Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Trafficking (Denial and Benign Neglect)

“It ought to concern every person, because it’s a debasement of our common humanity.  It ought to concern every community, because it tears at the social fabric.  It ought to concern every business, because it distorts markets.  It ought to concern every nation, because it endangers public health and fuels violence and organized crime.  I’m talking about the injustice, the outrage, of human trafficking, which must be called by its true name—modern slavery.” 

Barack Obama

I had the good fortune to attend the Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics Regional Compliance and Ethics conference in Chicago. The day’s events were moderated by Ted Banks, one of the leading legal and compliance professionals in the country and there were many excellent speakers. To report that I was enlightened by the presentation on Human Trafficking given by Matt Friedman of The Mekong Club would be a gross understatement. I never could have imagined the depths to which human beings will stoop to prey upon their fellow human beings in exchange for money.

Matt told stories of child “Camel Jockeys”, where Pakistani children are sold into Gulf State countries to toil and moil on the backs of camels, their screams and yelling spurring the camels to run faster, until the age when they are too heavy for the camel to bear. He told of 14-year-old girls from rural villages, believing they were marrying into a better life, being sold for cash to a brothel in a faraway city by their new “husband” and systematically raped into submission, forced to service ten men per day and having their families threatened with death if the young girl tried to escape. He told of naïve villagers, being lured by the promise of triple the typical daily wage, moving to the city, living under lock and key in company “housing” for which they were charged a fee that exceeded their wages. Finally, he told of legitimate factories in Asia which, by day, employed local people for fair wages. But under cover of darkness, the child slaves were brought in to finish the work the day shift started - this being the only way the factory could compete in a highly competitive marketplace.

Why does any of this matter to you as an in-house lawyer or compliance professional? Approximately 20% of global human enslavement involves labor exploitation. Matt’s presentation underscored that otherwise legitimate, well-intentioned businesses, play an important role in enabling the use of slaves – simply by ignoring the issue. Many of the goods and services that we rely on in our day to day lives may have been produced by the use of forced labor somewhere in the supply chain.

It is very popular today for business folks to talk about Corporate Social Responsibility.  The topic occupies significant real estate on most company websites these days. There is no shortage of consultants willing to help your business create a nice looking CSR program (for a price).  But CSR has to be more than a marketing program! It must, according to Karen Quintos at Dell Computers, be more than a feel-good campaign or series of projects; CSR must be "a mindset that's part of [the company] culture." Why wouldn’t a scrupulous company include supply chain slavery as an integral part of its compliance regime?

Mandating responsible supply chain management is good business from both a risk management perspective and a corporate social responsibility standpoint. Not only are consumers demanding transparency in their producers’ supply chains as they become more aware of the issue, but lawmakers are also getting more involved. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has approved and recommended for enactment in all states, The Uniform Act on Prevention of and Remedies for Human Trafficking.  Without getting into the weeds about what may constitute knowledge, the Act allows prosecution of a business when an employee or nonemployee agent of the entity engages in conduct that constitutes human trafficking and the commission of the offense was part of a pattern of illegal activity which the entity knew was occurring and failed to take effective action to stop.

The United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act requires every company doing business in the UK with global revenue in excess of roughly 54 million in US dollars, to publish a slavery and human trafficking statement on its website. Failing to have a policy is a shameful position to be in as a modern day conscionable business concern. Having a statement in turn requires compliance auditing to ensure employees and vendors abide by the policy. The mandatory reporting[1] encourages companies to detail steps taken to ensure there is no slavery or human trafficking in any aspect of its supply chain.

The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act focuses solely on human trafficking and slavery. The Act requires large retailers and manufacturers doing business in California to disclose on their websites the efforts the company is making to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from the company’s direct supply chain for tangible goods. The law applies to any company doing business in California that has global revenue of at least $100 million and that identifies itself as a retail seller or manufacturer on its California tax return.

In 2012, President Obama issued an Executive Order outlining prohibitions on trafficking-related activities that applies to all federal contractors and subcontractors, requires compliance measures for large overseas contracts and subcontracts, and provides federal agencies with additional tools to foster compliance.

