GENERAL COUNSEL & DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL:
A SURVEY OF ADMINISTRATIVE & LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES
Stanford University
Information from Deputy General Counsel Tom Fenner from a telephone
conversation, 8/26/2002:
The office of the general counsel at Stanford has 5-6 full-time attorneys and
several other part-time attorneys. Stanford also has attorneys based in their medical
center and linear accelerator. The total number of full-time attorneys reporting to the
general counsel around the Stanford campus is 10.
Stanford does not have a large general counsel’s office, and functional divisions
between the attorneys do not exist (other than for those located at the medical center
and linear accelerator). The attorneys in the general counsel’s office confront all of the
legal aspects of running a university, including the medical center. Mr. Fenner believes
that the lack of distinctions between the attorneys arises from the fluid nature of
Stanford as an academic environment; the school does not have deep divisions among
its parts and so the office of the general counsel does not either.
The fundamental responsibility of the deputy general counsel is to assume the
position of the general counsel when she is not available. In addition the office has a
fairly flat structure, which Mr. Fenner likened to the partners of a law firm; the
attorneys work together, and no rigid reporting structure exists.
The chief hospital counsel is located at the medical center and serves as a quasi-
deputy general counsel. Around twenty years ago, the office of the general counsel
moved several of its attorneys to the medical center and slashed the number of
attorneys that Stanford employs. This evolved into the structure that currently exists,
and only recently has Stanford added attorneys to its medical center. Much of the
medical legal work is outsourced, though less so now that more attorneys work at the
medical center.
1
The George Washington University
Information from Deputy General Counsel William Howard from a telephone
conversation, 8/23/2002:
The GW general counsel’s office is at the end of a restructuring. The old
structure of the office was one general counsel and two deputy general counsels. One
deputy general counsel dealt with medical center issues, and had offices in both the
medical center and the general counsel’s suite. The other deputy general counsel dealt
with all other legal issues.
Upon the departure of the deputy general counsel for the medical center, the
general counsel restructured the office by creating one deputy general counsel that
dealt with both medical center and general legal issues. This restructuring was
intended to create more uniformity in the legal offices. In addition, GW hired one
attorney that deals solely with the medical center. Deputy General Counsel William
Howard describes his position like a CEO, whereas the general counsel deals with more
top-level duties.
Since the restructuring, Mr. Howard has confronted mainly medical center issues
due to the continuing legal questions concerning the GW medical center. However, Mr.
Howard feels that the medical center issues have largely been resolved and now plans
to split his time evenly among his medical center and non-medical center duties. Mr.
Howard and his colleagues believe that the restructuring of their office has been most
beneficial in creating a centralized legal approach for the university and plans to
continue with its current structure.
University of Florida
Comments from General Counsel Pam Bernard (e-mail from 8/23/2002):
“Though I am no expert, I will be happy to share my thoughts and you should
feel free to pass them along to the inquirer. As a point of reference, UF is an AAU major
research institution, land grant, with 2 health centers (Gainesville and Jacksonville) and
an athletics operation. We consist of about 50,000 students and 12,000 employees.
Our structure for lawyers is as follows:
2
VP/General Counsel/ Board Secretary
1 Deputy GC
1 Senior Associate GC
4 Associate GCs
3 Assistant GCs
1 Assistant to the GC (a lawyer)
The Deputy GC, Senior Associate GC, 4 Associate GCs, and the Assistant to the GC
report to the VP/GC.
The 3 Assistant GCs report to the Deputy or Associate GCs.
The reason I have only one Deputy is because I think it is important that the
client and the staff within my office have a clear understanding of who is authorized to
make decisions in my absence. It allows me the confidence to know that when I am
away there is a central point of coordination, and it minimizes any ambiguities in the
office about who is next in command. Of course, we have a collegial office so lawyers
confer with each other often and this structure does not impede our working together
well, regardless of title.
As to division of legal and administrative responsibilities, I handle the
administrative responsibilities (e.g. budget, office, hiring direct reports), plus my regular
legal case load, with two exceptions:
- Certain Deputy and Associate GCs supervise certain Assistant GCs.
- An Associate GC supervises law clerks.
I would note I have an excellent administrative assistant, and a part-time fiscal
assistant, who provide substantial help to me in the office management functions.”
Yale University
Comments from General Counsel Dorothy Robinson (e-mail from 8/23/2002):
“We have one DGC, and we have a completely informal division of administrative
duties between the GC and DGC. Basically, the DGC title indicates who is in charge in
the absence of the GC. We have several senior attorneys and are not eager to make
3
status distinctions; however, it is helpful to have a second who is the obvious player
behind the GC. The DGC convenes staff in the absence of the GC and assists with
administrative oversight of the office. I have not given active consideration to going to
two, since that would unnecessarily complicate the issue of status.”
Emory University
Comments from Associate General Counsel Joan Grafstein (e-mail from
8/26/2002):
“In the Office of the General Counsel here at Emory, in addition to the General
Counsel there is one person who is Deputy General Counsel and Chief Health Counsel
The healthcare attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel report to this Deputy
General Counsel, while the other attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel report
to the General Counsel. I hope this is helpful.”
New York University
Information from General Counsel Andrew Schaffer from a telephone
conversation, 9/3/2002:
The general counsel’s office at NYU has nine attorneys. The functions of the
nine attorneys breaks down into subject matter and each attorney usually concentrates
on his/her specialty. Three attorneys confront “corporate” issues such as tax, real
estate, trusts and estates, state regulations, and intellectual property. Three attorneys
work in “labor relations,” which primarily concerns unions, employee benefits, and equal
opportunity issues before reaching court. One lawyer primarily deals with medical
center and health care law. The remaining attorneys are the general counsel and
deputy general counsel, and Mr. Schaffer classified their subject matter as litigation.
NYU has one deputy general counsel because Mr. Schaffer believes that having
one aids in the functionality of the office. In addition, NYU has a complicated historical
background for only having one deputy general counsel. Mr. Schaffer asserted that two
deputy general counsels could work well, depending on the office, but NYU functions
4
well within its current structure. The deputy general counsel acts as a managing
partner of the general counsel’s office in her day to day managerial functions, which
range from budgets, billing, and mechanics in addition to her traditional legal work.
The hierarchy in the office is fairly flat; the large workload and various topics that the
attorneys confront make the flat reporting structure essential. Mr. Schaffer insists on at
least three years experience to work in the office so that hierarchy issues will not arise.
Therefore, NYU’s general counsel’s office has a flat hierarchy, but the attorneys
have specific roles within the office.
Christopher T. Murray, 9/16/2002
5