Go back to this issue index page
March/April 2007

In-House Counsel Roundtable on Diversity
and In-House Practice


On March 8, 2007, The Houston Lawyer hosted a roundtable discussion with several Houston in-house attorneys. HBA President Glenn A.Ballard, Jr. moderated the program, with assistance from editor in chief Michelle Cash and guest editor Tamara Stiner. Participating in-house counsel were Carolyn Benton Aiman of Shell Oil Company, Sarah McConnell, recently of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Steven Meisgeier of El Paso Corporation, Arturo Michel from the City of Houston, and Kwame Satchell with Chevron. These five in-house attorneys provided a candid perspective on issues related to diversity and in-house practice.

MR. BALLARD:I want to welcome everybody to the diversity and in-house practice roundtable, and I really appreciate everybody coming today.
I’m Glenn Ballard. I am the president of the Houston Bar Association this year. The HBA is committed to increasing and promoting diversity, and is acutely aware of issues affecting diversity. We have several programs to promote diversity at the HBA.

MS. AIMAN: I’m Carolyn Benton Aiman. I’m senior corporate counsel with the Shell Oil legal department and I also am the co-chair of the legal department’s diversity committee. Part of my responsibilities are to work on diversity and inclusive issues, both internal and external to Shell, related to our law firms and our vendors.

MS. McCONNELL: My name is Sarah McConnell. I’m currently unemployed, but I was most recently with Thermo Fisher Scientific.   

MS. STINER:  I’m Tamara Stiner. I’m an associate in the corporate section at Bracewell & Giuliani. I am assisting Michelle Cash on the March/April issue and am the co-chair of the Minority Opportunities in the Legal Profession Committee.

MS. CASH: I’m Michelle Cash. I am the editor-in-chief of The Houston Lawyer. I am the president of Pemberton Legal Search, which is an attorney search firm, and I specialize in diversity hiring for my corporate and law firm clients.

MR. MEISGEIER: I’m Steve Meisgeier. I’m the associate general counsel for employment law and ethics compliance at El Paso Corporation. I’m also a member of the El Paso LEAD Committee, which is the guiding body at El Paso for all of our diversity efforts.

MR. SATCHELL: My name is Kwame Satchell. I am senior counsel with Chevron North American Exploration and Production Company. I am also chair of the Chevron Law Function Diversity Council. Part of our mission statement is to elevate and sustain diversity as a critical consideration and goal both within and outside our law function.

MR. MICHEL: I’m Arturo Michel. I’m the City Attorney for the City of Houston. Approximately 100 lawyers report to the Mayor. The City has had a minority/women business enterprise program, similar to the Small Business Administration, which looks at promoting the hiring of law firms that are owned or controlled or managed by ethnic and racial minorities.
Lately, at the Mayor’s request, we have been looking to hire law firms, regardless of whether they’re owned or operated by minorities, but instead viewing how they promote not only the hiring, but also the retention and promotion of attorneys within.

MR. BALLARD: Carolyn, how does your company promote diversity, and how do you keep track of your efforts?

MS. AIMAN: Shell Oil Company has been a leader for many years in the area of diversity and inclusion (“D & I”).  Shell’s U.S. focus is on securing a strong and effective workforce, really the hunt for the best talent, supplier diversity and outreach to the community. Once acquiring that talent, Shell works to create and sustain an inclusive environment, because at Shell we recognize that an inclusive environment supports the growth and development of people. Within the legal department the efforts are similar. We focus on diversity and inclusiveness within the legal department by identifying strategies and efforts that support our goals and pursuing those efforts, whether that means offering trainings or lunch and learn sessions where we discuss D & I issues, or informing people about the state of D & I in the organization.
Externally, just focusing on the legal department, we have expectations about D & I and we share those expectations with our law firms and our vendors, and keep metrics and score cards based upon information provided to us by our law firms. We review this information annually and provide feedback to our firms about how we perceive they are doing in the area of D & I.