While not positioned as a change in law, the objective of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, issued in 2011, is to enhance business and human rights standards and practices in a tangible way, which in turn contributes to a socially sustainable globalization. The Principles cast a wide net so that a business’ activities include both actions and omissions and business relationships include those with supply chain vendors. In other words, ignorance and intentional disregard for the facts is not permissible – there is an affirmative obligation to assess all business relationships to mitigate against the use of forced labor.  

Demonstrating a commitment to human rights means companies must have policies and procedures in place that include communicating a “tone from the top”, verification, audits, certification, internal accountability, and training. Thus bringing slavery/human trafficking into the same compliance regimes as environmental issues, social and employee-related matters (eg. diversity), and anti-corruption efforts. The difference between conventional compliance assessments and those conducted to assess human trafficking is that in the context of human rights, risk management goes beyond identifying and managing risks to the company itself, to include risks to rights-holders.

Matt Friedman is currently touring the United States in an effort to bring his message to companies, religious organizations, law firms and assorted compliance and legal professionals. If you are interested in hearing what he has to say, you can reach Matt via The Mekong Club website, or feel free to reach out to me via LinkedIn and I will be happy to put you in touch with him. In addition to the resources already mentioned, I recommend that you explore the issue further by visiting one of the following additional resources: Verite.org, the ACC website, Kelley Drye.

Finally – we must take what we have learned and act upon it. Lawyers and compliance professionals are uniquely situated to influence our clients to forward thinking action, in ways that will make our work places better, our companies socially responsible and in ways that enhance the value of our products by making them sustainable and more attractive to consumers.

“An organization's ability to learn, and translate that learning into action rapidly, is the ultimate competitive advantage.”

Jack Welch

---

[1] A company must report – even if the report says “we don’t have a human trafficking policy”.

Focus on Your Big Picture to Thrive, not Just Survive!

Focus:  a point upon which attention, activity, etc, is directed or concentrated;  to fix attention (on); concentrate. Dictionary.com

I often start a column with a definition because it helps me stay focused on the message I am trying to convey. I am reminded of the need to focus every time I walk into the office and see the pile of papers on my desk and the ever present reminders popping up on my calendar; when I experience the constant interruption of phone calls and walk-ins. What do I have to do today to stay focused on the tasks at hand? However, the concept of staying focused begs an even larger question – What is the goal upon which my efforts should be focused?

We can have no focus unless we have clearly defined goals. How can one define tasks upon which to focus when one does not have goals established that allow for a strategic setting of tasks to achieve those goals? In other words, how can we figure out how to get from Point A to Point B unless we understand the location of Point B. Once we know, we can map a route to get there.

I am sure that most of you have seen the SMART acronym.  Goals must be:

S = Specific

M = Measurable

A = Attainable

R = Realistic

T = Timely

While the SMART method is useful, I am "focused" on goal setting at an even more basic level. I was vividly reminded of the need to have goals when I was recently in a meeting with a group of volunteers who assist in the leadership of a charitable organization. Many ideas on programming and how to improve the group were bantered about, all ideas were good, some were excellent! However, the unfamiliar observer might have noticed that the ideas, bright as they were, were also disparate and  non-cohesive in the sense that they did not seem to point to a common interest. One of the participants finally took a step back and interjected: What is the goal of [our organization]? We were flummoxed. All the brainstorming was taking place in a vacuum!

How does this relate to in-house counsel?  Many of us plod through life, day by day, hoping for better, thankful for what we have (as we should be), working hard at our jobs. We consider it a good day when we give some good advice, help a client out of a pickle, solve a problem, proactively manage the company away from trouble, help a friend, whatever. The next day is the same thing. You might call this “surviving” as opposed to thriving. Many of us are fine with just getting by, others need to thrive.

What do you want out of your career? Do you want to be a specialist in a particular area of the law? Are you looking to be the next general counsel of General Electric? Do you want to strike out on your own and use your in-house experience in the private firm setting? Are you looking to back down on the hours and spend more time with the family? Each of these goals demand specialized, differentiated strategies. The tasks required of one goal do not fit within the scheme of tasks required to achieve the other goals.

