Category: Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve been in-house at many different organizations, from a huge pharmaceutical company, to big public-facing non-profits, to a tech start-up. I’ve been lucky to work for a variety of excellent leaders and general counsel, and I believe that has given me a leg up in this role. That diversity of experience helped me learn the flexibility required for this role and how to handle the different types of issues I regularly tackle here.

I didn’t always want to work in-house – when I came out of law school I wasn’t sure what I wanted to do – but when I got married and started thinking about starting a family, I felt if I wanted to continue to be a lawyer and practice actively, in-house was the best route to go. I had watched women leave large firms to go in-house for years. I think in-house roles have always been perceived as better for women, because there are more development and promotional opportunities and a better work-life balance. In reality, my experience has been that being in-house is a better place for both women and men – and especially for working parents. Those development and promotion opportunities do tend to happen in a much more fluid way in-house.

Now, as general counsel, I see my role more than anything as a problem-solver. The biggest leap into this role required relying on my judgement and having the confidence to back myself. I had been an employment lawyer for almost 20 years before I became a general counsel, and it was tricky to take the confidence I had in my judgement as an employment lawyer, and transfer it to other legal areas. It only took a couple of days, though, to see that, even with my focus on employment law and my varied career, I’ve had exposure to all kinds of different legal and business matters.

To get that exposure, it was key to work at different organizations with different risk appetites, different business models and different types of leadership. Exposure to a diversity of legal problems and problem-solvers prepares you for a job like this. Given my own experience, my advice to attorneys looking to move into a GC role is to take chances and to not hesitate to try different organizations and different types of roles, and don’t get stuck. Being at one place for too long can make it hard to have the flexibility and exposure you need to take on a role like general counsel.

As for other challenges in coming to this role, one that stands out above the rest is giving legal advice to the former President of the United States for the first time! In terms of the wow factor, you can’t beat that.

Beyond that, moving from a fast-paced technology startup to the Foundation has been a challenging transition. Adjusting my pace of work and the way I think about risk assessment to a much more careful and deliberate approach took some adjustment. Even though every place has to manage reputational risk, managing it at the Clinton Foundation is different from most others.

Probably what prepared me best for that aspect of this role was working at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The Museum is also a public-facing institution that gets an enormous amount of press, so the risk appetite there is pretty similar to that of the Foundation. The way in which the legal department at the Met thought about issues and how they might play out at the Museum was quite similar to the way that we think about issues here: first, of course, is what is the right thing to do? Then we start thinking about if we get media coverage, what would it look like, what would it mean for the roles of the principals, how would this reflect on board members? Those are questions that a tech startup or a big pharma company wouldn’t necessarily be thinking about in the same way.

About 80% of the work I do at the Foundation is typical general counsel work, ranging from board governance matters to reviewing partnership agreements and large contracts, weighing in on compliance issues, advising on legal matters in foreign countries, working with outside auditors, HR-type issues, as well as being a member of the senior leadership team. The other 20% is special because we are the Clinton Foundation: I might be working with our communications team responding to media requests, or managing issues that are specific to our particular board leadership, the Presidential Center and work around the President’s legacy.

I’m proud to be working for the Foundation and to get to see the work it does up close and through the legal lens. Whether it’s helping small shareholder farmers in Africa, fishermen and women in South America, or folks struggling here in the US, all the programs that the Foundation runs are incredibly important, and getting to be a part of them is rewarding. Right after I started here, the massive hurricanes hit in Texas, Florida and the Caribbean. The legal department supports the Foundation’s work in the Caribbean which includes helping to coordinate aid, working with Caribbean countries in their efforts toward alternative power solutions and distributing medical supplies to devastated areas. Even being a small part of that has been very, very gratifying.

The legal department at the Foundation is a very strong and diverse group, and many of the members of the department have been at the Foundation for quite a while. One of my goals is to make sure those individuals see a path forward for their careers. I’ve benefited from working for several strong leaders who took a keen interest in my development as a professional. I’m looking for ways to do the same for my colleagues at the Foundation. When you’re in a small team at a relatively flat organization, it can be hard to help individuals figure out how to develop themselves and what the right next career steps are. I think that being an excellent people manager is becoming a very important role for general counsel – really understanding who’s on your team, where they’re looking to go, and how you can help them get there. We all want to have high-performing teams that make important contributions to the organization. Getting there is not something they teach you in law school.