MR. BALLARD:Well, I know Shell has always been very involved in promoting diversity.

MS. AIMAN: Yes. As a company, we definitely have been one of the leaders, as far as diversity and inclusiveness. From the perspective of Shell, we understand that this is a race for talent. Who is going to help us get where we’re going to go? As a company, Shell recognizes and works from the premise that talent crosses all demographic groups. So if we want the best, we have to look across groups to get the best, and that’s the motivation.

MR. BALLARD:Sarah, I know you were with Thermo Fisher Scientific. How did you recruit and retain diverse attorneys?

MS. McCONNELL:What I have discovered is that in places without formal diversity programs, although I may have never felt or witnessed any issues, with respect to diversity the workforce as a whole tends to be homogeneous, which is unfortunate. Unless people at the very top are concentrating on the issue and pushing the issue, you’re less likely to get results. 

MR. BALLARD:Steve, how do you develop and train your attorneys, and do you consider diversity in the area of attorney development?

MR. MEISGEIER: The El Paso legal department handles a lot of our work in-house, and we look for experienced people. Therefore, I would not say the focus is on development, per se, but rather on bringing people in with a range of experiences that can add to the expertise in the department. And that means looking at recruiting not only from the big firms, but looking for other areas where somebody could  come in and make an immediate impact.

MR. BALLARD:Kwame, what kind of expectations or requirements does your company have, with respect to diversity of the attorneys hired to perform projects or services for your companies?

MR. SATCHELL:Chevron strongly encourages our preferred providers to utilize minority legal professionals on our matters to the greatest extent possible. Each year, we send out a survey to our preferred providers, which tracks not only their progress in hiring and promotion practices from a diversity perspective, but also how minority legal professionals have been utilized on Chevron matters. Each year, we give out a diversity recognition award to our top achieving preferred providers as determined by that criteria. The award recipients are invited to our corporate headquarters for a ceremony and dinner hosted by our General Counsel and are given recognition in various legal publications. We also make a donation to the local non-profit law charity of their choice.

MR. BALLARD:Why is it important to have diverse attorneys representing your company?

MR. SATCHELL: Diversity is one of Chevron’s core values, and it is important to see that value embraced by our preferred providers. We would like to make sure that our law firm partners are really with us, in terms of recognizing the importance of diversity. Also, as a practical matter, we want the best talent representing Chevron and we believe that, by encouraging the placement of diverse legal professionals on our matters, we are doing exactly that.   

MR. BALLARD:Arturo, could you expand on that? Why is it important to have diverse attorneys representing the City, for example, or in your department?

MR. MICHEL: One reason is when you’re looking to hire any goods or service, and especially in the law profession, you’re looking for quality. When you’re looking for quality, one aspect of that is the breadth of experience. I think the more diversity you have in all areas, the better you are. And I think, particularly, for a government entity, that one of its missions is to serve a broad range of people. I think that becomes extremely important. As a result, you get a better quality service. You get people who have been in different perspectives, who understand different approaches. And I think that’s key to serving your ultimate goal of providing the best possible service for the City and this area.

MS. McCONNELL: I’d like to say, working for a company that has shareholders that you have to answer to, that concentrating on diversity is just good business. It shows you’re progressive, it shows you’re in tune with social issues. You serve your shareholders well by having a diverse workforce. 

MS. AIMAN: I want to jump in with something Sarah said, which was that even though the company had a good environment, it turned out to be very homogeneous, except for the legal department. I think that’s what diversity and inclusiveness is really about. It is expanding your awareness, expanding where you’re looking, expanding how you go about your approach to seeking talent. Because the [Sarah’s] general counsel was focused on that, so the general counsel found talent in many different places.  I am not suggesting her company as whole was not committed to D & I.  The company, as companies should, provides  opportunities for people to apply. But sometimes sending an affirmative signal out creates a culture and environment where people know they can come, they can do, they can be, they can grow. And that’s really what we all want. I mean, we’re at work for many hours, so you really want the ability to flourish and produce without having to worry about all these other things. And sometimes just putting some attention to it allows people to see that, whatever you are, whoever you are, you know you can come in and get the job done, that differences are appreciated and valued. To me, that’s what diversity and inclusiveness is about. It’s about the people. It is not about just one ethnic group, one gender group.  It is about a broad range of differences, perspectives, viewpoints, the things we all bring to the table. I think that’s what really makes a critical difference in an organization. Just expanding where your company or law firm recruits, where it advertises, how it participates in communities can make a difference in how the company or firm is perceived and the talent that is interested in joining your entity will view that favorably.    