When goals are clearly identified, we can develop task-oriented strategies to achieve them. By knowing the big picture and focusing on the tasks required to get us there, we have purpose. With each task completed comes a sense of accomplishment, a sense of having done something concrete and worthwhile – because we have inched closer to our goal.

So while the pile of paper may not seem to get any shorter, you can thrive in your career as you accomplish tasks and move forward to your end game. By focusing on the smaller tasks necessary to the achievement of your longer term goals, you make progress. Progress in turn brings a sense of well-being. A cycle is created whereby your goals are affirmed through progress and satisfaction which brings forth more effort to accomplish the next set of tasks and so on and on. Now – stop reading and get back to that stack of paper…..

“People with goals succeed because they know where they’re going.“ Earl Nightingale

Cheap is OUT; Value is IN: Communication and Trust Make it Happen

I have learned that trying to guess what the boss or the client wants is the most debilitating of all influences in the creation of good advertising.

Leo Burnett

I took a bit of liberty in using Mr. Burnett’s quote, applied to the advertising industry.  But the concept, if a word or two is changed out, applies just as well to the attorney/client relationship.  I have learned that trying to guess what the boss or the client wants can be a most debilitating influence in the creation of a healthy attorney/client relationship.

So what does the in-house lawyer client want from her outside counsel? In-house lawyers want VALUE for their money, not cheap fees.  But what does it take to deliver value to an in-house team of lawyers, especially a small law department with little in the way of benchmarking tools and fancy matter management systems?

Upon arrival at a new company, a good in-house lawyer takes some time to learn the business.  The newly retained outside lawyer should follow the in-house lawyer’s lead and do the same. The general counsel should expect the outside lawyer to research the company as much as possible using public sources, then spend some time with the general counsel to learn how she does business; gauge her interests, plans and strategic goals for the department; learn where she (and her department) fit into the business; learn how outside counsel has been used in the past; and find out where she sees the future of the inside/outside “partnership.”

Then it is time to learn how the actual business operates - what does it do, how does it do it?  What are the business weaknesses and where does potential legal exposure lurk? The general counsel should introduce the outside lawyers to the key players in the organization. By this I do not necessarily mean the C-Level folks or even vice presidents. Rather, the general counsel should introduce outside lawyers to the people with whom the outside lawyers will regularly work on matters. The small department lawyer must leverage the business resources to provide the needed information to the outside people so that her day is spent performing legal work, not gathering documents and performing administrative tasks to keep the outside lawyer busy. 

Integral to creating a relationship based on value is developing a protocol for communication between the outside and inside legal teams, one that may include the business people. Word of caution: do not open the floodgate by inviting the business client to call the outside lawyer “any time they have a question.” Your outside legal team will be on the phone constantly with your business people and they WILL bill this time.  So, the inside team should always serve as the conduit for contact with the external legal resources. Open communication will serve the general counsel well in several ways:  She will be personally (or through her team) aware of potential legal issues developing; she will have an opportunity to put an internal resource on the problem right away to try and resolve it before it requires expertise or time commitment beyond that available to her via in-house sources; she will be aware of the matters that her team is addressing; and, billings will be monitored, controlled and minimized. 

A very important element for a value based inside/outside relationship is the development of trust.  Trust is gained on both sides through positive day to day, or issue to issue, experiences. Each side of the relationship must be wholly open and communicative about their thoughts, concerns and expectations. There is a social element to building trust as well. There is nothing wrong with spending down time with your outside firms. However, it would be terribly foolish to compromise your decision making on behalf of your client due to the social interaction you have with your outside firms. Lawyers, though, are particularly adept at keeping business and pleasure separate to ensure such compromises do not take place.

  

As a legal matter develops, it can change, the expectations, goals and expected outcomes and means to the end may need to be adjusted as a result. Neither side should bury their respective heads in the sand and avoid uncomfortable conversations. For a healthy, long-term relationship, expectations and deliverables must regularly be updated to reflect changing circumstances.

 

In closing, let me reiterate the most important points mentioned above – communication with and education about the client, about how the client operates, about expectations and about changing game plans.  Following these elementary rules will go a long way in developing and nurturing a valuable, long term, trusting relationship.

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 

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!        

