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

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!        

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/

Inside Perspective: Balancing personal beliefs against corporate responsibility*

As in-house lawyers, we must be fair-minded, we must be good examples, we must be sympathetic and empathetic.  For most of us, this is not so difficult.  However, we live in a complicated world.  The workplace is a very diverse place.  In-house lawyers encounter diversity in every form: cultural, color, gender, physical ability, sexual orientation, ethnic, religious.  How do we ensure that “we all just get along” without compromising our personal beliefs and moving the business goals of the company forward, all while protecting the company from legal risk?

I know the general counsel of a very large public company.  On his desk is a Bible, on his wall is artwork with quotes from that Bible.  Personally, I feel very comfortable in his office because I share in his beliefs.  If I was an employee of this man, would I feel as comfortable if he had a Quran on his desk and Islamic art on his walls?  In such a case it would be the responsibility of that general counsel to make me feel just as comfortable under the latter circumstances as I do under the former.

How does one practice one’s personal beliefs without “offending” someone who believes differently?  In the corporate world, I do not wear my religion on my shirt sleeve, I do not preach or engage in religious discussions (unless invited to do so).  To behave otherwise would not only be counter to the manner in which I share my religion with others outside the office, but could also arguably create exposure for the company by evidencing a perceived (not actual) prejudice in my way of thinking.  Of all the offices within the corporate structure (except for perhaps Human Resources), the general counsel must demonstrate absolute freedom from any hint of bias for or against someone who is not like them.

On the other hand, should in-house counsel be relegated to a state of exhibiting absolutely no spiritual life whatsoever?  That would be quite unfair to those whose beliefs require them to reach out to others who may be spiritually in need.  How, then, do we as in-house counsel “practice” our religion?  Just like the business situations we encounter daily, we have to find fair compromise, balancing two of the most important aspects of our lives (work life and spiritual life), walking a fine line between the permissible and the impermissible.

In many cases, people in our position offer “testimony” to their faith through the way they live their lives, their interactions with clients, their daily practice of the principles they adhere to, their efforts at instilling those principles (not the religion) into the culture of the business.  In other words, through example.

There are so many issues dividing us today.  My hope is that although we have diverse viewpoints, we look to the common moral threads running through each of our belief systems and, within the workplace at least, apply them.  Make no mistake, I am not advocating that we act in a morally relative manner.  Rather, we must respect each other’s belief systems, hold true to our own principles,  and practice our own traditions while being sensitive to creating a perception of bias for or against one belief system or another.

*Originally published on December 23, 2010

Implicit Bias*

Implicit Bias (also known as “Unconscious Bias” or “Hidden Bias”) has been described as negative  associations that ordinary people are found to harbor in relation to various social groups – even while honestly reporting that they regard themselves as lacking these biases.   Stated another way – it is believing that one is impartial, but behaving as if one is not.

The information presented by those who advance the notion that implicit bias is real and present in our everyday lives suggests that an open mind and serious self examination is required in order for each of us to test our self awareness and assess our own implicit biases.  At the end of this column, you will have the opportunity to do just that by linking to a fascinating study being conducted by researchers at Harvard University.   If you take this short test, you will receive feedback informing you where you may harbor subconscious bias toward certain social groups.  I guarantee that you will be surprised at the delta between your conscious thinking and the way your brain actually responds to the test stimuli.

Implicit bias studies have shown that doctors are more likely to prescribe life-saving care to whites; that managers are more likely to hire and promote members of their own in-group; police are more likely to shoot a black man carrying a cell phone than a white man; and that referees in basketball are more likely to favor players with whom they share a racial identity.  If doctors, business people, police men and women, and presumably objective professional referees are subject to unconscious biases, it would seem unrealistic to believe that lawyers are immune.  The good news is that implicit bias can be overcome through awareness, acknowledgement and conscious effort.