MR. SATCHELL: Carolyn, you have raised the issue of making sure you have an environment that is inclusive. I think it is equally important to ensure that law managers recognize how important diversity is, so that when open positions are available, they will make the effort to ensure the diversity of selection pools and, if that pool is not diverse, acknowledge that further review of the selection process may be needed.       

MR. MEISGEIER: To follow up on something both Carolyn and Sarah said, one of the most important issues here is the empowerment of the individual, and how much difference the individual can make. A lot of the focus at El Paso has been to educate and empower those individuals about the importance of diversity, and its value to their workplace. We want them to understand that diversity can make a difference in a work site out on a pipeline in the middle of Wyoming and that individual employees can make the difference to our diversity efforts. A lot of the focus needs to be on getting that person to the spot where they recognize the value of diversity and then educate them on how to incorporate it into their day to day activities..

MR. BALLARD:You know, I’ve been fortunate enough to receive retention letters from several of your companies, and those letters often ask about diverse attorneys and what diverse attorneys will be assigned to the project. Carolyn, why does your company do that?

MS. AIMAN: I would like to say one thing about nomenclature. Diverse means different.  We do ask about ethnic, minority, and gender. We don’t ask about  “diverse” attorneys. So for purposes of our discussion, when I use the word, I just want  you to understand how I am using it.  For example, we are a diverse group here, and I don’t want to think that I’m the “diverse” attorney. For purposes of diversifying the legal profession, certainly we have focused on gender and ethnicity, because in the legal profession, particularly in the large firm environment, women and attorneys of color represent the largest percentages of attrition and the least represented groups, and that’s a tremendous loss of talent.  Women represent 50 percent of the graduating classes, but only 17 percent of the partnership levels. Lawyers of color are only 4 percent of the partnership levels. In the management positions of a firm, those statistics are even more startling.  But for D & I to really be understood we need to recognize that we are talking about all groups and the development of talent. D & I is about creating an inclusive environment that supports full participation. Shell asks for the information for several reasons. First we are looking for good legal advice.  Solutions and different perspectives, experiences and viewpoints can impact what we get. Additionally, we want to make sure the law firms with which we do business are providing us diverse teams of attorneys to do work for Shell and that the women and attorneys of color are also working on Shell matters. 

MR. SATCHELL: Just to follow up. I think it is important for large companies, such as Chevron, to encourage law firms to give their minority legal professionals the opportunity to work on significant matters and showcase their abilities. And if Chevron can help develop minority talent within our preferred providers and establish positive relationships with minority legal professionals who share our values and understand our business, that is certainly a “win-win” situation.  

MR. BALLARD:Steve, does El Paso do that in its retention letters, as well?

MR. MEISGEIER: We do not. Again, we try to look outside the traditional large law firms for a lot of our legal work. Of course, we do use them, but we do not have a structured program for looking at the diversity of the lawyers working for us.

MR. BALLARD: What are the biggest challenges facing in-house counsel today, and are those challenges different for a diverse attorney?