Courage, influence and civility*

Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. -C. S. Lewis

A few weeks back, I had the pleasure of attending an ethics program co-sponsored by DLA Piper  and Major, Lindsey & Africa .  Susan Lichtenstein (Hill-Rom), Stasia Kelley (DLA Piper) and Paul Williams (MLA) informed an attentive audience of what it is like to be in the boardroom when it comes time to make a very personal decision – whether to “press the button” that will effectively end your future with the company, if not your career.

In a nutshell, the program focused on the GC as trusted adviser, financial analyst, compliance officer and legal advocate.  The panel discussed the business needs for a GC with multi-dimensional skill sets and what happens as a result – an increase in the number of circumstances in which the GC is faced with business/legal situations requiring ethical (and not just business or legal) considerations. 

GCs are faced with balancing the need for creating trust and synergy with the business team against ethical obligations to ensure the company is behaving “properly” – meaning legally and, in some cases, “ethically”.  How can a GC continue to build relationships with the business operation executives while also acting as the company’s moral compass, responsible for reporting ethical breaches to the board?

First, the GC must have an unwavering commitment to ethical conduct at all levels in the company.  She must sow the seeds of a “culture of compliance” and nurture that culture throughout her tenure.  This commitment must be unwavering, for it will no doubt be tested.

Second, she must not only talk the talk, but she must also walk the walk.  Ethical considerations should be raised whenever an ethical concern presents.  Ethical considerations should also be part of the decision matrix, so as to ensure consideration of the ethical implications of a decision, even if ethical concerns are not immediately obvious.

Third, the GC must make known her commitment to ethics to every board member, executive and line worker in the company.  It must be communicated to the company frequently and regularly.  GCs have influence within their organizations and should use it.

Fourth, she must have an excellent relationship with the board so that each member feels absolutely confident that if the time comes, she will press that button and make them aware of all serious issues affecting the company.  More importantly, they will trust her judgment and follow her advice in rectifying the problem.    

In thinking about how we might influence our organizations in the care and feeding of an ethical environment, often overlooked is how we might influence our outside lawyers to practice in an ethical and civil manner.  Lawyers do not enjoy a reputation for being kind to one another.  Often, clients expect us to act nasty, disrespectful and mean to our adversaries.  Some clients even believe that a lawyer cannot possibly zealously represent a client unless they act in such a manner. 

I believe in-house lawyers, and particularly GCs, are well positioned to work a change in the legal environment so that clients will learn to expect nothing less than the utmost in decency from their lawyers.  In-house lawyers hire and pay firm lawyers.  Firms listen to their clients.  If we charge our outside team of lawyers with the responsibility to be civil, professional and yes, even polite – they will listen.  I am absolutely convinced that if we reward professional behavior (with fees and more work) and discourage underhanded gamesmanship (by referring work to other firms), the legal world will change. 

In-house lawyers have the responsibility to foster a culture of compliance and ethics within their own organizations.  In thinking outside the box (extending her influence outside the company), the GC can extend her influence beyond a culture of ethics, to one of civility by and between the outside lawyers, as they zealously advocate for their clients. 

Each of us must be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be content with what we see.  We must know that we have done our best to represent our clients zealously, professionally, competently and ethically and that we have conducted ourselves in a manner that reflects well on the profession we have chosen.

*Originally published on August 9, 2012 here:
http://h20cooler.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/inside-perspective-courage-influence-and-civility/

Be a good egg – pay it forward

The unemployment rate for lawyers is 3.2 percent*.  This means there are 56,000 unemployed lawyers across the country.  However, 1.7 million of us are employed.  That is a pretty good ratio.  Only health-care practitioner and technical occupations fared better than lawyers.  Although for the unemployed lawyers out there, the favorable ratio  provides little solace.

Over the course of my 23 years of practice, I’ve worked for three different employers –  a small boutique general practice firm, a Fortune 500 retail, catalog and internet giant, and my current employer.  When I went in-house in 1996, I thought I would stay at my company for the rest of my career.  Bankruptcy put an end to that in late 2004.

