Tipping the Scales

Lee Gesmer: “Finding a Way to Recharge Your Batteries Within the Profession…Is Critical to Career Longevity”

Published by tippingthescales on March 6, 2014 | 1 Response

Lee Gesmer is a founder and partner of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, a Boston-based firm formed in 1986 that focuses on the representation of technology companies and emerging businesses. Lee’s practice focuses on litigation in the areas of business and intellectual property law. He is a former Council member and former Co-Chair of the BBA Intellectual Property Section, as well as the Computer and Internet Law and Business Litigation Committees.

1. What inspired you to take the leap and start your own firm?

My father owned his own business, and I worked for him summers in my teens. He taught me how important it is to work for yourself. He really believed America was the land of opportunity for people willing to take the risk of starting their own businesses. He embedded that idea in me at an impressionable age. When I graduated from law school, my plan was to work for a couple of good firms and get enough experience that I could start my own firm.

I was interested in antitrust in law school and went to a D.C. firm that specialized almost entirely in antitrust litigation. But after a couple of years I became homesick for Boston. After I returned to Boston in the early ‘80s I became aware of what was then called the “microcomputer revolution.” This was back when almost nobody knew who Steve Jobs was, and a “portable computer” was the size of a sewing machine and weighed 30 pounds. I saw that something important was happening and it seemed like the opportunity I was looking for. So I started to get involved in that area of law – we called it “computer law” – and I joined the Boston Computer Society, an influential organization at the time; in fact, when Steve Jobs debuted the Mac, he did so at a BCS event in 1984.

From there I started to meet a lot of people who were becoming involved in the personal computer industry in New England, including a few lawyers. I became more and more convinced that this new industry was an opportunity for a new law firm– almost no one was focusing in this area, and I recognized that we were at an optimal entry point for a firm focused around this new technology. Eventually, two lawyers I’d met (one of whom has since left the firm) decided to form a firm with me. When we started in 1986, there was no other firm in Boston that held itself out as practicing “computer law”. We’ve expanded our practice since 1986, but we’ve always maintained our focus on technology clients.

2. If you were to go back in time to 1986 and tell yourself anything to prepare you for the years ahead, what would it be?

I think that the degree of sheer grit and determination that would be required, the ability to struggle through really challenging times, was something I didn’t recognize in 1986. If I could go back to1986 I’d tell myself: “it’s going to be harder than you think, and you’re going to need a deep commitment in order to succeed. You can’t fold when it gets really hard, and don’t fool yourself, it will get hard.” The firm had very few challenges from 1986 to 2000 – it was mostly clear sailing for those 14 years, with slow, steady growth at first. But in the late ‘90s our clients evolved from software companies to Internet companies along with the Internet bubble. When that bubble crashed in 2000, there was a contraction in our client base. It was a big challenge to adjust to that. It took a deep personal commitment on the part of the firm’s partners to struggle through that period.

In a sense, when the 2008 recession occurred, we were prepared because we’d already been through it once, so it was not as much of a challenge as I think it was for a lot of other firms. We’ve been through two really challenging business contractions – 2000-2002 and 2008 – and having the determination to see the firm through those periods was difficult. I would also tell myself, if I could go back to 1986, “don’t ever assume you have it made.” I mistakenly thought that any challenges would come early in the life of the firm, not after 14 years. I now know there are firms that have shuttered their doors after many decades in business, so you can never take your success for granted.

3. You maintain a personal law blog (www.MassLawBlog.com) – why is it important to you to devote time outside the office to this endeavor? In your opinion, how do personal projects like this shape a leader?

First, let me say that my partner Andy Updegrove maintains a blog (consortiuminfo.org), and I think he is one of the earliest and most prolific bloggers in the nation, as well as a published novelist. So there are two long-time bloggers at our firm.

I started my blog in 2005. I do it not because anybody is asking me to do it – I do it because I like to write. I know that this helps me understand my practice areas far better than what I could accomplish without my blog. I tend to think that you don’t understand something fully until you’ve taught it or written about it. It keeps me up-to-date in my practice area – which is so fast-moving that it’s a constant challenge.

There have been times I’ve been so busy I haven’t written for months, but those periods are rare. I’m always on the lookout for topics that I think I can write about. But there has to be a strong impulse to write on whatever the topic is, whether it’s a case or another legal development – I don’t force the process. At times I’ll go home and knock out a blog post in an evening. The more you do it, the easier it gets.

If you’re going to be a lawyer for decades, there’s a really serious burnout risk. You read a lot in professional journals about burnout in the legal profession. Often, people become bored or complacent, whether they admit it to themselves or not. They lose their enthusiasm and become stale. It’s nice to find a way to recharge your batteries within the profession itself. Finding something that you have real passion for is critical to career longevity. I think that’s a really important part of this job. People who get involved at the BBA get passionate about that, for example, and it serves that purpose; it’s the same with people who do pro bono work. You have to do something for yourself along the way or your career longevity may be at risk. For me, blogging helps fulfill that need.

4. Across the variety of committees and Sections in which you have served at the BBA, what overarching perspective about leadership and the legal community have you gained? What has been important to you to bring to the table?

First off, I have to say that the BBA Council is a very educational experience. The BBA is like a vast machine with an untold number of moving parts reflecting the Massachusetts legal economy, and it takes a long time to put that all together and understand what’s going on. I saw the tremendous commitment that the President, President-elect, and other officers make to the BBA. They have to have a deep passion for what they’re doing, and I really respect that. When you become a Council member, you get exposed to so many issues within the profession from a top-down vantage point, which is something that few lawyers get to see…it’s an invaluable experience.

Being a committee or section co-chair at the BBA required me to do the same thing as when I’m writing a blog: I had to figure out current topics that would be of interest to lawyers in that practice area, and then figure out who could speak on those topics. My co-chair and I had to find those people and persuade them to come to an event, which was no small task. Honestly, there are times when it’s harder to do that than it is to write a blog. You can’t have a brownbag lunch program just because a case was decided. So finding worthy themes, topics, and speakers was often difficult. Having the President of the BBA ask you how many programs you’re planning for the upcoming year brings home the reality that you have to make your committee or section viable, and worthwhile to the BBA as a whole. It was important to me to try to bring a work ethic of creativity and leadership to everything I did with the BBA.

Abim Thomas: “With Governor Patrick, I Learned How Important It Was Not Just to Listen, but Also to Have a Voice”

Published by tippingthescales on February 27, 2014 | Leave a response

Abim Thomas is a counsel in Goodwin Proctor’s Litigation Department and a member of its White Collar Crime and Government Investigations, Securities Litigation, and Gaming, Gambling & Sweepstakes Practices. Abim joined Goodwin Procter in 2012 after serving as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, and focuses her practice on representing operating companies, entrepreneurs, and investors in the gaming and gambling field. Abim is President of the Massachusetts Black Lawyers Association, serves on the board of the Women’s Bar Foundation and was recently selected by the Women’s Bar Association to serve as a mentor for its Women’s Leadership Initiative. At the BBA, she served as a member of the 2013-2014 Beacon Award Selection Committee and serves on the Board of Editors of the Boston Bar Journal. She is a member of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services and has worked for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights in both Boston and San Francisco.