MR. MICHEL: My experience in government may be a little different than the private sector. But I think that you’re dealing with a lot more regulation, a lot more outside interest. As attorneys, you have to deal with whether it is environmental aspects or public scrutiny in the newspapers, a lot of other elements that lawyers haven’t dealt with. Because of that, I think the single biggest thing when you’re trying to manage lawyers within a law department, is to make sure that you can get the right lawyers, whether it is on the outside or the inside.
That requires the devotion of a lot of time. Also, it requires people talking about it and having a mindset so you can have a more uniform approach. Otherwise, if every person tries to do what he thinks is best, you’re probably not going to achieve very much from anyone’s perspective. So to me, that’s probably the single biggest issue, trying to find the right legal talent, and making sure that you’ve got an effective program in place for your capabilities and what you’re trying to achieve.

MR. BALLARD:Anybody else want to jump in on the challenges facing in-house counsel and counsel of color?

MS. AIMAN: Well, first I think these issues transcend color and gender. I think, at least at Shell, the challenges that we’re facing are similar to those in the large law departments, whether a firm or a governmental entity. And there are more and more regulatory schemes with which to be familiar, the ongoing concerns about litigation, the volume of work that must get done and sometimes with fewer people than we would like to have assisting. Additionally, it is the e-mails and cell phones and BlackBerrys and at a global company like Shell, the multiple layers of people from different time zones who need your attention, as well as the multiple responsibilities to both clients and management. I think the same pressures are faced by lawyers in a firm and in-house. I think sometimes people in a firm don’t know that, and they think they’re coming in-house to sort of relax a little. It is so not the case. The single thing that surprised me coming in-house several years ago was the pace. I was a litigator at two law firms, and I billed 2,000 hours a year, which I thought was a fast pace.  But, in-house, it is happening in the moment and you’re answering right there, and so you’re moving very fast. When people say, “Oh, do you like in-house better?” I do like in-house quite a bit. But if they’re thinking that we are leaving at 4:00 everyday and life is easy, that’s just not the reality 

MR. BALLARD:Sarah, I wanted to ask you, since you’ve just left your company, to talk about work/life balance and how your company addressed that.

MS. McCONNELL: Well, because I spent the last year selling a company, there was not much work/life balance. Commuting from Houston to Hampton, New Hampshire, every week, did not give me much work/life balance. But, I think that balance is something that each attorney has to grab and make their own. Because regardless of who the employer is, I think they’re going to abuse your willingness to work extraordinary hours a day. So I think that the individual attorney has to set boundaries and say, “This is what I’m going to do, and beyond that, I’ve made commitments to my family, I’ve made commitments to my community.” Each individual has to set those boundaries and then stick to them. And then if that doesn’t work with that particular employer, then you have to find an employer with whom it will work.
Now, I think that as we advance in our careers, we get better at it. When I was a second-year lawyer, I would have been reluctant to say, “I have to leave the office at 5:00 today” for a particular reason. But, now, if I have to leave the office at 5:00, I have to leave the office at 5:00. As we mature, we get better at it.    

MR. MEISGEIER: Even in companies that are committed to a work/life balance, there is the tyranny of the moment. “I’ve got this issue that needs attention right now,”  creates  the constant struggle to say, “I’m leaving anyway.” There are companies that will tolerate that and there are companies that will not. Part of the choice you have to make is will you stay if you find yourself in a company that won’t tolerate that choice.

MS. McCONNELL: If you establish yourself as a valued employee, most people will allow you that flexibility, because they recognize that you are a good employee partly because you have a life outside the office and are a well-rounded person. I think that they will allow you that flexibility, if you establish yourself as a valued employee.

MS. AIMAN:I agree. You know, we have policies for telecommuting, flex time, 9/80, which are wonderful benefits, but it is so individually driven. It also is driven by where you are in your life and what you need in your life. For example, if your kids are grown, you may have a little bit more flexibility, in terms of, “I’d rather work longer than have to work on the weekend.” If your children are smaller, you might want to get out earlier and give up your 9/80-day. I think the key is finding that right place and then setting some parameters and working it out with your boss. Every boss responds differently, not because they don’t recognize people need work/life balance, but because of what needs to get done. For me, even though I tease about the BlackBerry and the cell phone, it has actually created freedom, because I can do my job from another place. I don’t have to sit in my office. The cell phone, the BlackBerry, and the laptop are great inventions for me and really advance my personal efforts for work/life balance. But for each individual, I think the key, as Sarah just said, is you have to decide, okay, I’m going to turn it off.