Understanding implicit bias is important to lawyers because, once understood, it becomes an important tool for the way  we approach our day-to-day jobs.  The Harvard study shows that Implicit Biases vary from person to person and that implicit attitudes are modified by experience.  Once we understand that we may have a bias for a particular group or groups over another, we can attempt to manage it, check it at the door, when making decisions or giving advice that pertains to or affects that group or a person with that group, for example, providing HR counsel on a RIF or assessing the credibility of an accused manager during an investigation.  We can also use it to aid us in moving to a certain result, for example, in picking a jury that will be biased in favor of our client.

ALFA International, a global network of independent business focused law firms, together with ACC Chicago, sponsored an ethics seminar on implicit bias last week.  Because this is an intriguing topic, new to many lawyers, there was a full house.  People walked away talking about what they had just learned.
The featured speaker was U.S District Court Judge Mark Bennett, who has made the study of Implicit Bias the keystone of his unique approach to jury instructions.  He is the first judge in the country to instruct all of his juries on the role of implicit bias in decision making; the state of California just last week approved the use of his pattern jury instruction on implicit bias for use in California criminal trials.

Whether or not you accept the concept of implicit bias, one thing is for certain – the study of implicit bias is not pseudo-science or the advancement of the latest wacky social theory.  This is real grist for the mind’s mill and hundreds of social science studies are conducted on this topic each year.

Here is the link to the Project Implicit test site: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ .  I invite you to test your  self-awareness of bias against the actual bias shown by your behavior.  While not perfect or absolute, the test results should move one to serious self-reflection and to be open to the possibility that one’s thinking is not as objective as one might hope or believe.  I would love to see your comments posted after you have taken the test.

*Originally published October 26, 2011

Reaching the next generation lawyer

This year marks the 24^th anniversary of my licensure to practice law. I think such a benchmark allows me to now refer to those currently in law school as the “next generation” of lawyers. I recently had the unique opportunity to get together with a group of these next generation lawyers to discuss some of the things that don’t necessarily come through in the classroom.

Josie Gough, the director of experiential learning at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, invited me and David Susler to meet with her class of students to share the insight that comes with a few years of real life experience. Our discussion mirrored some of the issues that I have written about in this column, the idea being to help the students benefit by hearing from experienced lawyers who could describe some of the landmines that many lawyers may encounter over the course of their careers.

Although many issues were touched upon, the focus always returned to the notions of integrity, honor, duty and humility around which our talk was based. I was truly impressed with the way the students genuinely embraced these concepts and seemed determined to absorb as much as possible in the short time we had together.

I was similarly impressed with the way that Professor Gough reaches out to the community of lawyers to bring their actual experiences to life for students who have had relatively little exposure to practicing law. By working in externships and meeting lawyers from the real practice world, the students gain snippets of wisdom accumulated over the course of many lifetimes of practice across a broad practice base – private practice, in-house, public interest, judicial and government. Professor Gough uses her extensive “Rolodex” not only to connect her students with terrific practical experience externships, but also to call on lawyers like Susler and me to provide insight into the “softer” skills, such as getting along with your boss, creating value for the company in the legal department and nurturing quality relationships with your clients.

She also creates the opportunity for her students to affirm that what she teaches them in the classroom is not just theoretical. They learn from “outsiders” that maintaining their integrity is essential to a successful career and not just flowery language that means nothing once they actually enter practice – that it impacts how they will be viewed by judges and other lawyers for the rest of their careers. They learn that they will soon occupy positions of leadership in their communities, that they will be sought out to solve problems, that there are many gray areas and advice is usually not black and white, that they might have to make a difficult choice between a client and “doing the right thing.”

They learn to understand that their chosen profession is indeed noble and that they must act with nobility (not arrogance) and with heartfelt humility. They learn it is important to treat everyone with the dignity they deserve simply because they are a member of the human race – from their support staff or the poor pro bono client to the partner in the corner office. They learn that they must use the gifts they have been given and the positions they have earned, to give back to the community and to further enhance the profession of law.

