Globe Trotting
The ability to think globally is rapidly becoming a core competency for successful in-house counsel.
December 31, 2005 at 07:00 PM
8 minute read
A few weeks ago I found myself at the New Delhi airport catching an early morning flight to Hyderabad, one of India's leading technology centers. It was 5 a.m. Friday in India, which meant it was 4:30 p.m. Thursday on the West Coast in the U.S. I was keeping one eye on the departure gate while completing calls on my cell phone to colleagues back home. Although everyone says the world is becoming flatter, multiple time zones and jet lag will always remain realities of business travel.
Just a few hours later, however, the world indeed felt flat when I met with students at one of India's leading law schools. Their questions focused on litigation in Europe, legislation in the U.S. and the legal challenges facing the surging technology market in India itself. Their energy and enthusiasm was palpable. Thanks in part to advances created by the Internet, their generation will help shape not only the law in India, but also their country's expanding connection with the rest of the global economy.
Their work in the future also will be important to our role as lawyers in the U.S. Gone are the days when I was a law student in the early 1980s, when international legal issues were regarded as a discrete field. As our companies do business across borders, there is an international aspect to almost every legal field.
In one sense a borderless perspective is a natural progression of the legal profession. We started our careers with a license to practice in a single state, but it was clear that our work didn't end simply because a product crossed state lines. Our law libraries had cases from throughout the country, and we turned to them to understand decisions across the nation. After all, even though courts in one state weren't bound by rulings in another, most judges were interested in understanding broader trends before making up their own minds.
In this context, it's not surprising that courts in the U.S. are referring more frequently to international judicial decisions. This doesn't mean our judges are surrendering the nation's sovereignty. It's instead a reflection of the growth in global commerce and the opportunity to learn from others' experiences before deciding what lessons we want to apply to ourselves.
In other respects, however, internationalization is stretching us in new ways. Companies increasingly find themselves addressing the same legal and regulatory issues in multiple countries simultaneously. A day at the office can start with a call to lawyers in Europe and end with a conversation with lawyers in Asia.
The ability to think globally is rapidly becoming a core competency for successful in-house counsel. It requires that we better understand the legal and regulatory traditions in other countries, as well as differences in business culture and politics.
The flattened world also creates new opportunities and challenges for the management of legal departments. Our employees are located around the world and reflect multiple nationalities, cultures and languages. We have the opportunity to work as a team, learn from each other and build on each other's strengths. But like all diversity efforts, teamwork requires planning and resources.
Ultimately the work we do to address international issues will shape not only the companies and industries in which we work, but the future of legal interaction across borders. International regulatory coordination is still at an early stage. The issues on which we work will set the precedents that will help shape the decades that follow.
As professionals in the best sense of the word, we have the opportunity to think not only about the interests of our clients, but also the broader public good. If we do that well, we'll make a contribution that will serve future lawyers both at home and abroad.
Brad Smith is the senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of Microsoft Corp. He also serves as the company's chief compliance officer.
A few weeks ago I found myself at the New Delhi airport catching an early morning flight to Hyderabad, one of India's leading technology centers. It was 5 a.m. Friday in India, which meant it was 4:30 p.m. Thursday on the West Coast in the U.S. I was keeping one eye on the departure gate while completing calls on my cell phone to colleagues back home. Although everyone says the world is becoming flatter, multiple time zones and jet lag will always remain realities of business travel.
Just a few hours later, however, the world indeed felt flat when I met with students at one of India's leading law schools. Their questions focused on litigation in Europe, legislation in the U.S. and the legal challenges facing the surging technology market in India itself. Their energy and enthusiasm was palpable. Thanks in part to advances created by the Internet, their generation will help shape not only the law in India, but also their country's expanding connection with the rest of the global economy.
Their work in the future also will be important to our role as lawyers in the U.S. Gone are the days when I was a law student in the early 1980s, when international legal issues were regarded as a discrete field. As our companies do business across borders, there is an international aspect to almost every legal field.
In one sense a borderless perspective is a natural progression of the legal profession. We started our careers with a license to practice in a single state, but it was clear that our work didn't end simply because a product crossed state lines. Our law libraries had cases from throughout the country, and we turned to them to understand decisions across the nation. After all, even though courts in one state weren't bound by rulings in another, most judges were interested in understanding broader trends before making up their own minds.
In this context, it's not surprising that courts in the U.S. are referring more frequently to international judicial decisions. This doesn't mean our judges are surrendering the nation's sovereignty. It's instead a reflection of the growth in global commerce and the opportunity to learn from others' experiences before deciding what lessons we want to apply to ourselves.
In other respects, however, internationalization is stretching us in new ways. Companies increasingly find themselves addressing the same legal and regulatory issues in multiple countries simultaneously. A day at the office can start with a call to lawyers in Europe and end with a conversation with lawyers in Asia.
The ability to think globally is rapidly becoming a core competency for successful in-house counsel. It requires that we better understand the legal and regulatory traditions in other countries, as well as differences in business culture and politics.
The flattened world also creates new opportunities and challenges for the management of legal departments. Our employees are located around the world and reflect multiple nationalities, cultures and languages. We have the opportunity to work as a team, learn from each other and build on each other's strengths. But like all diversity efforts, teamwork requires planning and resources.
Ultimately the work we do to address international issues will shape not only the companies and industries in which we work, but the future of legal interaction across borders. International regulatory coordination is still at an early stage. The issues on which we work will set the precedents that will help shape the decades that follow.
As professionals in the best sense of the word, we have the opportunity to think not only about the interests of our clients, but also the broader public good. If we do that well, we'll make a contribution that will serve future lawyers both at home and abroad.
Brad Smith is the senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readIn-House Lawyers Are Focused on Employment and Cybersecurity Disputes, But Looking Out for Conflict Over AI
Trending Stories
- 1AI and Social Media Fakes: Are You Protecting Your Brand?
- 2A Primer on Using Third-Party Depositions To Prove Your Case at Trial
- 3‘Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission’: Another Consequence of 'Hobby Lobby'?
- 4With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 5In-House Legal Network The L Suite Acquires Legal E-Learning Platform Luminate+
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250