MR. BALLARD:Kwame, you’ve got two young kids under two. How do you cope? How do you do it? 

MR. SATCHELL: It really is a challenge. You have to be there for your clients. While we can talk about work/life balance, we are all highly compensated professionals, and there is that expectation that we are going to be there when our clients need us, no matter the hour. I have found that if you have been consistently responsive to your clients’ needs in a timely manner, they are usually very understanding and accommodating when certain emergencies come up.

MR. BALLARD:Arturo, I know that in private practice you would work until 4:00 a.m. How does that compare with your work at the Mayor’s office?

MR. MICHEL: That was several years ago, as a young associate. I’m in a different position now. At different times, people feel different pressures of what the job brings and what has to be done. As people mature as lawyers in the profession, you tend to focus your purpose of what it is that you want.
What Sarah said a moment ago was very true; if you prove yourself and are a valued employee, you get to do more of what you want, because people have tremendous loyalty, understanding, and compassion if you communicate with them, and if they see you as part of the team. If you can achieve that type of respect and working relationship with the people, that’s going to give you your biggest satisfaction in other parts of your life.

MR. BALLARD:Kwame mentioned salaries. There’s been an escalation of salaries in outside law firms, especially large outside law firms. Do you see a corresponding escalation of salaries in-house, and if not, how do you attract and retain attorneys in-house?

MS. AIMAN: I try not to pay attention to what’s happening in the firms as it relates to salaries. However, like any company Shell must pay competitively.  However, there is no doubt in-house does not pay in step with law firms. Still, as in-house lawyers, we have multiple layers of benefits that are available, and it is a very satisfying way to practice law. For me, it is very interesting to work with the clients on their business, understanding who they are, what they need and how I can assist them as their attorney to get it done. That’s very attractive professionally. So that professional satisfaction retains people. The 9/80, which involves having every other Friday off, is a wonderful benefit. Having three or four weeks’ vacation that you really can take is a plus. In fact, we have a use or lose policy. Most people want to use it. Although we don’t have to go out and get clients, we have to develop our client relationships internally in the same way any other lawyer has to do so. At the end of the day, we want our clients to value their lawyers in the same way outside counsel wants to be valued. And our clients get to know and trust us and we’re a part of the ongoing success of the company. The in-house practice has a full plate of things that give you professional satisfaction, and I think that’s the retention element.

MR. SATCHELL: Clearly, individuals who work at firms are going to get more, in terms of base salary, than their in-house peers. But when you look at the overall compensation packages and factor in items like bonuses, stock options, matching 401(K), pension, health benefits and the like, in-house compensation starts to become more competitive with outside counsel compensation, particularly from a long-term perspective. I also agree with Carolyn -- additional perks like a 9/80 schedule are very attractive. In talking with friends who work for law firms, the 9/80 schedule always gets a similar response -- usually, somewhere between amazement and out-and-out jealousy.

MR. BALLARD: Steve, any comments along those lines?

MR. MEISGEIER: In response to your initial questions, I don’t think that a raise in associates’ salaries is having a direct and immediate impact on in-house wages. I think that over time it may have an impact. Part of the reason that going in-house is attractive is the relationship that you develop with your client. I know the HR people at El Paso, and they know me, and we trust and respect each other and we can work together. There is a great deal of satisfaction in having that ongoing relationship, in working with them through a problem and seeing it resolved and living with that resolution. Because you can end up working many hours in-house and while in some ways you have more control over your time, in some ways you have less control. The traditional idea that you’re going to work fewer hours is not as true today, if it ever was.   

MR. SATCHELL: In my experience, I know a lot of attorneys who work in law firms who would love to go “in-house.” Conversely, I do not know as many in-house attorneys who are trying to go back to firms, so I think there is definitely something very attractive about working in-house. I agree with Steve that being able to establish strong, on-going relationships with your clients is likely one of those compelling factors.

