Laurie Blank on “Advice for Law Students: Reflections on Two Years at DoD OGC”
Today my friend, Professor Laurie Blank of Emory University School of Law treats us (and especially law students!) to an insider’s perspective as to what it takes to succeed in the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Office of the General Counsel (OGC).
I’d like to foot-stomp something Laurie says: “you must understand the client’s business, whether it is the Department of Commerce or a widget factory. The law does not operate in a vacuum – and lawyers cannot either.”
This is especially true in the national security arena. To be competent practicing law in this area requires considerable individual investment in learning about not just the relevant law, but also the military’s weapons, equipment, strategy, tactics, history, culture, and more — not to mention staying current about domestic and international events which impact America’s national security enterprise. Not understanding the client’s business is a quick way to lose the client’s confidence, and in this legal discipline that literally could be catastrophic.
Though Laurie’s insightful observations are in the DoD OGC setting, they actually are very relevant to any legal practice. Here’s Laurie:
Advice for Law Students: Reflections on Two Years at DoD OGC
Laurie R. Blank
From September 2022 to June 2024, I had the extraordinary privilege of working in the Pentagon as Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the Department of Defense. Among my fondest memories are, of course, the fantastic, dedicated and engaging colleagues with whom I had the great honor to work every day and the always entertaining anecdotes about life and work in the Pentagon.
The most important, and the ones I turn to the most, however, are the takeaways for the law students I teach, mentor and get to know in and out of the classroom. To that end, here are four of those takeaways – for students thinking about practicing law in government and the national security arena, or any other area of law practice.
Know your audience
Law is fundamentally about communication – communicating your analysis, advice, advocacy and recommendations about legal issues, concerns, risks, obligations, and options. As a lawyer, and particularly as a lawyer in a government agency, you will communicate and provide your legal analysis, advice and conclusions to and with three primary audiences: your boss (whether an immediate superior or higher), your client (the policy officials for whom you provide legal advice), and your colleagues in the interagency. Private practice also involves multiple audiences – the law firm partner or other superior, your client, and co-counsel or other attorneys with whom you work. Communicating about the law to each of those audiences is not – and often should not – be the same, however.
Knowing the law is essential – but it is merely the starting point. The practice of law requires tailoring that knowledge and analysis of the law to the task and the audience at hand. As a lawyer in the government, one of your roles (among many) with respect to your boss, who will be the general counsel or legal advisor at the relevant government agency, is to provide her with the tools to do her core job of advising the principal (Secretary of State, or Defense, or Homeland Security or …).
Communicating about the law with your boss, therefore, is not giving her legal advice, but rather presenting the law, explaining the permutations, risks, competing interpretations, and anticipated follow-on issues or developments – equipping her to provide legal advice – all without delivering a treatise or ninety-minute lecture. In sum, whether in writing or orally – be comprehensive, concise and clear.
Communicating about the law with your client, a policy official, is a different conversation. Here your task is to provide legal advice, not merely a “yes” or “no,” but a clear framing of the parameters, constraints, requirements or limits of a proposed or desired action. Most important, this communication is with a non-lawyer, so being able to speak and write about the law in “plain English” rather than the legalese we all master during law school is essential.
Asking questions and understanding which facts and information you need to provide robust and effective legal advice is critical. To do so effectively, you must understand the client’s business, whether it is the Department of Commerce or a widget factory. The law does not operate in a vacuum – and lawyers cannot either.
Finally, government lawyers engage extensively with attorney colleagues across the interagency. Here, communicating about the law requires an exchange of nuanced views about different perspectives within the government – listening to those alternative perspectives, identifying the differences in analysis and opinion and understanding where the opportunities for consensus are and where gaps persist.
Know your sources … of law
Practicing law in the government requires particular attention to and understanding of the applicable and appropriate sources of law.
Consider international law – as a law student, you research and then deploy in your seminar papers any and all relevant law, scholarly articles, caselaw and more. As a lawyer in government, your analysis and advice must begin and stay within the law that binds your state – treaties to which your state is a party, and customary international law recognized as such by your state.
Know the difference as a matter of law between a ratified treaty, a United Nations Security Council resolution issued under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and if and when any of those, or other sources of international law, are appropriate to rely on in formulating and presenting legal analysis or advice.
Learn how your government, and your agency with the government, views particular sources – which ones are authoritative, which are persuasive, and which just produce eye rolls from skeptical interlocutors, and use sources to the best effect.
Collaborate well and in the interest of collective success
One of the great pleasures of working in government is the daily collaboration with brilliant, dedicated and interesting colleagues. One of the challenges of working in government is the daily collaboration with those same colleagues … Your success as a lawyer and the team’s success depends on your ability to work in that collaborative environment. Collaborating does not mean being submissive, or being a wallflower, or agreeing with everyone all the time, however. Collaboration is a multifaceted concept, so here are three aspects that stand out.
First, get good at giving, seeking and receiving input. You will be asked to provide input on documents and questions on which you are deeply engaged and on those for which you have only a glancing connection. Understand what you bring to the table when asked for input and always work to make the product better, not to make yourself look good. Similarly, seek input from colleagues who bring added perspective to the problem and can help make sure that no key points or problems are overlooked.
Second, hard questions will require consensus to move forward on legal analysis and recommendations. Know where you draw the line in understanding and interpreting the law – where you are comfortable with different ways to interpret and present the law and where you believe it is important to hold firm to a specific interpretation or precise wording in developing a position or explaining the law – and be able to justify and explain that belief to your colleagues and your superiors.
Third, learn how to be, and recognize the value in being, a good colleague in addition to being a great lawyer. Beyond the usual and obvious ways to be a good colleague, learn the culture of your office and agency to be a team player on your specific team, not just in the abstract.
Rigor and … more rigor
Lawyers are known for being nitpicky and overly precise and analytical (how many of us have heard “don’t be so lawyerly about it” more times than we can count …). Unlike in school, where the quality of your work only affects you – in the form of your grades – once you are practicing law, your clients, your boss and others are depending on and making decisions on the basis of your work and your advice. A failure to be nitpicky and precise and analytical here undermines the quality of your legal work.
Be rigorous in your research – find everything, and then look again, and again. Even more important, demonstrate that rigor in your writing and verbal communications – write clearly and precisely, cite the best sources and cite them properly, and tackle the hard questions head on. If you do not understand an issue, put in the effort to figure it out rather than passing the confusion along.
Identify gaps, catch mistakes, and embrace the task of translating opacity and ambiguity into clarity. Doing so not only means you are providing the best legal work and advice you can, but also demonstrates to your boss, your client and others that they can have confidence in your work.
**
Know the law – yes, of course. And then put in the same effort to know your audience, your sources, your team, and your role. Take every opportunity you have now to polish your writing and verbal communication skills – your indispensable tools and equipment for the path ahead of you.
About the Author
Laurie R. Blank is a clinical professor of law and director of the International Humanitarian Law Clinic at Emory Law School, where she teaches the law of armed conflict and works directly with students to provide assistance to international tribunals, non-governmental organizations and militaries around the world on cutting edge issues in humanitarian law and human rights. During the 2022-2024 academic years, she served as Special Counsel to the General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense.
She has a JD, cum laude, from New York University School of Law; a MA, with distinction, in International Relations from The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, and an AB, cum laude in Political Science from Princeton University.
Diclaimers
The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense or any other entity of the U.S. Government.
The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect my views or those of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security, or Duke University. See also here.
Remember what we like to say on Lawfire®: gather the facts, examine the law, evaluate the arguments – and then decide for yourself!
