 

Sorensen had the good fortune to work side by side with Mike McKillip, Vice President of Audit, who reported directly to the parent’s audit committee in Germany.  Together, these men faced many ethical challenges, the seriousness of which are faced by few people in their careers.  They were subject to intense internal political fallout, peer criticism and potential civil and criminal exposure.  Notwithstanding these pressures, these men never once wavered from their commitment to do what is right. 

Not one year into his tenure, according to the report, German management referred to Sorensen, McKillip and others in U.S. management who repeatedly communicated the troubling situations with the SEC etc. to the board, as “black painters” – pessimists who were exaggerating the seriousness of the situation.  They dismissed their objections as flights of fancy.  It was  suggested that Sorensen be terminated. 

As set forth in the report, when faced with important decisions on corporate action, Sorensen repeatedly insisted on taking the high road at each and every ugly turn.  While this may seem an obvious choice, the report makes it very clear that Sorensen was the leader of a small and distinct minority of U.S. executives who advocated taking the right actions over the objection of senior German leadership.    

Sorensen and McKillip would tell you today that the pressure they faced from the board of directors and the expatriate CEO was so intense that it took years off their lives.  Yet they stayed with the company and insisted on doing the right thing.  Sorensen and McKillip ended up staying with Spiegel to the bitter end, Chapter 11 and the ultimate sale of all assets. 

When their tenure at Spiegel ended, Sorensen retired and McKillip went to work as the Director of Internal Audit for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America – he used to say that he went to work for God.  McKillip died last September at the age of 59, and I (along with several colleagues) truly believe that his days at Spiegel contributed to his death at a young age.  Both men have inspired many others by way of their honorable and ethical example. 

Mike McKillip was a very good friend of mine and I know that he would not have done anything differently if given another chance, even knowing how it would affect his health.  Among many honorable legacies left behind by Mike McKillip, his unwavering commitment to ethical corporate citizenship is among his greatest. 

What is the moral of the story?  Today’s general counsel often serves as more than just the top legal advisor in a company: trusted business advisor, financial analyst, compliance officer, ethics compass, counselor and advocate.  Because the GC has more than one role, she may face an increase in the number of circumstances that require her to provide ethical or moral analysis and not limit herself to just business or legal considerations. At the end of the day, each of us must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be content with who we see.  We, like Sorensen and McKillip, must know that we have done our best to represent our clients zealously, professionally, competently and ethically.  We must ALWAYS do the right thing.

Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, vision cleared, ambition inspired, and success achieved.

Helen Keller 

Intimacy?

“Intimate” might at first seem like a funny word to describe the in-house attorney’s relationship with his corporate client.  But what is intimacy in the context of in-house lawyering?  According to Dictionary.com: Intimacy is “a close association with or detailed knowledge or deep understanding of a place, subject, period of history, etc.”

So, intimacy is really quite an appropriate word to describe the important relationship an in-house lawyer has with his client.  Because of our professional obligations, we cannot help but have a “close association” with our clients. As in-house lawyers, we also strive for a detailed and deep knowledge and complete mastery of our businesses.  

When people ask me why I chose to work in-house, one of the reasons I offer is my desire for a higher level of intimacy with the client - a higher level than can be achieved as an outside lawyer.  As an “embedded” legal executive, I am with the business people on a day to day basis.  I sit with the top executives, participate in policy making meetings and on committees formed to address issues in various disciplines, attend marketing presentations and sales meetings and work closely with the purchasing, risk management, marketing, finance, audit, human resources, accounting departments and the board.  But even more importantly, I have the opportunity to see the warehouse, tour the plant, visit the loading dock and the quality control labs.  An in-house lawyer has a unique opportunity to learn the entire business from the bottom up.

Many companies today require executives to spend time in the manufacturing facility, at the retail store, on the production line, in the research lab, manning the grill or working some other front-line job to help them understand how the business operates.  If your company does not do this, then you should be proactive about doing it yourself.  Knowing the ins and outs of your business is essential in making you a better lawyer for the business.