MR. BALLARD:Arturo, how can government attract good, qualified people, when salaries are not commensurate, necessarily, with the private sector firms?

MR. MICHEL: You know, it is hard to do. They’re very depressed at the City, and other government entities, also. I think you just have to look at a different paradigm and a different approach. You have to go for people at different stages of their career. I think there are people who are younger, who want the immediate experience, who want that intense client contact on something, as well as people at other stages of their life who are willing to devote themselves to public service. I think you’re always going to have a core group of people who truly love and are good at municipal law. But you’re also going to have a lot of turnover, which means that for government legal departments, you have to have more focus on recruiting and hiring people. But I think that’s probably a better way for it to work. I think, for example, the Harris County District Attorney has a pretty good model, where a number of their attorneys leave, but people look at it as a good training ground. And I think that’s the way that governments have to approach hiring lawyers, because on the issue of compensation, it is impossible to beat.

MR. BALLARD:I know that our readers, many of whom are in outside law firms, have a very important business development function, and they would like to know how to go about developing relationships with in-house counsel, and getting business. What’s your thought on that?

MS. AIMAN: Well, a couple of things: One, we do have a captured client, but we also have to develop relationships of trust and responsiveness in the same way that an outside firm does, in that we must find out what people need, understand their business interests, understand how to be a problem solver for them, think about what it will do to make it work for them, rather than ourselves, as lawyers.
So I think that’s the same thing that I would expect from an outside lawyer looking for business from me or my colleagues -- thinking not about “can I land this person, can I get this work,” which I know is an ultimate goal, but listening to what we need. “How do I help you solve your problem? How do I help you accomplish your goals?” Shell has strategic partners, about 26 firms with whom we do most of our primary business. I think a lawyer is very effective when, even when I don’t have work, they’re trying to figure out what it is I do and what I might need. Even if that individual lawyer can’t give me specific assistance, she might refer me to someone else in her own organization. That I think, is very, very helpful.  The next time I need something, I will think of that lawyer who helped me get to what I need and I will likely refer her to other attorneys within Shell.
For example, I have a colleague who does advertising law, and she was talking to an employment lawyer that works for one of our Strategic Partner firms. The employment lawyer could not give her any assistance. But, after learning about her needs in advertising law,  she went back to her firm, found out who was doing advertising law, and put them in contact.  Now my colleague sees the employment lawyer as a problem solver, not just a business getter. She’s selling that employment lawyer within the organization.  Maybe this employment attorney was not thinking about client development, but it worked well all the same. It became about solving the problem of the individual. To me, that’s really the key.

MR. BALLARD:How do you go about developing relationships with the in-house counsel, Steve?

MR. MEISGEIER: Every year I have to list what I’m going to accomplish. My number one accountability as a litigator always seems to be to win and do it cheaper. If somebody contacts us, presents a business case to us -- this is our expertise, this is what we do, this is how we can help you -- we will listen. It is El Paso’s general approach, especially in litigation, to try them out, give them a case, look at how they do, and see whether they will partner with us. Am I getting calls that say, “I think we need to research this issue. What do you think?” So that I can say that it is not worth it to us, or I want you to research it but don’t draft a memo, just tell me what the answer is. That working relationship is the key. You get your foot in through the kind of traditional efforts of getting to meet somebody and giving them your expertise, but then develop that working relationship, so that you understand what I need and how I need to approach it and my pressures. And I think that’s the strongest thing that’s going to get you more business in the future.

MS. McCONNELL: One of the things that’s most impressive to me is, once you do get your foot in the door, get to know my industry. For example, when I throw out a competitor’s name, I shouldn’t have to explain who that is. I’m paying someone a lot of money to counsel me from an outside perspective, and they can only do that effectively if they know my industry.

MR. BALLARD:Kwame, what do you like or not like about your outside counsel?