1. Not many attorneys have the opportunity to work directly with the governor — can you share any stories about your time as Deputy Chief Legal Counsel and what you gained from it?

Having the opportunity to work with Governor Patrick meant having the opportunity to learn from an incredible leader. In that job, I learned the importance of listening as well as the importance of having a voice. During meetings, the Governor always made sure to get everyone’s input. He would go around the table and ask everyone for their opinion. He would literally go from person to person! He always made sure to get everyone – no one was skipped – and everyone’s opinion was just as important. His decisions were informed by these opinions. His final decision may have been different from where he started, but if it was, it was because he put such great value in other people’s ideas and appreciated the views they had to offer.

I remember the first time I got the chance to experience this. It’s also the first time I learned how important it was not just to listen, but also to have a voice. At one of my first meetings, the Governor went around the room and asked people for their opinions. To my surprise, they were actually giving them. He got to me and it didn’t even occur to me to give mine – that is, my honest personal opinion. I thought I was there to offer legal advice, unbiased legal advice based solely on the law. So when the Governor got to me, I said, “Oh, I’m just here to make sure whatever decision is made is legal. I don’t have an opinion.” He did what I’ve since seen him do to other people, and what I quickly learned never to have happen to me again: he just tipped his glasses down his nose, peered over them like he didn’t understand why I’d taken that approach, and then quietly moved on. I think it’s safe to say that everyone else probably gave their opinion after that!

It was an important lesson. I learned that to him, my opinion, along with everyone else’s opinion, had value. He appreciates that every decision he makes as Governor has an impact on real people. I’ve always gotten the sense that he feels like he has to make decisions informed by what real people have gone through, and that everyone has their own story and their own perspective. Anyone who’s ever worked with him would agree on what a great leader, mentor, and person he is.

2. What leadership lessons did you learn from past presidents of the MBLA? What do you hope to impart in your own presidency and what legacy are you hoping to leave?

Like the Governor, past presidents of the MBLA taught me to listen to other people’s ideas, because some of the best ideas come from people with different perspectives and experiences than your own. Having that open mind to hear others’ opinions makes for a better outcome than simply running with your own ideas. Past presidents also taught me to be decisive. There are always going to be great ideas and great dialogue, but as a leader, you need settle on a decision and implement it so that you can move the organization forward. This is something that I also learned from working with the Governor. He would approach a decision by making sure there was a great discussion of all of the issues. But whenever the final decision was made, it really was final. No matter what the discussion was that came before, we were all on board to implement that decision. So as an organization, our goal is to come up with solutions informed by different perspectives and then to implement them and drive the organization forward. Every year is an opportunity for any organization, including the MBLA, to get bigger, better and stronger. Everything every past leader of the organization has done has made that possible. I wouldn’t be in this role without them. Big shout-outs to Mo Cowan, Wayne Budd, Richard Soden, Damian Wilmot, Rachael Rollins, and Serge Georges – and all the other MBLA presidents who came before me!

As for a more practical legacy, I wanted to make sure that the MBLA retains the institutional history that it now has on the board. Thanks to past presidents, I and other members have been involved in the organization for several years. We’ve watched what’s worked, what hasn’t worked and come up with new ideas to advance the mission of the organization. Each year, the organization also welcomes new members, new leadership, new ideas and new energy. To keep the great knowledge from the past as a foundation that can be built on, I am asking each committee chair to put together an exit memo that will get passed along to the new committee chairs to help preserve that institutional knowledge. I found that each new leader was often reinventing the wheel. Next year, the new leadership will have the benefit of knowing what worked, what didn’t work, what can be replicated and what ideas maybe didn’t get a chance to get implemented this year. I hope to leave that to the next board so that whether they are returning members or new members, they don’t have to remember or guess at everything that happened over the last year!

3. How has the work and structure of the SJC Committee on Pro Bono Services informed your own personal philosophy on and approach to leadership?

For some background, the Committee is led by Justice Gants and chaired by Sue Finegan of Mintz Levin this year. Damian Wilmot is a former member of the Committee and I suspect floated my name to fill a vacancy on the Committee, which was has been a great opportunity. The Committee is made up of an incredible group of people – representatives from government, private practice, legal services, and the judiciary. As I mentioned earlier, this allows for many different perspectives and many great ideas.

One of the things we do as a Committee is give out the Adams Pro Bono Publico Awards every year. The awards go to firms, companies, and individuals – lawyers and law students – who have done exemplary pro bono work. We also visit area law schools to hear about their pro bono programs. It’s amazing to see young leaders describe the pro bono work they take on in addition to their regular course load. These students are passionate and inspire fellow students as well as practicing attorneys.

The Committee works on getting people interested and committed to doing pro bono. The great thing about the Committee is that it’s focused on doing what you can, with what you have, where you are. No matter where or who you are, you can have an impact through pro bono. This is reflected in the Committee’s various sub-committees that work to get everyone involved in pro bono work – from government lawyers to stay-at-home parents. It’s all about how to engage them and keep them interested in doing pro bono.

4. Is there anything else that’s been important in your experience of leadership that we haven’t covered yet?

I just want to say that no profile would be complete without recognizing my parents. Every day I realize I’m the person I am because of them. They are both amazing leaders in their own right, and they are in completely different universes! My mom is an activist and a leader within that community, and my dad worked for the UN and was a leader in African development — and continues to work in that area, even though he’s retired. As leaders and parents, they were always decisive and understood the importance of speaking with one voice. I’m sure there was a lot of discussion behind the scenes about how to raise us kids, but when a decision was made, it was final!

Kelly Leighton: “When There’s Incivility Present, It Can Inflame a Case That’s Emotionally Charged”

Published by tippingthescales on February 20, 2014 | Leave a response

Kelly Leighton is a partner at Barnes & Leighton, where she focuses on all aspects of domestic relations. Prior to entering private practice, she was a Senior Attorney with Greater Boston Legal Services and spent thirteen years representing low-income victims of domestic violence in family law cases. Kelly serves on the BBA Council and Nominating Committee; she is a past Co-Chair of the BBA’s Family Law Section and the Section’s Policy and Legislative Subcommittee. She was the BBA’s liaison to the Massachusetts Alimony Reform Task Force, which produced the bill that ultimately became the Alimony Reform Act of 2011. Kelly is a member of the Board of Directors for the Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s Massachusetts Chapter, and has long served as a trainer and mentor for the Family Law Project of the Women’s Bar Foundation. She also is a frequent panelist and author on domestic relations topics.