Luckily for me, I have a partner in the Foundation’s HR department. We have a strong mentoring program here and other learning opportunities to help employees at the Foundation develop career-wise. As general counsel, I view it as my job to make this in-house legal team a great place to work. That means making sure the work is interesting and challenging, that the team is diverse and that individuals can see a path forward for their careers, and that they can balance their work life with all the other things that they need and want to spend their time on.

The other thing I’ve been thinking about is the use of metrics. We haven’t used them a lot in the legal department at the Foundation (although of course the Foundation uses them to measure the work we do around the world), but it’s something I’m looking at more closely to make sure that the legal department is spending the most time on the work that’s most important to the Foundation. One thing I learned working in the start-up world is that understanding the work qualitatively, and quantitatively, even in the legal department, is part of the good management of the group.

No matter what your practice, getting international experience is incredibly important. I think it is great advice for all in-house attorneys these days to get international exposure. Whether it’s doing an international deal, working on setting up entities internationally, or working on an employment law issue or lawsuit internationally – anything that gets you out of your US jurisdiction to see how different it can be to practice in other places is a good start. Just knowing what questions to ask if you are going to be doing business in Japan, or Malawi or Colombia will put you a step ahead of colleagues without those experiences.

For the eight years prior to joining Planetary Resources, I was in-house counsel with the US State Department, in the Office of the Legal Adviser. I spent the first couple of years handling international arbitration matters on behalf of US investors involved in disputes with foreign governments. I then spent six and a half years working on international technology matters – partnerships for the development of technology, for regulation of advanced technologies including outer space, and I also was responsible for international environmental matters, including in the Arctic.

I came to the State Department with a bit of an unusual background for an international lawyer, having focused on IP and technology law as much as international law. Because of my IP background and my comfort and facility with technical subject matter, a lot of the State Department’s work involving science, advanced technology, and innovation policy accreted to me over the years, and I was able to handle a lot of international technology transactions over the course of my time there.

Planetary Resources recruited me as its first general counsel a little more than a year ago. I think that they’d seen me in action in the years in which I was the US representative to the United Nations Outer Space Legal Subcommittee, and in space policy circles, crafting legislation for the next generation of commercial space activities. I had wanted to go in-house at a technology company, and this was a particularly compelling opportunity because the team is just extraordinary – it’s an exquisite collection of professionals and colleagues working on a very difficult world-changing mission.

I think I was as interested in space as any young person with a pulse, but compared to many I work with, it wasn’t a primary passion. I am more generally interested in technology, technological innovation and the research and development process – and space resource utilization, as a next frontier within the next frontier, is particularly interesting in this regard. And in that sense, working with a team of talented engineers and scientists on really hard problems – particularly ones that present difficult questions with regard to regulatory and economic dimensions, in addition to the technical dimensions – is quite satisfying.

Very few days have gone by in the last year when I haven’t done something entirely new to me – if not entirely new, period! But the leap was not as much as I expected, and actually eight years as an in-house counsel at the State Department turned out to be pretty good training. At the State Department, I found myself fielding questions that no one had ever thought about on quite a regular basis and I had to do something with them, so I found the pace of the GC role familiar. I think it uses a lot of the same muscle groups that I had developed in guiding large, international partnerships and transactions through to completion. In the past those might have involved governments, and the form might have been a treaty, but it was a similar skillset, a similar set of dynamics and similar challenges that arose, which felt very transportable to complex corporate transactions.

I feel strongly that the role of the general counsel, particularly in a technology company, requires enough of an understanding of the company’s technology to understand how to optimize legal transactions to facilitate research and development, rather than constrain it. I feel like I’ve had good success in doing that and working very closely with our technical teams to understand their needs, their interests and what the pain points are, and also to help them to understand the legal landscape and to craft creative legal solutions that dispense with things that might have placed drag on the innovation process.