MR. SATCHELL: I think a good outside counsel relationship begins with a proper understanding of roles. For example, regarding litigation, outside counsel has to understand that they are not running the case, we are. We are simply asking them to partner with us so we can get the best possible result for Chevron. In my opinion, outside counsel also needs to be more “results oriented.” I don’t necessarily need or want a research memo just giving me a bunch of case cites. My preference is to engage in a dialogue where I am asked:  “What would you like done? What is the result you want?” and, after that discussion, outside counsel can provide me with various options for getting to the desired result. If if turns out that our desired position simply cannot be supported, outside counsel should explain why and suggest some alternatives. Those types of things, I think, are very important in establishing a strong relationship with outside counsel. 
Also, outside counsel needs to ensure that any work is of the highest quality. Any memorandum should answer any and all reasonable questions and provide me with a high level of confidence that outside counsel fully understood the issue and its impact upon my client.   

MS. AIMAN: In our strategic partner relationships, we do evaluations, and everything that we just talked about, partnering, quality, cost effectiveness, professionalism, diversity, and inclusiveness are elements that we use to evaluate and provide feedback to our law firms and the lawyers that we’re working with. We consider whether the attorneys recognize that the in-house lawyer is the lead person and the internal contact person. Does the attorney recognize that the in-house attorneys have cost pressures and concerns and don’t need a memo on every single issue; sometimes we need the attorney to just cut to the chase and provide the information to let the in-house attorney decide whether additional research is needed.  Another issue is appropriately staffing a case. Not every case needs multiple layers of attorneys.   Sometimes, I only need one person who can really just hit the ground and get it done.
And to the extent that firms recognize that and pursue that and understand the obligations that we have in-house to be cost effective and to get things done in a timely manner, those are great marketing tools. That helps get other business. Most people don’t understand that when we get a lawyer that we really like working with, we’re cross-selling inside the legal department:  “He was great. She did this, that, and the other, and that attorney was so responsive.” And that’s important.

MR. SATCHELL: I know Chevron has outside counsel guidelines that outlines, in substantial detail, the relationship that we expect. I can tell you that it is very frustrating to have outside counsel taking actions, for instance, in connection with invoicing, which are contrary to those guidelines. 

MR. MEISGEIER: To follow up on the guideline issue, that is one of the things that irritates me no end. When we send out guidelines and say, “We’re not going to pay for this,” and then I start seeing bills that include those charges. Or “we’re not going to pay for a memo unless you clear it with us first,” and then it shows up on the bill.
There will be times when I decide that I want to argue about that, and there are times that I decide I don’t. But I remember it. And if you’re ignoring our guidelines, that’s a signal to me that you’re willing to ignore what I have to say in a conversation. I lose trust with that. If you agree to those guidelines, we expect you to live by them.

MR. BALLARD:Sarah, you’ve just left your in-house counsel position, and you’re in between. What is a lawyer in your situation looking for at this point, and how do you go about it?

MS. McCONNELL: At this point in my career, I’m really evaluating each opportunity on what I’m going to be doing day in and day out and the people I’m going to be working with. As I’ve had different employment opportunities over the course of my career, the ones I have found most rewarding are those where the substantive work is good and I have enjoyed working with my colleagues.             

MR. BALLARD:I wanted to talk a little bit about pro bono, because that’s been an emphasis of mine as HBA president this year, and I think it is very important. And I’m wondering if your companies allow you to do pro bono and if they give you credit for that. Carolyn?

MS. AIMAN: Our legal department is very community service oriented and that includes pro bono work.  In fact, Shell Legal has a separate pro bono committee. We’ve participated in the HBA Wills Clinic with the Houston Volunteer Lawyers Program a couple of times.  And several of the members of the legal department are on the committee. Tom Brandt, who is one of our managing counsel, heads that committee. So we do work collectively, as an organization. People really love it. Not only the lawyers, but the paralegals and the administrative assistants also get involved. As for credit, at Shell attorneys are required to bill out time and we do account for that time. However, more than anything else, our community service work and pro bono work are really a statement about our legal department culture.