1. From your work on the Alimony Reform Task Force, you’ve helped shape policy that represented a huge change in the law. What are some key pointers you have about reaching group consensus?

All of the members of the Task Force were faced with the possibility that what we produced would become a dramatic shift in the law and present a huge change in the culture of how we viewed alimony, and we recognized how difficult it possibly could be reaching consensus, because there were many people at the table who had different points of view. At the beginning, there was a tension between the interests of recipients and payors. Both sides had legitimate good-faith concerns about what the end product would be; the interests were so different and there were definite tensions in opposite directions. But during that process, what encouraged me was that people had a willingness to listen and be open to whatever issue was being discussed on both sides of the issue, and to be creative as to how to address the concerns. The end result was a negotiated compromise: by the very nature of having two opposite sides and coming to the middle, not everyone gets everything they want or be completely happy with the end result. We reached an agreement that acknowledged concerns people had and addressed them in a way that was acceptable. It was a very cooperative, respectful environment, and we had a very successful process. I think what surprised me was how well that process worked. Participating in a group that was working to achieve compromise, just on a larger scale, was not foreign to any of us, but at the beginning of the process I didn’t know if we’d be able to reach a consensus! As we worked through, both sides’ ability to come together to reach the middle ground and come up with any kind of end result was impressive.

Once we had that result, it went out to the family law bar, and we knew that, depending on the perspective, there were going to be criticisms and the possibility of one side or the other having suggestions. What was helpful for me was letting go of any feeling of ownership; when you have that, it can lead to defensiveness, and without those feelings, it allows for an openness and acknowledgement that the product wouldn’t 100 percent please everyone. It was fair to hear feedback because it represented such a huge change in the law. Because I was able to step back, the criticisms didn’t upset me; hearing those reactions, both positive and negative, was part of my duty on the task force. There needs to be a willingness to listen, explain, respond, and be available to people to talk about this really major shift in the direction of the law.

2. On the topic of being emotionally charged: by all accounts, family law can be challenging in that respect and it’s very personal; how does an effective leader achieve conflict resolution in that kind of context?

In terms of my approach in my practice and how I conduct myself, I think something that can very much affect the ability to reach resolution is the level of professionalism that attorneys exhibit during the process. I firmly believe that a high level of professionalism is key to diffusing the emotion, in terms of exhibiting professional courtesy, upholding civility, keeping emotional distance between the attorney and client’s interests, and maintaining respect for everyone – including opposing counsel and parties. You can effectively represent a client and at the same time treat everyone in the room with respect. That is a baseline that’s necessary and makes it possible to diffuse the conflict, seek a resolution to all of it, and attempt to have everyone step away from the emotional aspects.

If you find yourself in a situation where the counsel is less than civil, and uses nastiness as a tactic, it can really create a downward spiral of conflict. As lawyers, we should at least make conditions present that make it possible to reach a resolution. We’re dealing with clients who are at many times at the worst points in their lives, and if attorneys inject behavior that makes it worse than it already is, then it can fall apart. Years ago I had a case where my client had been in a very high-conflict marriage. I was in court, and the opposing attorney attempted to physically take a court file out of my hands. I was just in shock that he would treat me that way! After the incident, my client turned to me and said, “He treats you the way my husband used to treat me.” There’s no room for that in the profession.

I remember those cases where the attorney was simply not professional, but I also remember the cases that were very difficult, but in which I had a huge amount of admiration for the opposing counsel for their professionalism, which helped the parties reach agreement. When there’s incivility present, it can very much inflame a case that’s emotionally charged. Being respectful can go a long way at helping the parties along to resolve their case.

3. How did you approach starting your solo practice after your time working in legal services? What preparation was necessary, and what did you learn along the way that contributed to your success?

In hindsight, there were many things about my 13 years in legal services that did prepare and help me while starting my own practice. The nature of legal services wasn’t that I could bring clients with me, but what I did bring with me was that I had the great opportunity of practicing with very experienced family law attorneys, and what I learned from them helped me immensely. Over those years, I also built a lot of relationships – not just in legal services, but outside it in the private bar, often through the BBA. After I launched my practice, people were supportive in referring clients to me and answering questions about the private practice of law. I was able to reach out to people who gave me information, guidance, and advice about how to be a businessperson, which you end up having to be. That was incredibly important.

Another great thing was that I had the opportunity to be involved in drafting legislation, such as the work of the Alimony Task Force, as well as a family law bill that would change terminology people use when they talk about the parenting of children. That’s been an idea that’s been floated for years, and I sat with a group from the BBA’s Family Law Section that came up with language agreeable to everybody. I was able to work on projects that helped me form relationships and have had a real impact. I find this type of impact work – work that has had aneffect on law itself, versus work on just individual cases – very gratifying.

I look back to when I started my practice in 2010 and I think, “Was I just so brave to jump off that cliff, or was I just blind?” Sometimes I really don’t know, and I can’t believe I did that! The first 6 months were incredibly challenging and would be for everyone – it’s so frightening in that you don’t know where it’s going to go and whether it will be successful. Thinking back, I am so grateful for the referrals made to me. I have faith now that my practice is working because I was able to build from there. For me, it was the right move at the right point in my career; I think about young attorneys now who are launching practices just out of law school and don’t have those years of experience and collaborative work behind them, and I do everything I can for those who I know, because I know how important it is to learn from other attorneys.

4. Is there anything else about leadership and the law that we haven’t covered yet?

I do want to stress that there is a crisis in legal services funding and there has been for years. At the time I left, there was a serious crisis with my organization and they faced downsizing. I was safe from a layoff, but one of the concerns was that cutting back people meant cutting the staff hired last, who were the youngest and often lawyers of color, and were perhaps the future generation of legal services attorneys. That was the context in which I decided to leave: the forced choice to cut out the newer diverse attorneys with a lot of enthusiasm for the work. Unfortunately, in legal services there is never the staff to meet the demand, and it’s very concerning as it affects access to justice for the people most in need.

Elizabeth Soule: “In Legal Services, Every Day Is a New Adventure…You Just Never Know What’ll Happen”

Published by tippingthescales on February 13, 2014 | Leave a response

Elizabeth Soule is the Executive Director of MetroWest Legal Services, which provides legal advocacy to protect and advance the rights of poor, elderly, disabled and other disenfranchised people in 36 towns throughout MetroWest. Prior, she worked as an elder law attorney for twenty years and led the Benefits Unit of South Middlesex Legal Services. In addition to being a faculty member for the Trial Skills training program at the Center for Legal Aid Education in Boston, she has taught as a visiting clinical supervisor at the Boston College Legal Assistance Bureau and given presentations on many elder law topics in a wide range of contexts.

What is the most difficult decision you have had to make as the Executive Director of MetroWest Legal Services, and how did it turn out?

