(Photo
by
Chip
Somodevilla/Getty
Images)
It’s
all
in
how
you
define
a
“win.”
As
a
former
AGC,
there
are
numerous
ways
to
win
in-house.
Yes,
in-house
counsel
can
help
the
client
win
money,
keep
the
client
from
losing
money,
manage
or
avert
crises,
and,
of
course,
satisfy
the
client,
if
their
expectations
are
reasonable.
Their
job
was
to
bring
the
money
in
the
front
door,
and
my
job
was
to
keep
it
from
going
out
the
back
door
in
terms
of
verdicts
and
shudderingly
expensive
settlements.
But
there
are
other
wins
as
well.
One
is
when
you
develop
client
relationships
so
that
clients
trust
your
advice
and
are
willing
to
accept
it.
That
takes
time,
but
the
rewards
are
worth
the
effort.
If
a
client
trusts
you
and
your
advice,
then
it
becomes
easier
to
persuade
clients
to
take
some
steps,
refrain
from
others,
and
manage
their
expectations.
What’s
another
win?
The
responsibility
that
in-house
counsel
has
at
the
outset
may
take
years
for
an
associate
at
an
outside
law
firm
to
shoulder.
In-house
counsel
must
hit
the
ground
running,
as
there
is
little
time,
if
any,
for
education.
It
is
the
essence
of
on-the-job
training.
The
client
assumes
a
certain
amount
of
subject
matter
expertise,
but
the
necessary
and
important
people
skills
need
polishing.
That’s
to
be
expected,
as
you
don’t
know
who
the
players
are,
don’t
know
who
makes
the
decisions
(do
you
have
any
settlement
authority?),
and
don’t
know
the
various
and
sundry
client
politics.
Those
can
take
a
while
to
learn,
so
the
best
way
to
approach
this
all
is
to
watch
and
listen,
listen
very
carefully.
You
will
have
plenty
of
opportunities
to
speak
up.
And
for
all
those
out-house
lawyers
who
think
that
in-house
counsel
have
it
comparatively
easy,
it’s
time
to
get
a
grip.
According
to
a
recent
Bloomberg
Law
report,
in-house
counsel
outwork
(not
necessarily
something
to
crow
about)
their
outside
counterparts.
While
today
there
are
more
women
lawyers
than
ever
before,
in
practice,
in
government,
and
on
the
bench,
before
there
was
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson,
before
Amy
Coney
Barrett,
before
Elena
Kagan,
before
Sonia
Sotomayor,
before
Ruth
Bader
Ginsberg,
there
was
the
first,
Sandra
Day
O’Connor.
And
to
her
credit,
she
has
not
been
the
last.
Whether
you
believe
that
her
judicial
philosophy
was
too
liberal
or
too
conservative
(you
choose),
she
was
and
will
always
be
the
first,
as
so
aptly
titled
in
Evan
Thomas’s
book
about
her.
As
the
number
of
women
in
law
continues
to
increase,
albeit
still
too
slowly,
today’s
women
lawyers
and
judges
owe
a
huge
debt
to
the
late
Associate
Justice
O’Connor.
Way
back
in
medieval
times
(circa
1980),
Republican
presidential
candidate
Ronald
Reagan
kept
a
campaign
promise:
he
would
nominate
a
woman
to
join
the
all-male
cohort
of
justices
on
the
Supreme
Court.
In
1981,
he
nominated
O’Connor
to
that
court.
In
what
is
now
looked
upon
longingly
as
the
lost
and
last
days
of
bipartisanship,
she
was
confirmed
by
a
vote
of
98-0.
Young
women
lawyers,
like
me,
were
thrilled
and
delighted
at
O’Connor’s
confirmation.
It
was,
to
many
of
us,
a
sign
that
the
glass
ceiling
for
women
as
lawyers
and
equals
would
be
shattered.
We
were
hopeful,
starry-eyed,
and
thought
that
the
road
ahead
for
women
lawyers
would
be
smoother
than
it
had
been
in
the
past.
Maybe.
The
struggle
continues
more
than
40
years
after
her
confirmation.
Unlike
her
Supreme
Court
colleagues,
O’Connor
had
been
an
Arizona
politician
before
going
on
that
state’s
bench.
She
was
a
pragmatist,
never
choosing
to
go
further
than
she
needed
in
order
to
reach
what
she
thought
was
the
right
result
in
the
case.
She
did
not
think
that
“compromise”
was
an
ugly
word.
She
knew
well
what
compromise
meant
in
those
days,
but
that’s
no
longer
the
case.
Compromise
today
is
a
dirty
word.
Resigning
from
the
court
to
take
care
of
her
ailing
husband
(aren’t
women
almost
always
the
caretakers?),
she
went
on
to
create
icivics.org
to
teach
civics
to
secondary
students.
Civics?
What
is
that?
Precisely
her
point.
One
of
the
many
things
I
found
fascinating
about
O’Connor
was
her
seemingly
effortless
ability
to
juggle
so
many
plates
in
the
air
at
the
same
time.
She
was
as
committed
to
her
husband
and
family
as
she
was
to
being
an
associate
justice
with
a
killer
workload.
I
always
wondered
how
she
did
it,
especially
when
she
was
diagnosed
with
breast
cancer
before
the
end
of
her
first
decade
on
the
court.
But
she
managed
it.
How
did
she
accomplish
all
that
she
did
when
she
had
the
same
24-hour
day
just
like
the
rest
of
us?
While
O’Connor
might
scoff
at
this
characterization,
she
was
an
agent
of
change
in
so
many
ways.
And
thank
goodness
she
was.
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
Kathryn
Christine