I think that it’s quite important for the GC to be able to understand the technology and the business well enough to be able to provide legal advice not in isolation, but that integrates an understanding of the business and technical dimensions as well. The general counsel doesn’t need to be able to design the spacecraft (and probably shouldn’t!) but they do need to understand the key points of what challenges the engineers are facing, and where there are legal solutions that can mitigate some of those challenges.

On the practice management side, necessity is the mother of invention. Being a GC of a company at this stage, there is so much to do in any one day, across so many different things, that you need to be quite creative in managing work flow. I’ve taken advantage of the very talented software developers at Planetary Resources to create systems and workflows to manage how we handle non-disclosure agreements, for example. Part of it is process design, part of it is a little bit of back-end automation, but things like that make a difference not only in preventing me from becoming a choke point, but I think also have served the users of those documents well.

For some things, like funding rounds, you need the horsepower of a large firm to move with the speed and quality that we need. But also, in a startup that has big world-changing mission and vision relative to the size of its budget for outside counsel, I’ve had to be quite creative and sparing with what I do in-house versus what is outsourced. I’ve done some experimentation to figure out what’s possible, and whether we can do more with less. One example is that I’ve experimented with preparing some patent applications in-house, and worked with patent counsel to refine, finalize and file them – which is a large work burden in-house, but enables us to file for more patents than we would otherwise.

There seems to be smaller practitioners, even solo practitioners, with sterling credentials who have experience both with the very top firms and also in-house, who are providing services at comparatively approachable rates. There are all kinds of software platforms springing up too, that connect in-house legal departments with those people, who are harder to find. I can’t say whether that’s a trend yet, but it’s certainly interesting, because as a GC in a startup who is doing lots of different things on lots of different fronts, you have to be quite creative on how to stretch the budget for outside counsel. Anything that allows us to get the same level of quality for less is quite attractive, and something we will probably explore.

A fun part of the job is the chance to be a pioneer in determining how the international legal framework applies to space resource utilization and how the national legal frameworks plug into that, and that fits very well with my background. Right now, for example, I’m in The Hague at something called Track 1.5 diplomacy, where representatives of governments, academic institutions, companies and NGOs come together outside of a formal treaty-making process to try and develop a set of building blocks that might later be injected into a law-making process. But that’s a rather small percentage of what I do day-to-day. I do more in the realm of either corporate transactions, IP, contracts, export controls, as well as labor and employment law. There’s quite a lot of Delaware corporate law, for example, which makes it challenging to stay on top of, but ultimately makes for more certainty in the answers.

The general counsel of a company as innovative as Planetary Resources needs to see himself or herself as an integral part of that innovation engine. It’s too easy as a lawyer to be quite conservative and risk averse in ways that can choke the innovation process, so it’s incumbent on the GC to have a very good understanding of where the risks and opportunities are, and to have excellent judgement in balancing that to enable the rate of innovation that our investors expect, without taking on undue amounts of risk.

I started out at a big Wall Street firm. I received excellent training, and worked on different matters for different clients, but I aspired more than anything to work for one single client.

I was just a fourth-year associate when I transferred into PepsiCo, which was nearly 20 years ago – so I’ve essentially had a career within a company. When I joined, the law department had a reputation for insourcing as much of the work as possible, and that was critical to me because I needed to continue to learn.

That’s really been my story for nearly 20 years – PepsiCo is a place where if you do your current job really well, we will let you do something different, even if you don’t theoretically have the experience from a subject matter perspective. I’ve had the opportunity to do a lot of different things internally that I don’t think I ever would have gotten if I had gone to the open market. So it’s been a good learning environment for me, and it’s in the DNA and the culture of PepsiCo to allow that to happen.

I’ve had the benefit of being at the company for a long time, so I think I have a good understanding of the business, the organization, the risk profile and the risk tolerance. But in taking the role of general counsel, the biggest learning curve for me was the necessity to really lift my perspective from any one particular part of the company, to an overall perspective – a broader view. The decisions that I’m involved in now definitely impact different parts of the company, and making sure that I understand and appreciate the multifactorial element of any one decision across the global business is really important.