Probably the hardest thing was making a decision to lay somebody off. You make a lot of tough decisions every day, but reducing staff is really hard. You have to try to weigh what that means for the person, for the office, for morale, for resources – but also weigh it against the inevitability of needing long-term financial stability. There’s nothing good about it no matter how you prepare or present it, but it was something we had to do. You have to separate the action from the person, because it’s not personal to them, although on the receiving end it feels personal to them. I would say to be as transparent and honest as you can with the person, and make sure they understand it’s not tied to their value as an employee; it’s really something entirely separate from that. Make sure they know how difficult it is for you to come to that point, and provide support as they transition into something else – whether people are receptive to that or not varies.

Fortunately we’ve only had one layoff, but we made a decision that we needed to live within our means and sort of build back upward as we could. We’d been lucky to have a pretty healthy reserve, but I think that people thought going forward from the recession of 2009 was going to be a shorter process than it’s turned out to be. Asking your staff to live without raises is hard too, and is not unique to just our programs – there have been salary freezes, furloughs, and other measures. It’s been a very difficult four or five years, and I look forward to a time when we’re not counting pennies quite as closely.

2. Conversely, can you share a story of a situation that has really brought home how crucial your organization’s work is?

I’m sitting in a different seat than I used to, so now I don’t necessarily have clients who are mine so much as I’m supporting the attorneys doing the direct client work. However, there’s the story of one homeless client and her baby daughter – it was interesting because she came to our office on a day when the people who were most expert at homelessness work were at a conference. Between myself and another attorney who was new, we sort of banded together and worked the case, which couldn’t wait for someone to come back a day later. Just seeing how broken the system was in terms of getting someone into shelter, and the obstacles that even legal advocates encounter, you just think to yourself, “if they’re pushing back with me, I can’t imagine how a homeless single mother with a 2-month-old baby is going to advocate for herself.” The two had been sleeping in the hallway of an apartment building the night before, and the mother talked about having to be awake all night so she could quiet her baby if she woke up. At the same time, she was told that if she didn’t have shelter for her baby the next night, DCF would take the baby. It was heartbreaking to see the degree of concern and worry in her – all she cared about was her baby, not herself. We were able to go through the process and make calls to the appropriate state agency, but someone unrepresented would never have been able to get there, known who to call, or understood the regulations and how they should be interpreted.

I spent a good part of that day holding that baby while the other attorney worked with the mom. I have to say, when we prevailed and got her in shelter, it seemed like the biggest deal in the world. Did we think we would be spending that Thursday and Friday doing this? Definitely not! In legal services, every day is a new adventure – you can plan all you want, but you just never know what’ll happen. That case was an ‘a-ha’ moment; when people ask about why I went into legal services and why I stayed, I say, “at least you get to go home at the end of the day feeling like you really made a difference in somebody’s life.”

How does an effective leader balance the emotional aspects of legal services with perhaps the more pragmatic side of work that needs to be done?

It’s not something that you learn overnight, that’s for sure. Sometimes until you’re a part of it or witness it, you might not even know that’s what you’re destined for. Oftentimes we talk about how legal services lawyers walk the line between ‘lawyer’ and ‘social worker,’ because clients have so many needs that seem to surface when they come to a legal services office for help. It’s very difficult to separate those things, and often the best thing to do is listen. Patience is a real top-of-the-line quality to have in legal services, but at the same time you have to assess what you need to proceed with the legal case from the client. Luckily we have a sense of many community resources, sometimes connecting clients to what might be helpful, whether it’s suggesting a counselor or a food pantry – a lot of it is giving information and referrals.

The stories are heartbreaking sometimes, and you don’t want to not feel that. You have to at some human level. But you also have to step back and say, “this is awful; how can I utilize my legal skills to help improve their quality of life measurably?” Nobody’s doing this work for the money or the accolades, but I think it’s based on a real human philosophy of taking care of the poor and making sure they have a fair shot at access to justice. It’s important to have an office of people who are like-minded, and who you can vent to or cry with, because it happens sometimes when it can be overwhelming. To say it doesn’t affect people is not realistic. You have to set boundaries, recalibrate, stay objective, and remember the end-game sometimes. That’s what really fuels you and keeps you from being swallowed up in the emotional details.

In the day-to-day operations of a legal services organization, how do you keep the overarching strategic direction in perspective?

We did some strategic planning three or four years ago, and doing priority-setting like that from time to time is key, as is making sure you’re looking at the big picture for what you want to do and how you want to direct the organization. A lot of what you do day-to-day and the decisions you make regarding grants, funding, and other opportunities of that nature help to drive that, and those help fulfill the plan. At the same time, legal services organizations are lean on staff and resources, so Executive Directors in legal services are much more actively involved in the day-to-day than similar positions in the private sector. At the end of the day for me, it’s about whether what we’re doing is helping to keep the office financially viable, have as much staff as we can, and work efficiently with what we have to deliver legal services to the greatest number clients possible. Whether you’re thinking about grants, fundraising, or new programs, it all comes down to that in some respect.

5. Is there anything else about important to you and your leadership that we haven’t
touched upon yet?

Maybe this is obvious to those of us doing the work and not as much to others necessarily, but there are just way more people who need our help than we can reach because of a lack of resources. I would implore people to get involved in their local legal services offices, whether it’s volunteering their time, providing financial support, or some combination of the two. The private bar is really an integral part of making our offices work and being able to serve more people through those two avenues. It might not seem like a lot, but gestures like writing a check for $100 or volunteering to take a case is a huge help to us, and quite frankly I think that it’s somewhat embedded in the philosophy and duty of a lawyer to serve the community. The private bar probably sees the effects of pro se litigants every day in courts and the challenges they face trying to help themselves – it’s a bigger systemic issue about decreasing the numbers of these pro se litigants, and addressing it would probably achieve quicker outcomes in less time for everyone involved.

A Look Back: Learning from Leadership

Published by tippingthescales on February 6, 2014 | Leave a response

The new year may have started over a month ago, but we here at Tipping the Scales are still in the mood for some reflection. After all, we’ve come a long way since June 13 – and have managed to miss a few anniversaries in that time. At this point, we’ve interviewed over thirty of the best and brightest minds in the legal profession, with many more to come. It’s been a privilege to hear firsthand the stories behind their accomplishments and how they’ve risen to become leaders in the field.

Of course, with that many different perspectives, we’ve learned a range of very valuable information that covers topics from how to lead tough groups to general practice tips. We’ve noticed that while these leaders come from distinct backgrounds and each brings something new to the table, there are common themes that keep coming up across the board. Tipping the Scales can connect the dots: these threads that tie many of the profiles together may represent some of the most crucial aspects of leadership and characteristics of a great leader.

