Life is sweet
If longevity is anything to go by, working as the top lawyer at confectionery giant Cadbury seems to be one of the, ahem, sweeter in-house roles going.After all, the company - one of the world's largest confectionery businesses - has a knack of being able to retain its staff. Chief legal officer and group secretary Hank Udow has been at the company for more than 20 years and is still fascinated by his work.He says: "It still amazes me how many interesting and complex transactions I have had the opportunity to do at Cadbury. It is never dull. The scope of activities from a legal perspective is enormous."
December 10, 2008 at 11:03 PM
7 minute read
Cadbury's legal chief Hank Udow talks to Leigh Jackson about shaking up his team, keeping advisers on their toes and finding new challenges
If longevity is anything to go by, working as the top lawyer at confectionery giant Cadbury seems to be one of the, ahem, sweeter in-house roles going.
After all, the company – one of the world's largest confectionery businesses – has a knack of being able to retain its staff. Chief legal officer and group secretary Hank Udow has been at the company for more than 20 years and is still fascinated by his work.
He says: "It still amazes me how many interesting and complex transactions I have had the opportunity to do at Cadbury. It is never dull. The scope of activities from a legal perspective is enormous."
Udow, a US-born lawyer who joined the company from Shearman & Sterling, is not alone in devoting most of his working life to Cadbury. Current chief executive Todd Stitzer has been with the company for 25 years and chief human resources officer Bob Stack joined back in 1990.
Udow (pictured) says the ethos at Cadbury enables its lawyers to play a defining role in the company – an aspect which has proved crucial in keeping lawyers involved.
"In this business, lawyers are not simply people you go to for legal advice. We have a different model," he comments. "The company wants lawyers involved with the business generally."
Udow says Cadbury looks for two main traits when hiring lawyers: technical excellence and business acumen.
"Recruiting is the toughest part of any job," Udow says. "The first thing we look for is good legal skills – sometimes people come out of big law firms because we are looking for lawyers with that level of experience, but we do not look at large firms exclusively."
Udow adds: "The second thing we look for is people who are business-oriented. Sometimes you can have great lawyers but, in a business context, they can turn out to be a disaster. Being a good lawyer does not necessarily mean one has the skills to help people come to sound business decisions."
In spite of the task of building a formidable in-house team, Cadbury has around 130 legal staff worldwide, including 85 lawyers and, following a restructure earlier this year, is led by seven distinct regional legal heads.
As a consequence of the restructuring, which was part of a company-wide move to cut 250 middle managers and a further 330 jobs in Australia and New Zealand, Asia-Pacific legal head Rod McNeil left the company.
The creation of new legal heads is aimed at bolstering internal communication and accountability.
Udow comments: "It was important to speed up decision-making within the company. The consensus was that it had become slow. The lines of communication have now been shortened."
Udow also puts this premium on communication in his relationship with external counsel, commenting: "You can call a firm for some advice and they will come back to you with a 10-page well-resourced opinion, which you can do nothing with," he says.
"At other firms a partner will give you an instinctive response that can be used as actionable advice. There is a distinct difference in styles. A good lawyer is comfortable making judgement calls."
While the company does not operate a formal legal panel, it instructs a number of firms on an ongoing basis, including Slaughter and May, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Shearman and Morgan Lewis & Bockius. Cadbury also has relationships with other firms, including Wragge & Co, on a more prescriptive basis.
Udow comments: "We do not have a panel structure, although in a sense I suppose we operate an informal panel. The issue with formal panels is that they are somewhat fictitious. You go through the process of creating a panel and then you find you need to go off panel on multiple occasions."
Aside from the need for flexibility, Udow says the lack of a formal panel ensures that Cadbury spreads its supplier base and gains better deals through constant competition.
Udow says: "As a business policy, we would never be purchasing from just one supplier for raw material – and we feel the same about law firms for two reasons. Firstly, it is helpful to see different styles and approaches and secondly, it keeps them on their toes. We constantly need to forestall the development of institutional entitlement. If we use a range of advisers our firms pay more attention."
He adds: "Law firms have not been as competitive as they could be and they make assumptions about the relationship and are not as responsible as they could be about billing."
With this in mind, Cadbury deliberately uses its in-house team to conduct the majority of its legal work, with around 70% of its workload handled internally. When the company decides to use outside counsel the process is watched closely in-house.
"We do a lot of our work in-house," Udow says. "We do not have litigators in-house, but we oversee and are actively involved in the management of all our litigation."
He adds: "Our in-house lawyers always work closely with outside counsel on matters in which we have retained outside counsel. We play a significant role. For example, we always lead the negotiations of transactions with outside counsel providing us with support. We are fortunate to have significant transactional experience in-house."
While trying to ensure that outside support is maintained effectively, Udow plays a key role advising the Cadbury board on legal issues. However, while he is not a member of the board, Udow does not believe sitting with the board necessarily represents an inherent conflict.
Udow says: "As company secretary I am not a member of the board, but attend and participate in all of its meetings, as well as the committee meetings.
"I do not think it is a conflict for a general counsel to be a member of the board. Promoting the best interests of the business and discharging fiduciary duties are not in conflict with abiding by legal obligations or ethical principles."
He adds: "There is a growing trend in the UK and the US to only have one executive director on the board. From a corporate governance perspective, this is probably positive."
With Udow soon to enter his 21st year with the company, the veteran lawyer argues that a strong company culture is essential to maintaining job satisfaction – that and a bit of variety.
Udow says: "What I love about this business is that it has a great culture, great people and great brands. That combination makes the hard work enjoyable."
More in-house news, comment and analysis
Sign up to receive In-house News Briefing, Legal Week's new digital newsletter
Legal Week Crisis Management Q&A – Mark JonesThis 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 AllWorkload and Getting It All Done Top Challenges for In-house Counsel: Survey
4 minute readAmazon Corporate Counsel in Brussels Returns to US Firm in ‘Boomerang Hire’
2 minute readFormer Miral GC Brings Commercial Insight to BCLP’s Middle East Real Estate Practice
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 2Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 3The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
- 4Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online
- 5US Supreme Court Considers Further Narrowing of Federal Fraud Statutes
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