MR. BALLARD:I know that Shell is one of our Equal Access to Justice Champions, which means that you’ve committed to take a certain number of pro bono cases this year and for five years. And we do appreciate that. Steve, how about you guys, do you do pro bono, and are you recognized for it?

MR. MEISGEIER: El Paso has an extremely strong volunteer ethic. It is supported throughout the company in all areas. However, there is not a program specific in the legal department for doing pro bono work. One part of our company motto is:  “The neighbor to have.” I think that means that if we were to participate in those types of things, we would certainly be allowed to and encouraged, but there is not a specific system that would recognize pro bono work, any different than going out to build a Habitat for Humanity house or the things so many of our employees did for the Katrina and Rita victims.

MR. BALLARD:How about pro bono programs at your place, Kwame?

MR. SATCHELL: Our law function does not have an official pro bono program; however, we have had individual attorneys work on matters with full management support.

MR. BALLARD:Arturo, could you talk about public service and what it means to you and why it is important?

MR. MICHEL: Being at the City, I’ve seen a wide range of public needs, in different parts of the City, and some real issues and some real problems. I think lawyers have played a big role in helping. Whether it is deed restriction issues, other issues having to do with dangerous buildings, those really go to the quality of life.
I know that the legal community has been very generous in their time. I know that both the Mayor and I have called upon firms to take on work, having to do with either dangerous buildings or other licenses or deed restrictions, and everyone has answered the call for a tremendous amount of time. I’ve been continually impressed. But, in a way, that doesn’t surprise me. In Houston, that’s been the case for a long time. I think what Steve was saying is true, that the oil companies here in Houston, for generations, not only in the legal department, but also in other areas, have given their time and effort to different schools and everyone else. You find them in all walks of life. But, I think, for the City, I’ve seen firsthand just how it transforms people’s lives when something tangible can be done that makes a difference between whether people live in an area where they don’t fear their safety, where they have electricity, where they feel they can send their children to school.

MR. BALLARD:That’s a great answer. The final group of questions really deals with the Bar Association.  Is anybody a member of any other bar association here in town?

MR. MICHEL: Yeah, a couple of the minority bar associations. And I wanted to say that I think it would do people well to talk to the HBA, and explain what your needs are, because I think there are a lot of things the HBA does that people are unaware of. There are some creative people who can say, “Well, we can offer this,” or “If not directly, we’re familiar with other organizations that can help you with this.” That’s another resource that, particularly in an in-house position, can be very helpful.

MR. BALLARD:The State Bar of Texas has four appointed minority seats, to create and promote diversity. Do you think the Houston Bar Association ought to have something like that, or is it necessary in a town as large and as diverse as Houston?

MS. McCONNELL: It might be interesting to talk to the State Bar about their experience, and see whether they found it beneficial. We shouldn’t say it is not necessary just because Houston is large and diverse, because Texas is large and diverse, and the State Bar obviously saw the need for it.

MR. MICHEL: I would go to the minority bars, too. My sense is that the HBA has been pretty open and that minority lawyers have had an opportunity to advance through it. But I think those organizations would be the ones to say whether they see any barriers. I would suspect they would say no.

MR. BALLARD:And, in fact, Arturo, we’re doing exactly that. We’re inviting the seven or so minority bars to come to our next couple of board meetings to comment on outreach, and how we can do a better job with diversity and related issues. We’re looking forward to that exchange.
We really appreciate this exchange. It has been very open and honest, and we appreciate everybody who’s participated here today.  Thank you very much.

The Houston Bar Association would like to thank Yvette Perrodin and RLS Legal Solutions, L.L.C., for providing reporting services for the transcript of this roundtable discussion. RLS is located at 1300 Texas Avenue, Houston, TX 77002; 713-354-2339, www.teamrls.com.


< BACK TO TOP >