So for newer readers just joining us, or for those who may have missed some posts along the way, here’s a retrospective of some of the best leadership tips we have heard while we have Tipped the Scales:

A leader is not an island – empowering other members of a team to add their voices to the conversation and making sure everyone is heard and respected is an integral part of being a leader.
A leader should not be afraid to delegate…no one person has to shoulder the entire load! The Boston legal community and BBA are full of extremely talented lawyers, so collaboration and playing to the strengths of others will achieve better results.
There may be “natural” leaders, but with hard work and a clear focus, every person has the potential to reach that level.
Clear communication from the top down and conviction, all while keeping an open mind, can make all the difference when working with others, especially in sensitive situations.
In the digital age, attorneys need to remember that the best way to engage with people is face-to-face.
One key to attaining leadership positions may be as simple as letting others in charge know that you are ready to take on that responsibility, and making it clear that you are engaged in the work at hand.
Finding a mentor early on, and later paying it forward by acting as a mentor to someone else, can offer a dynamic boost and provide support in the face of discouragement.
Participating in public service, whether it’s being the board member of a community organization or doing pro bono work, is an excellent way to take on even more leadership responsibility. The people you meet through this can help diversify your network, and the more people who recognize you as a leader outside the profession, the more credible you become.
Above all, love what you do; otherwise, there’s no point in doing it.

We have learned this – and so much more – over the last half a year; here’s to many more entertaining anecdotes, pieces of wisdom, and best ways for you to tip the scales in the future.

Kurt Somerville: “Leadership Isn’t About Ego or Personal Glorification…It’s About Leading by Example”

Published by tippingthescales on January 30, 2014 | Leave a response

Kurt Somerville is the managing partner of Hemenway & Barnes LLP. He advises families and individuals in the areas of wealth management, estate, financial, and tax planning, and probate matters. As a lawyer and trustee, Kurt advises high net worth clients on a variety of issues and concerns related to preserving, enhancing, and transferring family wealth. He is a former Olympic rower and Founder and Trustee of Community Rowing, Inc. (CRI), the country’s largest public access rowing program.

1. In general, what is something that is key to a successful leadership style or approach that many people are often missing? How did you learn it?

I think a lot of people envision leaders as rugged individualists – when people think of a successful leader, you think of a Winston Churchill or Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill – these larger than life figures. But having a light touch and empowering others to contribute to a common goal is sometimes overlooked. I don’t think leadership is about ego or personal glorification. For me, it’s been leading by example and having some measure of success in the field so you have the confidence to step up and do what you think is right – but it’s also always been a collaborative process. Certainly in rowing, and for almost any shared endeavor, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If you can get that boat so everyone is pulling at the same time and in the same way, the boat is going to sing and it’s going to feel effortless. If you can do that in an organization, hopefully the same thing is going to happen. Using the individualistic approach has the potential to burn too many bridges along the way.

2. Can you tell us a little more about your background in rowing? What did it teach you about leadership?

I started rowing in 9th grade at the Noble & Greenough School. My brother rowed, so I thought to myself, “I’ll try this,” and I never looked back. I rowed for four years in high school, was the captain of my high school team, and continued when I went to Dartmouth for undergrad.

I really knew I had potential probably after freshman year of college when I went to the Olympic trials. I was the youngest guy in my boat; we came in third, but it was still a very respectable showing. After my sophomore year I tried out for the national team and made the eight, which was the priority boat, and was a very big deal for a sophomore. The following year, I was named captain of my Dartmouth team.

The point is, in any leadership role, the best thing you can do is set an example. For me, my attitude was (and still is): even if you do have some innate talent, if you work harder and you put in the time, you get some measure of success. In that way, rowing is a very pure equation. If you’re additionally a good person, thoughtful, and kind, you’ll make a great leader.

I think the fact that I made those teams and rose to that level gave me the confidence to try other things. My coaches helped me to grow as a person and a leader as well. My Olympic coach was Harry Parker, arguably the most successful rowing coach in the U.S., and his style was also quiet and to lead by example…he managed to just get the best out of his oarsmen. I can still hear his words from the launch: as you’re getting to the end of practice and your muscles are telling you, ‘stop, stop!’ – and he knows that’s happening – he would say, “Be stubborn.” I will never forget those words. If I’m grinding it out in my profession, where you do put in long hours and work hard, having that perseverance to push through is important.

3. What did you learn from your predecessor Steve Kidder, the previous managing partner of H&B? What initiatives or approach are you hoping to bring to the position?

Steve Kidder was managing partner of Hemenway & Barnes for the last eight years, and he was excellent at it. He’s very good at getting out of his office and feeling the pulse of his colleagues and employees. They don’t call it “managing” partner for nothing — Steve was good at delegating to capable people, being the face of the firm, meeting with clients, and getting new business; that’s something I want to emulate.

My style is going to be focused on team-building: hopefully my legacy will be making people feel that they’re part of the team. People work better when they know what their role is and know that they are contributing to the whole. I remember when I started as an associate here, some associates at other firms said to me, “your group meets at a weekly meeting, you feel like you’re on a team, and we don’t have that camaraderie.” That was over 20 years ago but I remember that. I don’t think people should feel that way at work.

Overall, the firm is in great shape and steaming ahead in the right direction. We’ve done a wonderful job in the past few years creating the Hemenway Trust Company, and that has enhanced our fiduciary services significantly. We are still in process of integrating that with the law firm, and realizing all of the potential of that organization – it’s very entrepreneurial for we conservative lawyers — so it’s been fun and has helped raise the game of our fiduciary practice. A goal is to continue to increase assets under management and while we do that, never, ever lose sight of why clients entrust us with those assets in the first place: a very high level of professional service. We also have very important partners nearing retirement, and in this practice, more years of experience translates to more wisdom. Planning for those departures is critical.

4. Can you give a brief background about the Jane’s Trust and your trustee duties? Is there anything fundamentally different about this role that has affected your approach to leadership?

Jane’s Trust is a large charitable trust established by Jane Cook, who named partners at Hemenway & Barnes as trustees along with her daughters. As with our other trust clients, our charge is to fulfill the purposes of the trust, which is largely focused on charitable grants to organizations that improve the environment and the health, education, and welfare of people primarily in northern New England. Our role is trust administration –investing the assets and making sure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s – and we meet regularly with the family and family trustees to determine the appropriate grantees of these distributions.

I think leadership in this context is about figuring out your audience and your role. These clients are very intelligent, very active and involved in their communities, and very vocal. We’re there to listen to the client, make sure they get the help they need from our in-house experts to make decisions, and if they need a suggestion or a nudge in a certain direction, we can do that too. We’re helping them realize and put into action what Jane Cook set up, and have them feel that the dollars put into this trust are being put to the most effective use possible. This is an example of that light touch, because you don’t need that inspirational guy charging up a hill – it needs someone who knows what they’re doing and won’t overshadow the family. This is not for our personal enhancement – it’s all about getting the family’s goals accomplished.