When you know the business inside out, it is easier to: defend cases, draft contracts that better address the unique needs of your business, appreciate the human resource climate, understand the culture and know what is important to the business.  Most importantly, it becomes much easier to be proactive and provide value in ways the business might not expect from their lawyer.

For example, a lawyer friend of mine from another company was called by the president of one of the operating companies he supports when a customer approached the president about jointly creating a new product.  My lawyer friend's company is not an R&D company; it manufactures a low tech product sold on the commodity market.  Because my friend is embedded in the business, he knows it very well.  His clients, including the president, know how engaged he is and thus regularly consult him on a myriad of legal and non-legal matters.  The president called him as soon as she hung up the phone with the customer.  My friend sat in on the initial meeting with the business folks and the potential partner and was able to identify several very important potential pitfalls that were not even on the president’s radar screen.  My legal friend helped craft an agreement that protected his company from the pitfalls as well as ensure proper ownership in the potentially profitable jointly developed product.

In short, the lawyer who knows his business is a better team member and a much more valuable asset to the company than a lawyer who does not.  In order to be a good team member, the lawyer must be focused on cooperation and coordinate his effort with the group.  Of course, a successful team member must understand how the team works and, ultimately, the final goal of the team.  Becoming “intimately” involved with your business gets you and your team to the goal line and beyond.

Think

Think (think) think (think) think (think)

think (think) think (think) think (think)

Yeah, think (think, think), let your mind go, let yourself be free.

(Aretha Franklin – “Think”)

I once had the opportunity and privilege to hear Charlie Wunsch speak to a group of legal professionals at a daylong conference in Chicago.  Charlie is the General Counsel, Corporate Secretary and in charge of Legal and Government Affairs for Sprint Nextel.  Charlie struck me as a fairly modest man, not one to herald his title or accomplishments to impress people.  Which, of course he certainly has the right to do since he works for one of the largest telecommunications companies in the world and has a terrific amount of responsibility.   I mention his position only because it helps to know his background when we consider his remarks.    

Charlie spoke of the fast pace at which technology has advanced over the years, reviewing how human communication has evolved from pre-history communication of a few hundred feet (the distance at which the human voice can be heard) to mail delivered by horse to crude telephone communications all the way to instant communication from anywhere in the world via the internet.  I don’t have the space to relate all of the wonderful examples he gave, but each was a fascinating example of progress for that time.  Let’s just take notice of the fact that in today’s world, we can communicate instantly with anyone in just about any place on earth and beyond.

What does the age of instant communication have to do with lawyering?  Well, an awful lot.  With the age of instant communication comes the expectation of instant answers.  Clients look at us  as if  we are the legal equivalent to the internet.  Google a question and wait a few seconds for an answer.  Well, we as corporate lawyers know that providing counsel to a client requires careful thought, analytical skills, judgment, experience, emotional intelligence to interpret the data, context and other factors.  Lawyering is not only an acquired skill, but an art.  The process of thinking requires us to use all of the above mentioned qualities and roll them into an answer suitable for our client.  We can’t deliver well thought solutions without the opportunity to “well think” them!  We are not the legal equivalent of the internet with a Google search page built into our systems.

I will paraphrase some of Charlie’s remarks on how this affects lawyers.  Change is too rapid and profound today for lawyers to always be in reactive mode.  Lawyers must not only anticipate  change, but also the consequences of change in order to be prepared to help our companies.  We have to help our clients navigate the changes using the very technology that makes it harder to have the time to do the job right – by taking away the time we need to THINK!

Charlie reminded the group that we have to force our clients to give us time to think.  Why?  Because “It is our capacity to think critically, creatively and clearly explain our reasoning, that gives our service value.  If you eliminate the thinking time, you eliminate the value of those costly legal services.”

You would almost think that Aretha was singing about the lawyer/client relationship when she sang:   “You need me and I need you (don't you know).  Without each other there ain't nothing people can do. Think (think) think (think) think (think). ”

A very thoughtful lady that Aretha Franklin!