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/

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.

Emotional Intelligence

“…the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer, “Emotional Intelligence”, 1990

A high Emotional Intelligence Quotient, or EQ, is an essential element of a successful lawyer’s personality. This is readily apparent from the definition set forth above. Some scholars believe that one’s EQ is set at birth while others believe that Emotional Intelligence can be learned and developed. In either case, breaking down the several elements that make up the EQ helps one to better understand the concept of EI. When one is aware of the various factors that enter into the EQ, one can work to harness the insight gained and enhance the ability to interact with the client.

As is the case in traditional psychological sciences, there are several schools of thought that address the concept of EI. I will look at the model posed by Salovey and Mayer in their 1990 article “Emotional Intelligence.”

Salovey and Mayer break down EI into four basic elements: (1) Perceiving emotions; (2) Reasoning with emotions; (3) Understanding emotions; and (4) Managing emotions. In the context of our profession, it is very important for us to be in tune with the emotions of our clients.

You might wonder why someone’s emotional state is so important in our delivery of legal advice. It is important to remember, while our client is the company, the company is made up of people. People cannot be separated from their emotions. As people and employees, they may have concerns about their job performance, the decisions they have made that are now being questioned (or are going to make based on your advice), the mistakes they may have made (or are perceived to have made) and impact they are having on the business. People also have lives outside the company. A sick wife, child or parent, financial problems, major life decisions – all have an impact on the emotional well being of the individual and hence impact the manner in which they address the business problem at hand and in turn the manner in which you provide counsel.

As lawyers, once we have a sense of the emotional state of our client, we need to understand the root of that emotion. Is it business related, or personal in nature? Does it revolve around you and the advice you have given in the past and anticipation about what advice you might give now? Or, does it involve someone else in the business? What is the client’s relationship with that person? What is your relationship with that third person and with the client?

The most important aspect of the Salovey and Mayer model for you to consider is how to deal with the knowledge and insight you have gained into your client’s emotional state. This is the real test of your EQ. Those lawyers who are successful are able to make an accurate assessment of what they are dealing with and react with an approach that is complementary to the given situation.

My friend Jenifer Robbins, General Counsel at FPL Advisory Group, summed up lawyers’ EQ in one word – “Empathy”. The ability to relate to your client on an emotional level is absolutely essential for the successful corporate attorney and business person.

As you approach your daily activities, take a moment to think about those with whom you are interacting and try to gauge their emotional state, think about why they might be feeling the way they do, and take into consideration their perspectives and emotional state as you interact with them.

“Human behavior flows from three main sources: desire, emotion, and knowledge”

Plato

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule, also known as the ethic of reciprocity, in its various manifestations and restatements over thousands of years forms the basis for almost every culture in human history.  Why then is it so hard to abide by this seemingly simple rule?  More importantly, why is it so hard for lawyers to practice it?

We are duty bound to zealously represent our clients.  Some lawyers treat this duty as a license to use every dirty trick in the dirty lawyer book to accomplish the client goals, as long as those tricks don’t technically violate a rule or cross an ethical line.  Lawyers are human beings and as such are not immune to moral and ethical dilemmas.  All of us, lawyer and non-lawyer, face choices every day.  Those choices have consequences – good and bad.  Many times, the prospect of personal or professional gain distracts us from making the right choice – the choice that we would want our similarly situated colleagues to make were the roles reversed.

Practicing the Golden Rule in our personal and professional lives should be the very essence of what it is to be a lawyer.   But, how do we reconcile our ethical obligations to our client with the universal of the Golden Rule?  That is somewhat of a trick question as I do not think they are necessarily at odds.

Lawyers have a system of rules governing the substance of what we do every day (statutes, regulations, court rules, case law) as well as ethical rules which govern our conduct.  When we play in the lawyering space, we play knowing that these rules are in place – we accept them as a given, something that comes with the privilege of practicing law.  Smart lawyers know and understand the rationale for these rules and do their best to mind both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Part of what it means to act zealously is to work to test and sometimes change the law.  In order to do this, we sometimes have to advance arguments that might seem specious to some, valid to others.  In addition to the law, lawyers must deal with people.  People are a part of everything we do.  Our clients provide us with strategic business plans, advertising copy, lists of people affected by reductions in force, contracts and the facts in litigation matters.  When one understands the fluid nature of the law and that facts are recollected by people with differing perspectives of what occurred, there is almost always room for legitimate arguments to be made.  However, making legitimate arguments is a far cry from manipulating the system, committing mischief, playing dirty or treating others poorly.  There is never a legitimate excuse for failing to practice the ethic of reciprocity, the Golden Rule.

As lawyers, we should first and foremost represent our clients to the best of our ability.  This does not imply taking cheap shots at opposing counsel or making frivolous arguments.  Rather, implicit in this duty is the responsibility to act within the bounds of the rules set in place by the authorities that govern our practice.  As a profession with a high calling, it is also our duty and responsibility to put ourselves into the position of the lawyer (and the client) on the other side of the matter and act according to the principles of the ethic of reciprocity.  Respect that lawyer and her client as you expect to be respected.  Treat the lawyer and her client the way that you expect and deserve to be treated.  Do not be underhanded, do not lie.  Abide by the Golden Rule in whichever manifestation you recognize it.

“…Love your neighbor as yourself.”
                                                                                                                             Leviticus 19:18

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

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