Rachel Hershfang: “There Is No Single Path to the S.E.C…But It’s Worth the Effort”

Published by tippingthescales on January 23, 2014 | Leave a response

Rachel Hershfang is a trial attorney in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Boston Regional Office, where she has worked since the spring of 2008. Her practice to date has included insider trading, accounting fraud, prime bank schemes, offering fraud, cherry‐picking, and market manipulation. Rachel began her career in 1995 as a law clerk to U.S. District Judge Reginald C. Lindsay for the District of Massachusetts. An alum of Ropes & Gray, she spent 7 years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, where she worked in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. At the BBA, Rachel serves as Chair of the Boston Bar Journal Board of Editors and is a member of the Criminal Law Section.

As Chair of the BBJ, what have you found the most rewarding so far? What do you feel you carry away from the experience?

I am consistently impressed with the breadth and diversity of experience in our bar, as exemplified by the members of the BBJ’s Board of Editors and by the variety of articles we publish. It’s incredibly humbling (and exciting) to be regularly surrounded by such smart, engaged, and well-read lawyers and judges. The intellectual give-and-take of both editorial board meetings and email exchanges has pushed me to think about areas of the law that are outside my usual ambit, an experience one doesn’t get often enough after law school. In a typical meeting, we might hear from Land Court judges and practitioners on the hot-button issues in their fields; from intellectual property and cybersecurity experts about the new skirmishes in the data world; from corporate lawyers on the newest form of deal-related litigation; and from criminal law practitioners about the ever-changing law on electronic surveillance, juvenile justice, and other state and federal issues. I learn more in a one-hour meeting than I would by reading the newspaper, cover to cover, every day. Which is lucky, because who can manage that regularly?

As a specific example, although I was in a bit of a sleep-deprived fog because I’d recently had a baby, I was very proud to be involved with our publication this fall of the Goodridge anniversary issue. It provided an opportunity to reflect on the incredible, nationwide changes to our law and practices toward same-sex couples in the course of only ten years. What a long, great trip it’s been!

As for what I can carry away – I hope it’s too early to tell! I’ve got more than half of my tenure ahead of me, and am very much looking forward to continuing to work with the Board of Editors and our authors. And now a shameless pitch – do you have a great idea for an article? Please pass it along!

You served as a clerk to Judge Reginald Lindsay in the MA District Court at the start of your career. How do you feel that influenced where you’ve ended up? Do you have any stories or specific memories of the judge serving as a mentor or helping you figure out where you wanted to go in the profession?

Clerking for Judge Lindsay was such a pleasure. He referred to his former clerks as his “children in the law,” and it felt like family in his chambers. I particularly cherished how seriously he took our ideas, and the care and attention he devoted to thinking through legal issues with his clerks. Memos didn’t just vanish into his lobby; he would meet with us, noodle through the issues, and then (with his Southern charm) politely disagree, or not. He loved being a judge, and it showed in his good humor on the bench. I remember one case when I was clerking, a long civil case that was tried over three months during the snowiest winter ever. All the counsel were from California (including one who seemed to believe that cowboy boots were suitable for snow-boot service), and he never tired of teasing them about the weather.

Judge Lindsay didn’t do anything (that I recall) to steer my career in any particular direction, but, like a good parent, he was always willing to listen and talk, and offered advice along the way. His support and evident pride were so important during the early years of my career. I still remember (with no little embarrassment – like a parent, he also had that ability) his incredibly sweet, personal speech when he swore me in as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. There I was, brand new to the office, in front of many of my colleagues, and a federal judge was talking about seeing me running around in diapers. (That was when I was a child, just to be clear, and not when I was clerking.) Lunches with him were long and entertaining, full of his hilarious reminiscences about his college days and his not-so-hilarious stories of growing up in the segregated south. He was generous with his time, thoughtful in his responses, and dedicated to trying to achieve justice for the litigants before him. It was inspiring to see.

What advice do you have for younger attorneys looking to the S.E.C. as a desired career option?

First, I would congratulate them on their good judgment. The S.E.C. is a marvelous place to work, offering that elusive blend of challenging, varied, stimulating legal work, government service, and a humane work environment.

Second, I would say there is no single path to the S.E.C. Because the legal roles in our office vary, there are different types of experience that may be relevant. We have a small group of trial attorneys, comprised of relatively experienced practitioners with experience in civil litigation, trial practice, or both. If that is what a younger attorney wants to do, there is no substitute for courtroom time. Whatever you can do to get in front of a jury – work for a DA’s office, join a litigation boutique, volunteer through your law firm for a pro bono opportunity that involves trials – will help your case.

But don’t neglect your civil discovery and litigation background! The largest group of lawyers in our office are staff attorneys, who are our front-line investigators. General civil (or criminal) litigation background is a good training ground for that job, since it involves legal writing and reasoning. If you have specialized knowledge about securities regulation or compliance, so much the better. The securities laws are complex and many, so lawyers who come into the office with a firm grounding in securities practice have a leg up. Some lawyers also work on our examination side, going out to check compliance at the many entities the S.E.C. is responsible for regulating. Not all of our examiners are lawyers, but it makes for a double threat when they are. Most of all, I would encourage people to apply whenever they see a job that may appeal to them. It often takes more than one try to get a position at the S.E.C., and it’s worth the effort.

Jeffrey Pyle: “Every Lawyer Ought to Be Involved in Some Organization that Serves the Public Interest”

Published by tippingthescales on January 16, 2014 | Leave a response

Jeffrey Pyle is a partner at Prince Lobel Tye LLP, where he focuses on commercial, First Amendment, and media litigation matters. He has represented media organizations and individuals in a range of matters involving constitutional rights, including defamation cases, disputes over subpoenas to the press, and proceedings for access to sealed court documents. Jeff also serves on the firm’s pro bono committee. At the BBA, Jeff is a member of the Council. He previously served as Chair of the Amicus Committee, Co-Chair of the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Section, and on several ad-hoc committees and working groups. Jeff is the Treasurer of the Petra Foundation and serves on the Boards of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and Massachusetts Citizens Against the Death Penalty, Inc.

You have been on the Amicus Committee since 2007, and I’m sure have seen it change over time. From this perspective, what do you think is the most effective team dynamic? As Chair, how did you work to achieve that?

The Amicus Committee has worked consistently well in a consensus fashion ever since I joined it. We typically discuss amicus proposals over the phone and come to positions, arguments, and decisions in a collegial way that exemplifies what is great about the BBA. The best courses of action we have taken have been those in which the entire leadership of the BBA has become involved. The great strength of our approach is that we solicit and receive viewpoints from all the relevant Sections of our members when making a decision about whether to weigh in on an issue before the courts, and if so, what to say. The BBA doesn’t take positions in cases solely for the purpose “weighing in” alone – it does so when it believes that it can offer something different from what the parties are already arguing, and where it can offer something that reflects the views of the organization in an appropriate and constructive way. It has been quite impressive and humbling to see the kind of effect our briefs can have in important cases, and the work the Amicus Committee does on these briefs makes me very proud.

