Peter Bragdon, executive vice president, chief administrative officer and general counsel at Columbia Sportswear Co. Courtesy photo.

Peter Bragdon of Columbia Sportswear Co. may not be the typical general counsel.

Bragdon didn't even start his professional career in law. Right out of college, Bragdon started as a political journalist for the Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report in Washington, D.C. He had his first taste of law school through a prestigious one-year master of laws fellowship at Yale Law School for journalists interested in enhancing their legal reporting.

Then politics came calling once he was at Columbia. From 2003 to 2004, Bragdon took an 18-month leave of absence from his in-house gig to serve as chief of staff in Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski's office.

But Bragdon's path took him and brought him back to Columbia, the Portland, Oregon-based multibrand outdoor clothing and gear retail giant, in June 2004 as vice president, GC and secretary, a role that has evolved over the years along with his increasing responsibilities.

Now Bragdon, officially titled executive vice president, chief administrative officer, GC and secretary, oversees about 180 people—eight of them high-ranking direct reports—and a dozen administrative functions, including corporate responsibility, community relations, compliance, human resources, global trade and, of course, legal.

Also highly unusual for a GC, Bragdon in recent months has spoken to more than half a dozen national news media organizations, including NPR, The Washington Post and The New York Times, about the detrimental effects of President Donald Trump's controversial tariff policies.

He spoke with Corporate Counsel about those dangers, as well as his unique role in shaping the discussion. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Corporate Counsel: How has your background prepared you for this position?

Peter Bragdon: It's all intertwined. I couldn't have planned it this way, but when it all comes together, I'll have a week where I'm talking to a U.S. senator in the morning, talking to a Washington Post reporter in the afternoon and in the office working with a team of experts about legal compliance in the trade war.

CC: How did you come to take on some of the duties of speaking publicly?

PB: If someone were to hire me today as a GC, it wouldn't be my expectation that I would speak out on issues, but the CEO and I have a similar view of the importance of the press and of transparency, and we're not going to run from it. In fact, there are times that we want to pitch a particular point of view as part of the public dialogue.

Global engagement is everything—we sell in more than 90 countries—and feel it's important that people understand the importance of that so we try to shape the public dialogue when we can. I don't think it's a particularly common thing, but he's always given me the opportunity to speak on things.

CC: One of those is Trump's tariff policies. Why are you so outspoken about them?

PB: There are opportunities in some of this unsettled environment to educate the public and public officials so that they understand the impact of tariffs. We've been dealing with them for so long, we know they are anachronistic and harmful to business and consumers.

Our industry already faces tariffs, as high as 37.5% on some of our footwear, dating back to policies signed into law by Herbert Hoover, so we're actively speaking at a time when very few publications were taking an interest. But now that everybody does, and the interest is amplified, it's important to continue to do so not only to combat bad changes but to start a real public dialogue where people understand the cost of it.

Without predicting the future, you can look to the past: High tariffs are built into the prices people pay and also what products are made. We think it's pretty distorting and want people to understand that.

CC: Does the importance of speaking out apply internally as well?

PB: The more you speak out, the more people expect you to speak out. There's an expectation among employees that when some of these major issues happen that the CEO is going to say something. We saw that with the travel ban, when we were quick to put out a statement, and with the incident in Charlottesville.

When we haven't said anything, there are employees who will reach out to me and say, "Shouldn't we be saying something internally?"

CC: What advice do you have for a GC interested in being a part of the public dialogue like you have?

PB: As a starting point, there is an important role for a GC in what the company's communications are. That's obvious when we're talking about investor relations and similar matters, but I also think company counsel brings important perspective when law, public policy and the media intersect. Some of that, of course, is assessing and managing the risk. It may also include evaluating the impact of those communications on the multiple constituencies the corporation encounters around the globe, including customers, political leaders, employees, activists, etc.

Clearly a GC must understand the company's role, if any, in shaping public policy. Our job isn't to sit back and wait. If a company is involved in shaping the law and understanding the impact, I think a counsel would be involved in that. If your company is communicating a corporate, nonmarketing message, it's hard for me to imagine that a GC would not have a role in it.

Not all companies want to deliver external messages, beyond marketing, but increasingly it does seem that employees, the public and the media are looking to business to communicate about important issues of the day that impact the company's employees and operations and the communities where they are located.