Over the years I’ve learned some valuable lessons about being ready for the next stage of my  career.  One of them is the importance of “networking.”  As a young lawyer I believed I had neither the time nor the energy to network.  I believed that my skills and achievements would carry the day when the time came to look beyond my current position.  This was a huge mistake.

I am a smart person with excellent credentials having worked for top-notch companies and with outstanding executives – just like many of the other lawyers shooting for the positions that I want.  However, having some connection to the person making the hiring decision puts me a half or full step ahead of my competition.  I am a known quantity, less of a risk.  I might even find out about an opportunity before it is published.

The most important lesson I have learned about networking is that the best time to actively network is when one is comfortable and secure in one’s position.  In good times, one has credibility as a networker because nothing is needed, there is no apparent selfishness.  A good networker simply establishes and nurtures relationships.  She puts people with complimentary needs together.   Of course, it is difficult for human beings to act with complete selflessness and so when we network we cannot help but to think there will be some payback in the future.  This may be true.  However, successful networkers do not think selfishly.   This brings me to my point (finally!).

Most of us have been helped by someone in our network.  In turn, we have an obligation to help another in need, to return the kind act with a kind act to another -  to “pay it forward.”

Ben Franklin described the concept in  a letter to Benjamin Webb in 1784:

…I send you herewith … ten Louis d’ors (gold coins). I do not pretend to give such a sum; I only lend it to you. When you shall return to your country with a good character, you cannot fail of getting into some business, that will in time enable you to pay all your debts… When you meet with another honest man in similar distress, you must pay me by lending this sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro’ many hands, before it meets with a knave that will stop its progress…

Now is the time to pay forward the kind acts you have received from others.  This can be as simple as picking up the phone and offering an encouraging word or two, reviewing  and marking up a resume, arranging for an introduction or as involved as helping conduct a job search and making calls on behalf of your colleague.  The point is – there are many people out there looking for some kind of help in their career.  If you can, give back.  Pay it forward!  Do not be the knave of which Franklin writes.  Be a good egg.


*Originally published July 14, 2010

An Honorable Calling

“It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Practicing law is an  honorable calling.  Never ever forget that.  We are professionals duty bound to zealously represent our clients to the utmost of our ability.   Sometimes non-lawyers view lawyers as shifty characters who will go to any lengths to win a case.   I think this is because they don’t really understand how we work.  We make arguments that clients might not always understand.  We present the facts in a light most reasonable to the position that is favorable to our clients.  We posture.  We cajole.  We threaten.  We tear into people in search of the truth.  We often deal in unpleasantries. 

It is true - not many people are fond of lawyers as a group, until they need one. We sometimes then get the wink and knowing nod from the client, to demonstrate that they “understand” how we operate, they’ll play along and assume that we will take care of the dirty stuff outside of their presence.

Many clients do not understand that it is our sworn ethical obligation to represent them zealously, honestly and ethically.   I remember when I passed the bar some years back.  Someone sent me an article likening a new lawyer’s integrity to a brand spanking new shiny suit of armor.  The suit protects the lawyer’s untarnished reputation.   Each time the lawyer compromises his or her integrity, the armor is nicked, rust appears  corrupting the protective coating worn by the lawyer and eventually lays bare the vulnerable flesh beneath it.   This is an apt analogy don’t you think?

How many times have you encountered a lawyer that rarely does what he says he will do, cuts corners on advice, pads the bill a tad or fudges “just a little” on document production?  How do you view that lawyer when you next cross paths?   On the other hand, how many times have you encountered an adversary who behaves as the ultimate professional, who can be trusted not to take pot shots at you or use underhanded tactics to gain an edge?  At the end of the day, in which case does the client fare better?

Our jobs and our lives are complicated enough without having to negotiate the day (or the deal) worrying about whether or not the people with whom we are dealing can be trusted.  Whether with our adversaries or with our own clients, we have a responsibility to ourselves, to our clients and to our profession to be honest, to say what we mean, to do what we say, honor the profession, respect the law, do what is right and win.  How pleasant our professional lives are when we practice these principles and have them practiced on us.

So, polish up your suit of armor, strap it on for battle.  Shine for your clients and your profession.  Do the right thing.  Most of all protect your integrity, for at the end what does any one of us have left but our good name?