Susler and I were privileged to have been a part of Professor Gough’s experiential learning class. If you are afforded a similar privilege, as a member of this noble profession you are called to answer, to help ensure that the next generation of lawyers continues to value the privilege of practicing law and the position of influence that goes along with it.

An Opportunity to Get to Know Each Other

I had the good fortune to meet a very nice young lawyer today, the kind of lawyer who will make a big difference in the lives of many people for generations to come.

Sam Finkelstein is the founder and CEO of Legal Prep Charter Academies.  LPCA is a legal-themed charter high school approved to open in the Chicago Public School System in the fall of 2012.  It will offer a college prep curriculum in a very high-quality learning environment in a high need community in Chicago.

“…Legal Prep will focus on the skills that all great lawyers possess: excellent written and oral communication, critical thinking, problem solving and advocacy…While not all of our students will go on to be lawyers, all students will gain an understanding and respect for the law.  Students will give back to their communities through scheduled service projects.  Every student will be required to gain admittance to college in order to graduate from Legal Prep.” (Emphasis as in original)  Legal Prep Mission Statement

I am excited about this new Chicago public school for many reasons.  Too many in fact to address in this column.  So for today, I will focus on only one – the “diverse” school population served by the school and the opportunities such diversity presents to lawyers who are not used to working with such populations.  I have seen or heard various statistics from several sources that indicate that by the middle of the 21^st Century, “diverse” individuals will make up 50 percent of the U.S. population.  To many people this may be a shocking statistic, but it is well accepted as a realistic estimate of our future ethnic/cultural make-up.  So for those who find this an uncomfortable statistic, I suggest a retooling of mindset in order to be successful in our “new” world.

A good friend of mine related to me that he (like many of my colleagues in the law) was raised in a middle class, white, suburban, Christian community during the 1960s and 1970s.  To him, this was America.  The only “diversity” he experienced was between Irish, Germans, Polish, Italians, Catholic and Protestants (and various mixtures of those particular groups).  Once in a while there might be an Asian or Asian Pacific person who crossed his path.  So, while this was a diverse group in one sense, in another it was very homogenous.

My friend met his first black person in college as well as his first Jewish person (at a Catholic university).  As he told it, these people were unfamiliar to him and he did not know how to relate to them.  Not only had he never met people like this, but what he “knew” about them from others was generally negative.  As one might guess, he avoided them as anyone might do when confronted with an uncomfortable situation.

What does any of this have to do with the latest charter school to be approved by the CPS system?  The lawyer community is going to be given the opportunity to step up and assist the school as it accepts its first class of freshmen next year, the graduating “Class of 2016.”  We will be given mentoring, teaching and other project based opportunities.

We must take advantage of these opportunities so that we can get to know the students in these programs.  We must let them see who we are and learn who they are.  We need to teach each other about each others’ backgrounds, our respective upbringing, our neighborhoods and home life.  People will open up if given an emotionally safe  environment that encourages openness and sharing of sometimes uncomfortable and unfounded preconceptions about each other.  All participants will learn about each other.  Misconceptions, prejudgments and false stereotypical characterizations of each other will dissolve.

The people who participate will learn that despite their differences, we are all more alike than different.  By getting to know people who are “different,” who come from a different place, socially, culturally, financially and geographically, walls are broken down and bridges built – one person, one mentor/mentee relationship at a time.  People begin to see that yes, there may be differences in speech, food, skin color and so on, but also that they really aren’t that different in their core – they are human beings wanting to provide for their families, desiring good education and the opportunity to excel.

When we come to this level of understanding, we no longer avoid each other or walk on the other side of the street.  As lawyers, as leaders of our business and neighborhood communities, we are called to take a leadership role in this process.  The new Chicago Legal Prep Academy and people like Sam Finkelstein will provide us an opportunity to do so.