The key thing to achieve this team dynamic is to allow the conversation to go where it leads. I often find that when a conversation begins on a particular subject, I have an idea where I think it’ll end up, and we often end up in a very different place from where I thought we’d be. That is because we have smart people on the Amicus Committee with a great deal of varied experiences, and they are all people capable of expressing their views in a way that keeps us moving forward toward a position, in a way that is efficient but also thoughtful and thorough. The other great dynamic is that people step up to volunteer to lead the efforts of different briefs – no one person is ever doing the lion’s share of the work. Everyone contributes and everyone is really capable at editing the drafts, seeing trouble spots, and appreciating how judges might react. What keeps the committee running as a well-oiled machine is the talent and dedication of the members of the committee.

What drew you to media law and encouraged you to hone your expertise in it? What tips would you give to anybody looking to do similarly?

My love of media law derives from my love of constitutional law more generally. From a young age I was interested in civil liberties and civil rights issues, and became involved in the ACLU while still in high school. When I joined Hill & Barlow, my first law firm, I discovered that there was this subset of law practice called media law that deals with constitutional questions on a routine basis. Obviously, the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press governs the law of defamation and the prohibition on prior restraints, but there are also First Amendment interests held by the public that we defend. The First Amendment right of the public to know what its government is doing is the basis of the rule that that court proceedings must be open to the public, except in rare cases where impoundment or closure is necessary to protect higher interest. Representing the media in access cases has been one of my specialties. At the end of an access case you don’t get a settlement agreement, you have a newspaper article that informs the public. That’s pretty fun.

The media practice has also led me to pro bono work on SLAPP suits – law suits intended to intimidate people from petitioning the government – and helping individuals who have been sued in SLAPP suits has been very fulfilling. I am a member of the pro bono committee at Prince Lobel, and I’m proud of the other pro bono work our firm has been doing. Last year, for example, we represented a victim of the Boston Marathon bombing, and helping her recover her life after losing a leg was a really important part of the firm’s year.

The advice I often give people considering law school or in law school is: the happiest lawyers I know are those who went to law school with a sense of purpose – they had an idea of the kinds of work they wanted to do. That purpose may change over time, but those lawyers who come out saying that they want to be experts in a particular field are those who will be seen as having direction and be sought out for work they’re enthusiastic about. Within a law firm culture, I think it’s helpful to make your interests widely known so that partners in a firm will give you a shot at working on cases that interest you if they come up. Publish blog posts about your areas of interest, and come to be seen as someone who knows a thing or two about your chosen subject area; that will help you distinguish yourself and develop into a lawyer with a specialty. In today’s world, every lawyer needs a specialty, even if it only takes up thirty percent of his or her practice.

You are involved with the ACLU and other organizations that embrace or encourage social activism. Why do you think these types of involvements – that is to say, outside the billable hour – are important to leadership?

I have found that becoming involved in small organizations that need help is one of the best ways to develop leadership skills. It can be easy to get lost in a large organization, but if you join a committee or board and take on responsibility, then you’re able to be seen as someone who can lead on larger issues. Every lawyer ought to be involved in some organization that serves the public interest. A law degree is seen by the outside world as a credential of competence (until you demonstrate otherwise!), and I think having legal experience and training can allow one to contribute positively the governance of public interest groups. But the best reason to get involved is that you meet interesting people, and often have a lot of fun.

I understand feeling like you don’t have time for “extracurricular activities.” I have a law practice and a family, and I know what it feels like to think that you don’t have time to do everything, or at least not do everything well. But I don’t view public service as something “extra” that I can opt out of. When I look back on my year, at the end of the year, and consider what it was I did that was meaningful, it is often things I did outside the billable hour that I reflect on the most.

Samantha Morton: “Inviting All Ideas Is Essential — But Every Group Needs a Structure”

Published by tippingthescales on January 9, 2014 | Leave a response

Samantha J. Morton is Executive Director of Medical Legal Partnership | Boston (MLP | Boston), the founding site of the national MLP network. She previously served as Deputy Director and Staff Attorney at Medical-Legal Partnership for Children, the precursor organization to MLP | Boston that housed both national and local programs and focused on pediatric populations. Samantha is a national expert on how legal strategies can be deployed to address social determinants of health, and how the healthcare community and legal community can better align to leverage these strategies in service of patients’ health and well-being. At the BBA, she is a Co-Chair of the Delivery of Legal Services Section and a member of the Health Law Section; she was also a member of the second ever Public Interest Leadership Program Class.

1. What experiences in your early career most encouraged you to seek further leadership opportunities? For example, how did PILP help to shape your approach towards seeking leadership?

I was very lucky to be a member of the second PILP class in 2004-05. Our class didn’t have a signature project — PILP as a program was still very early in development — but we did work to launch a non-profit governance training that the BBA went on to institutionalize.

The PILP experience reinforced for me that effective leadership can take many different forms and scales — from steering an initiative from A to Z, to modeling public interest values through dedicating scarce time and effort to pro bono/public service, to posing questions or ideas that are “outside the box” during meetings, or going out of one’s way to spotlight a quieter but important voice in a deliberative setting. The PILP seminars with legal community leaders from a range of sectors were also really inspiring and helped me feel more comfortable with networking. I realized that even an exceptionally busy leader conducting high-stakes work may be enthusiastic to provide mentoring in many helpful ways. But it’s on the young lawyer to seek out those opportunities! Ultimately, I learned that leadership isn’t about a job title or committee chairmanship or even assumption of a major responsibility — a range of leadership opportunities are available to us every day, in almost every setting, and we just have to seize them.

2. Part of leadership is creative thinking. What is your process of innovation and planning unique programs within the DLS section?

I’m thrilled to be in my second year of co-chairing the Delivery of Legal Services Section, first with Roz Nasdor of Ropes & Gray and now with Tammie Garner of Nutter McClennen & Fish. The Steering Committee’s passion for advancing access to justice has made program planning pretty easy — they are full of great ideas and will dedicate some of their leadership energy to getting individual programs off the ground.

I think that inviting all ideas is essential — but in order to harness that energy, a group needs a structure. We’ve worked hard to create more structure within DLS so that this talented team’s ideas can successfully convert into action, and they definitely have. This year, we’ve introduced some new Committees focused on Public Policy – many high-stakes topics have been under consideration, such as juvenile life without parole sentences – and Human Trafficking, building on a successful event hosted by PILP last June on this sobering human rights issue. Thanks to these strategies, membership in the Section and Steering Committee continues to grow and diversify. Our Membership reflects that every corner of the legal profession has a critical stake in ensuring access to justice for all.

3. As the Executive Director of MLP Boston, how do you help to create the bridge between the medical and the legal entities? What kind of collaborative work is necessary?