Currently, I oversee the company’s worldwide compliance and ethics, public policy and government affairs, and legal functions. I often find myself cross-checking what impact there may be in any one of those departments, even when the issue doesn’t squarely fit within that particular department, in order to ensure that I’m not missing a potential impact of a decision made in one part of the company on another part of the company.

It’s hard for me to concede that anybody would be prepared, on day one, to handle all the various aspects of my role. No matter what background anybody would have, there’s going to be learning that would have to happen after you get into the role. I’m biased, but the benefit of having worked at PepsiCo for so long has meant not having to learn so much about the business, which can be very difficult to get to by itself. My time is very much pulled into matters that are global in nature, rather than the detailed parts of the business, but fortunately I have been able to learn the business from the ground up.

I would love to be able to tell you about some Thomas Edison-like moments during my first 100 days in the job in which I have innovated and invented something that’s new and novel! I can’t say that I’ve done that. But what I would say, having practiced law for 25 years, is that there’s been ongoing, continuous improvement. You’re constantly finding ways to do things a little faster, a little quicker, a little bit more insightfully. Certainly the sharing of information and the storing of knowledge is an important part of what we do, and the things that we’ve invested in within the legal team are really around information preservation, as well as enabling more efficient flow of work.

Thinking about the evolution of legal services, I’m not sure that there’s some big cliff or huge step upwards, whether in-house or in private practice. I certainly anticipate that efficiency models will continue to come to bear. For example, possible technologies that are rooted in artificial intelligence, or that are driven to figure out how big volumes of work can be carried out more cost-effectively, or even some predictive models around the magnitude of risks in the litigation environment. I anticipate people will get faster doing what they do and there will be attempts to be more predictive about trying to quantify risks. But I do think that legal services, at the most critical moment, is a judgement-oriented deal. My mind doesn’t go to innovation or models that will ultimately provide answers, my mind goes to models that will help provide information that ultimately will inform the judgement that lawyers have always historically had to bring to bear.

The role of my team is to mitigate risk for the company. When you get into mitigating risk from a business leader’s perspective, that means doing something different or allocating money, time or resources. A lot of times, lawyers are very good at highlighting the risk, and saying that it’s a ‘big risk’ or that it’s a ‘material risk’, but I think in order for us to really effectively influence, assist and counsel our business clients, we actually have to be willing – and a little bit more evolved in our ability – to put a value on that risk, so that a business leader can ultimately weigh it against the value of the resources, time or energy that he or she might have to place in order to mitigate that risk. I push our lawyers here internally to be innovative in their ways of thinking about risk and how to put a value on that risk, which really is at the core of helping advise our business around making actionable decisions.

Frankly, a lot of the best moments for me are successes that are unseen – knowing that we helped advise or guide the business client to avoid a risk, so that the risk never manifested. In some ways, those are instances of secret successes that make a difference.

The general counsel is certainly one of the go-to counselors for the CEO and the board, but it’s not just on the law, it’s on a whole broader series of topics – whether it’s ethics, public policy, corporate citizenship, even geopolitical risks. It’s the wearing of these multiple hats that has really evolved over the past decade – going from just being a legal adviser to being an ethical watchdog, dealing with rule of law matters in developing markets and ultimately being involved in protecting the corporate reputation. At its core, there’s still a fiduciary duty that the general counsel has to the shareholders, but the role has certainly broadened. Candidly, I almost view the title of general counsel as being unduly narrow as a description of the full role.

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

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

One’s ability to influence is rooted in having substantive subject matter competence as well as personal character – which means that you are trustworthy, and you live by a certain level of principles. Across each one of those vectors, I need to be substantively competent in the issues that any one of those groups cares about. And then I need to be good at the point of contact, just as a personal proposition: I have the character, my word is good, I carry through on my commitment with truth and honesty. And then you’ve just got to ultimately work hard and be humble enough to learn from and listen to everyone you come into contact with. Hopefully, over the course of time, with some intentionality about learning across each one of those groups, you develop both that sense of character and competence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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