For more on Chicago Legal Prep Academy click here: http://www.legalprep.org/

Enhance Your Integrity by Fessing Up to Your Mistakes

“A man (or woman) must be big enough to admit his mistakes, smart enough to profit from them, and strong enough to correct them. “

John C. Maxwell

A source of great discomfort for many people, especially lawyers, is to admit error.  As lawyers, we often look for someone to blame when something goes wrong.  We work hard to find the root cause of the problem.  We do this for several reasons, among them: (1) to assess responsibility and accountability (usually financial) so that the “wrong” can be made “right”; and, (2) to ensure that the same mistake is not repeated.  But what happens when your investigation concludes that you caused the problem or made the mistake?  How many of us are man or woman enough to step up to the plate and take our due, at whatever expense to our career or personal life?

We are not paid to make mistakes.  We are paid to avoid them.  Lawyers live in a grey world where there is usually no course of action that is 100 percent risk free.  Rarely are we involved in a decision that gives us the option of “no risk” versus “certain risk.”  Inherent in the practice of law is the possibility that a risk will be realized.  In such cases, clients look for blame, and it is often the lawyer to whom they look first.  This is a hazard of our profession and should be avoidable by fully informing our clients of the risks involved in taking certain actions over certain other actions, and of course, documenting that advice for later reference if needed.

However, what does one do if a real mistake is made and you are the cause?  In my opinion, the best practice is to fess up and admit when you are wrong about an issue and move on.  Being upfront and honest about how the mistake was made and the circumstances surrounding it gives you credibility and ensures your good reputation with your client.  This is very practical, but difficult, advice to both give and to follow.  However, there is terrific upside.  The most important positive long term benefit is that your client will learn to trust you more.  If you can admit that you made a mistake in a certain circumstance, your client will believe you and trust your judgment the next time because she knows that you are not trying to hide anything from her or to simply make yourself look good.

Another reason to be upfront is that the people with whom we work on a daily basis are very smart –  smart enough to figure out if the intention driving your finger pointing is to focus attention everywhere but upon yourself.  They will eventually figure out where the problem originated at which point you will either be immediately out of a job, on your way out of a job, or effectively distrusted to the point where you can no longer perform your job effectively.  A friend of mine told me about an interview he had with the CEO of his company.  The CEO told him that the company is very leanly staffed and if you make a mistake, own up to it and move on – but do not try to hide it because there is nowhere to hide and that it will be discovered sooner or later.  This same friend told me that there have been a couple of times when he has gone to his boss and said, “I screwed up.”  He said, “It isn’t easy to do but easier than I thought it would be before I started the job.”  This lawyer has clearly established himself as a trusted advisor in the company and has developed a relationship with his supervisor that allows this to occur.  Much is to be said for the supervisor who recognizes that people do make mistakes and that allowing them to come clean is a positive approach to dealing with errors and the steps necessary to correct them.

The first step in Maxwell’s advice is to admit the mistake, first to oneself and second to the people to whom you are responsible.  A mistake usually leads to wisdom.  A typical lawyer will then work very hard to correct the mistake (and no doubt succeed in correcting it).  In the end, you will be a better, smarter, more trustworthy attorney.

“No one who conceals transgressions will prosper, but one who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.”

Proverbs 28:13

Listen

“We are given two ears, but only one mouth. This is because God knew that listening was twice as hard as talking.”

Unknown

Lawyers are taught to listen.  Good lawyers actually do listen.  But many of us are too busy thinking about what we are going to say next to actually listen carefully to what our partner in conversation is saying and the meaning behind the words.  Lawyers spend countless hours honing their writing and verbal skills.  However, being an excellent lawyer and a great business leader require exceptional listening skills.  People admire other people who listen to them, more so than the big talker in the room who believes that what he has to say is more important than what anyone else can possibly add to the conversation (or at least he acts this way).  Becoming a good listener will help you advance your career.  So what does it take to be a good listener?