A significant volume of legal problems confronting low-income people — like a landlord’s failure to remedy poor housing conditions despite a legal obligation to do so — have negative health consequences. If the legal community wants to partner with the healthcare community to tackle these social determinants of health through legal remedies, we must get to know our healthcare collaborators and the perspectives they bring to these issues well. As lawyers we are trained to put ourselves in the shoes of our clients, and we often are very good at that. It can be less intuitive to “think like a doctor” or like a hospital administrator when attempting to craft a medical-legal partnership strategy.

As Executive Director, I spend a lot of my time talking with and learning from healthcare- and public health-based colleagues about “social determinants of health,” and how the evolving health reform landscape will increase attention to them. I also work with many legal collaborators, both in the legal services and pro bono contexts, to help ensure that communication between the access to justice community and the healthcare community is as successful as possible. We come from different professional cultures, bring different (though often aligned) professional values, and use quite different language. This part of my job is especially rewarding. One way I keep a foot in both worlds at the BBA is to sit on the Health Law Section Steering Committee in addition to the DLS role.

While we must invest in substantial partnership-building time and effort for an MLP project to succeed, the rewards for the shared patient-client population are substantial. In the bigger picture, these successful partnerships and projects help to establish that access to justice not only advances a value central to the legal profession — justice — but also other values central to our society, such as health and well-being.

Traci Lovitt: “Coming to a Clear Vision Is Something No One Should Delegate”

Published by tippingthescales on January 2, 2014 | Leave a response

Traci Lovitt is the Partner-in-Charge of Jones Day’s Boston office. She has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and authored briefs raising significant issues for every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Traci is regularly involved in high-profile matters, including for IBM, Yamaha and Exxon-Mobil. She was a member of the brief writing team that successfully represented Sherwin-Williams in the landmark public nuisance action before the Rhode Island Supreme Court. She also served as primary brief writer in The Sherwin-Williams Company v. Holmes County, a novel and successful declaratory action against Mississippi counties.

1. If you were to pinpoint the single most crucial leadership skill that has helped you as the Partner in Charge of Jones Day Boston, what would it be? Why?

It has been the combination of a few things: conviction, clear direction, and communication. Because Jones Day was entering the Boston legal market for the first time, I needed to have a clear vision of what we were trying to accomplish and hold fast to it. I also had to articulate that vision and purpose to existing clients, potential clients, and to potential lateral partners and associates so the community could understand why Jones Day was opening in Boston and how we are different.

In the case of opening the Boston office, formulating that kind of vision took work! Before the Firm decided to open, I studied in depth the Boston legal market and business community, interviewed 20-30 local general counsels, spoke with the practice and other office leadership within Jones Day, and even met with potential laterals. I came at the issue like client work, like a legal problem, and took a very thorough, analytical approach to it. The work made it incredibly clear that Jones Day should be in Boston. It became fairly obvious that the Firm’s unique practice offerings, international coverage, and talent could benefit Boston, and that Boston had a lot of talented lawyers and fantastic businesses that could partner well with Jones Day. Understanding how and why we should open was a very hands-on process for me. Delegation is an important skill and something a leader must do, but sometimes good leadership requires getting into the trenches. Coming to a clear vision is something no one should delegate.

2. You have worked on brief writing teams, including as the primary writer, in several high-profile cases; how do you manage these teams to produce the best results?

First you have to know your people – you really have to know your partners and associates and where their skills lie, particularly on high-profile matters. If the work involves a novel preemption question, my job as the briefing team leader is to staff the team with those individuals who have a strong preemption background, as well as forward-looking thinkers and great writers. Second, you must constantly think about the client and the client’s interests. Nine times out of ten, a client has me working on a matter because it wants to ensure the best arguments are developed and preserved, with an eye towards the Supreme Court. You have to think about legal strategy far in advance, “What are we going to do at the Supreme Court if this case has to go that far?”

On this point, Jones Day prides itself on having offices without borders. Even as the office leader, I don’t work exclusively with people in the Boston office. We staff projects with the best people for the job regardless of location, which can mean looking at the international roster. We’re not limited by location but by skill sets, matching the best skills to the project. Again, you really have to know your people! If you don’t know your partners and talk amongst yourselves, then you can’t manage projects well. Part of the expectation of the Firm is that each partner understands our own strengths and weaknesses as a Firm.

3. How do you help preserve Jones Day’s firm culture within the Boston office?

We have an extremely strong firm culture that is very value laden. To distill it to 2 points: we always work for the best interest of the client, and the partners truly act like members of a partnership – we treat each other and our associates with respect, and are always all looking out for the client. It is important for the Firm to maintain that culture not only in Boston, but in any new office. We purposefully opened the Boston office with partners who transferred from other offices. This was both for business reasons — the partners had good client relationships here or skills that were suitable to the market — and to have some “culture police” — people who brought with them the values of Jones Day, and who could help integrate new laterals and steep them in those values. It was a very conscious decision on the part of the Firm.
4. What can young lawyers getting started do at the beginning of their careers – i.e., what actions can they take or opportunities can they explore, etc. – that will pay off later down the line as they aim for leadership opportunities?

There’s an old quote from Charlie Munger to the effect of “the best way to get new business is to do great work on your current business.” This applies not only to client work, but to firm and administrative work: if you want to have more of a leadership role, or more of a managerial role, treat every single task you get that falls into those buckets like your most important client work. Early in my career, I was asked to critique the Firm’s website, and I treated the task like client work. I produced a paper on how to improve the design and search functions, and was subsequently asked to be on a committee to redesign the website, which was another task that I took incredibly seriously. A lot of times, lawyers view those kinds of administrative assignments as fluff work, and they don’t give it their all. But if you take the work seriously, you will be asked to do more of it. I would give this advice in every facet of law firm life – do your best on everything that comes across your desk.

For young attorneys who might be having trouble securing a job in private practice, I think government service is a great alternative. I would encourage 3Ls who are looking for a law firm job but cannot find one to look at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Department of Justice, the DA’s Office — all have really great positions that can get you on your feet with trial experience or appellate argument experience. Those are fantastic jobs. They can help segue lawyers back into private practice, too. Of course, some people start in government and love it so much they stay there. Also, getting a second degree is not a bad thing, like an L.L.M. in banking law or an accounting degree, to help distinguish yourself in the market. Increasingly, the legal services industry is becoming more specialized, because clients are more willing to pay for honed, specific skill sets.

5. Is there anything else about leadership that you would want to include?

This is a life lesson more than anything…it’s very important to always treat everyone with whom you’re working — whether it’s someone who is across the table, on the same side of the table, or waiting on the table — with respect and in exactly the way you want to be treated. It’s important not only to leadership, but to being a good person. If you want to set a good tone in the office, treating everyone up and down the line professionally, fairly, and with respect is very important.

1 2 … 5 Next →