Concentrate.  Good listening requires the listener to put aside all distractions and focus on the language, words and non-verbal cues the speaker is giving to you.  Focus on the words, the ideas and the feelings the speaker is expressing. Concentrate on the main ideas and points, try not to be distracted by off topic meanderings.

Pay attention.  Pay attention to the speaker, let her know that you are listening by acting like a listener.  All the while that you are assessing her communication with you (words, interpreting voice inflection and modulation, reading body language and facial expressions) she is doing the same.  She is looking at you trying to determine if what she is saying resonates with you, if you understand it, if the words “touch” your emotions or break through to your intellect.  Let her know that you are listening by maintaining eye contact, giving non-verbal cues such as nodding or leaning forward, look her in the eyes and let her feel that you “hear and you understand” what she is saying to you.

Maintain a receptive body posture – do not cross arms and legs or sit turned away from the speaker.  Rather, sit with arms gently to your side or slightly folded hands on your lap.  Do not play with your personal communication device – if necessary, turn it off in front of the speaker, sending a message that nothing is more important than what she has to say to you right now.

Be open.  Maybe, just maybe, the speaker will have something to say to you that you don’t already know.  If you have an attitude of objective receptiveness, she might convince you of a different and better way of thinking about a particular topic or a novel (to you anyway) means to approach a problem.  As lawyers, this can prove exceptionally difficult because we are often expected to have all the answers.  So we start to act as if we do.  It is amazing what we can learn when we accept that we do not have the answer for every problem and then listen carefully with an open mind to those who might have a deeper knowledge on a particular subject.

Restate the message the speaker gives you.  In this manner, you show that you are listening very carefully and that you have a desire to know exactly what she is trying to communicate to you.  Many times repeating the message in your own words gives rise to clarification or further development of the communication such that both parties benefit from a deeper dive into the subject matter.  Also, ask questions.  If you do not understand a point, or require further refinement, ask for clarification.

Do not interrupt.  You may think you can say it better than the speaker, but interrupting sends a clear unequivocal message that you believe what you have to say is much more important, relevant or insightful than what the speaker is saying.  Otherwise, why would you need to put an end to their message to get your own thoughts verbalized?

Put yourself in the speaker’s position so that you really have a better perspective as to where she is coming from.  Context is extremely important in understanding a person’s message and the “why” behind the need for its expression.

Remember, a conversation takes at least two people – a speaker and a listener.  Each party flips from one to the other in an instant.  For productive, meaningful conversations to take place, we cannot be thinking only about what we are going to say next.  We must exercise good listening skills to fully engage and learn the most we can from the conversation and hopefully, advance the cause of both the listener and the speaker.

“If you love to listen you will gain knowledge, and if you pay attention you will become wise.” 

Sirach 6:33

Mentoring: The Key to a Bright Future*

Mentor: a wise and trusted counselor or teacher; an influential senior sponsor or supporter.

The definition of mentor certainly lends itself to my perception of what a good lawyer should be — wise (of course), a counselor and certainly influential. So then, as lawyers in positions of influence, should we not devote some amount of our precious time to mentoring young people who express an interest in the law? How do we create a pipeline of good, honest, ethical, smart and intelligent lawyers to take our place when our time is done? We take advantage of our position today to ensure a future for our profession tomorrow. We teach. We mold students. We take advantage of opportunities to show them what lawyering is all about and guide them as they make decisions about their futures. According to Socrates, “The right way to begin is to pay attention to the young, and make them just as good as possible.”   

Lawyers from ACC’s Chicago Chapter participated in a mentoring opportunity this summer with the ACC Chicago Chapter Minority Law Student Summer Internship Program. The program, just completing its eighth year, serves the legal community in several ways: For one, the program places rising 2Ls in internship positions at top notch legal departments in the Chicago metro area, providing students with an invaluable, unique perspective into in-house practice that typically takes years to develop before one enters the coveted offices of the in-house world. Further, the program presents intense personal mentoring to each student regarding all aspects of what it means to be a professional — from interview skills, resume writing, proper attire and interpersonal skills (eye to eye contact, firm handshake, etc.). The students receive feedback and advice worth many years of real-world trial and error, because it comes from experienced people who have already made the mistakes. It also opens the eyes of many people to some of the challenges faced by minority students — challenges that they would not understand but for the relationship with the students. So, in that vein, the mentors may actually become more enlightened than the students as a result of their interactions. Lastly, it creates deep, lasting and meaningful relationships between mentors and mentees, and enhances the reputation of ACC and its members in the legal community.

I think we can all agree that mentoring young people is good for the legal community and the community at large, but what personal benefit will you receive as the result of your mentoring efforts?

First and foremost, you will be making the legal profession better, one person at a time. Mentoring provides you the opportunity to share your values with those entering the profession. We all have a responsibility to ensure our profession continues to maintain the highest ethical standards. Answers to questions the legal professional faces are often not clearly black or white — there is much more gray. Therefore, guidance based on one’s personal experience will help the uninitiated navigate the unknown, avoid mistakes that have been made by the mentor, and answer those questions with a much higher degree of confidence.

Mentoring is a wonderful way to build your own personal network while creating a lasting legacy that will exist beyond your professional life and that of your mentee’s. Part of mentoring is imbuing the mentee with a sense of responsibility to give back to the community. So, as your values are passed to your mentee, she too will pass those values on to her mentee, and so on down the line. Today’s mentees are tomorrow’s leaders, so not only will you have a higher degree of exposure to an emerging talent pool, but you will also be helping people who may one day be hiring people like you!

Mentoring enables you to practice your leadership skills and to receive honest feedback. The mentoring process should include the mentee providing feedback to you. Is she receiving your advice loud and clear? Are there any miscues in the way that you approach the process? How does your style fit with a younger generation of professional? How can you tailor your message or methodology to better communicate core values that are not generationally limited?

In addition to generational differences, you may also benefit from exposure to a young professional that may have a richly diverse background from your own (e.g., a different race, religion, personality style, economic background, national origin, citizenship, etc.). They are also excellent teachers in new media and technology trends, and they can help you improve your skill set.

“Mentoring brings us together — across generation, class, and often race — in a manner that forces us to acknowledge our interdependence, to appreciate, in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s words, that ‘we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied to a single garment of destiny.’ In this way, mentoring enables us to participate in the essential but unfinished drama of reinventing community, while reaffirming that there is an important role for each of us in it.”
Marc Freedman, author of The Kindness of Strangers: Adult Mentors, Urban Youth, and the New Voluntarism

Let’s be honest, you will also feel good about yourself because you are helping someone else be successful. With relatively little investment on your part, you will have imparted a great deal of wisdom (presumably) and experience to a less sophisticated, but equally passionate, new or soon-to-be lawyer.

If you have an intern or mentee, legal or otherwise, take advantage of the opportunity to enhance the intern’s experience by giving her meaningful face time, and truly serving as a trusted guide and counselor. If you do not mentor someone, then start now. You will provide that person with knowledge drawn from valuable real-world experience that simply cannot be obtained in the classroom.

Finally, as in-house counsel, it is important that our communities know we are hard working, ethical, caring, responsible, enlightened and decent people. Tell your friends and neighbors about your mentoring activities. Let people know that lawyers continue to work hard to make the world a better place to live. You have another fine tangible example of good work to cite in the ACC Program, of how the legal profession reaches out to the community to improve it. It is a demonstrable example of the value system that we in-house lawyers hold true — opportunity, professionalism, ethics and mentoring.   Through this program, ACC Chicago is helping to make great lawyers who will be noticed. The community deserves to know that we are doing our part!

“The direction in which education starts a man will determine his future in life.” -Plato

*Note: this post first appeared on the Association of Corporate Counsel "In-house ACCess" webpage.  Click on the title to see original.