How to Present Legal Risk to Your Board

Cecilia Ziniti00:59
Addar, welcome to the show.

Addar Levi01:01
Thanks so much for having me, Cecilia. It's a pleasure.

Cecilia Ziniti01:03
So Let's talk about this metaphor. Let's dive right into fashion. So I wanna pull all the threads on all the, you know, DC stuff. I went to Georgetown; I love all those things, but I also am like, you know, in DC, the fashion is like peop people kind of make fun of it; it's like Ann Taylor. Love me some Ann Taylor, probably wearing an Ann Taylor blazer, but tell us about this metaphor and how does it match up with the GC job

Addar Levi01:27
Sure. So maybe this is just my way of trying to convince myself that I made more glamorous life decisions than I actually did. But I think It's also a helpful way of thinking about the value of in-house counsel. What I mean by that is I think of the advice you get from outside counsel as raw fabric, or if you're a man, an off-the-rack suit. it's high quality Cause you know, the fashion designer GC carefully sourced it but it needs to be tightened or loosened or draped differently You think of Anne Hathaway with all the pins in her mouth and Devil Wears Prada. sometimes you have to say this doesn't work at all we have to start over in order to really fit the advice to the contours of the situation and the business And I'll give you a really specific example that I think illustrates the metaphor. Early on in my in-house career, there was a really important decision that the company I was working for needed to make. And they commissioned this beautiful due diligence memo from a really fancy white shoe law firm. And you know, On page 12 of the memo, it highlighted a litigation risk. But it said, ultimately, you're gonna prevail. The the The danger of not having the tailor, the fashion designer GC, is that the board just glossed over the risk on page 12, right? But of course, that risk ended up materializing. And it turned out that even if we were ultimately going to win, we were going to lose on a motion to dismiss. We were going to lose a preliminary injunction. It was going to create huge delays and huge costs. But there was no one to sort of lift up that risk and highlight the things that the board really ultimately cared about.

Cecilia Ziniti03:09
I've been in that situation and I I have written a memo to a board about a litigation saying, I'll never forget it. I said, you know, in the worst case it's, you know, seven, eight figures. And this was for a startup, you know, so that would have been a lot. You know, but we'll handle it; we'll win before. And it's one of my biggest, I think, regrets as a GCC was that was that matter. And and I guess like, so what In that scenario, you are let's just say you are Prada or you are, you know, Louis Vuitton. Wha wha what are you doing? You get the memo from outside counsel, or like, give us the Prada version of what happened with your matter.

Addar Levi03:47
The Prada version would have been to take that memo and probably turn it into like a one-slide deck for the board that said these are the of this 12-page memo, these are the three risks I think you should be most concerned about, and here's why. And play them out a little bit, right? It says we're gonna win on this litigation, but here's what that actually means. and really walking them through it so that you know. The question always inevitably is, well, why didn't the lawyers tell us? it's trying to ward off that.

Cecilia Ziniti04:20
And was it the right call ultimately to proceed with whatever it was? I mean, I'm assuming it must have been billion dollar acquisition, what have you, this morning I spoke about the future of legal and and and what it looks like, assuming, you know, because you could have a situation now you've got outside counsel, but you could have a situation where it's AI, for example, that highlights all these things. And so the decision making, like, you know, you don't get to your level without being a really good decision maker. So how do you what was it the right decision? And if not, you know, the better like I'm assuming you get to a situation where you're filing the motion to dismiss, you lose it. Somebody flips out, where were the lawyers? You know, kinda kinda like g give us the like the alternate version of the history, give us the Prada version of the memo. Now give us the Prada version of the whole thing.

Addar Levi05:03
I think there's smart risk and dumb risk. And I think in this case, this was probably smart risk to take on because it was so intricately tied to a core business initiative. that probably it was actually the right move to proceed. But it would have been better to do it in a way that was informed, that was appropriately resourced, that people were planning for and aware of, rather than sort of being on our back feet the whole time.

Cecilia Ziniti05:29
So you you had this other experience, you know, you've you've been in government before and you know, been in these very high stakes situations. assume I'm a newish GC listening to this. what's the what's the advice?

Addar Levi05:40
I think the advice is I think everyone who makes the transition from a law firm to more of an in-house advisory role, I think needs to make the switch from being a lawyer first to being a business or policy person first. So I think that's the first piece of advice is just you have to really understand the substance of the business or the policy team that you're supporting. and then the second piece is. I think you have to learn how to be a really good listener. I think lawyers are trained to be good advocates, to write really well, to speak, to have really good output. But I think the thing I learned, and in part, I'm sort of a lifelong closeted introvert. So maybe this just comes more naturally to me. But I do think your output is only as good as your input. And so I learned. the importance of really listening in an in house role to really understand what it is your client's telling you.

Cecilia Ziniti06:34
It's funny because I I think that's you

Addar Levi06:37
Yeah, yeah.

Cecilia Ziniti06:37
know, one of our themes on the pod is leadership. And I recently, you know, as we grow and scale the team, you know, the people side of it is the part that I think as a lawyer and as as someone who has identified as very strong at the influence part of it that that I need to work on. Like I've definitely had meetings where like, the team took that so well. And then weeks later it's like actually they're still upset about whatever it is, right? So I guess curious if you have a real story of a time when that skill, either for you or your team, made a big difference.

Addar Levi07:10
I think there are probably lots of stories, but I I think the thing I learned. I mean, one example is learned that when you're in the room with a CEO or president or a board, there's the thing they're telling you. I mean, usually the question is, can we do this? But there are different versions of that, right? Sometimes they're tech they're actually asking you how do we do this? Sometimes they're asking you, what's gonna go wrong here? Sometimes they're just asking you, can you tell me I'm right? And I think really listening both to what they're saying, but also the body language, and I think this applies equally with your team, is the key to actually answering the question beneath the question.

Cecilia Ziniti07:50
That question beneath the question, I I you know, it it's my favorite example, and maybe this will spark a a specific one, is like that we we were launching a product when I was at Amazon and well actually it was an Obama legislation, but the Communications and Video Accessibility Act came out in two thousand ten and had rolling implementation dates across when I was there. And we essentially had a compliance plan for one of our products and we were gonna we were gonna slip compliance basically and I was the person in charge of it for for that product. And I got three questions. This was a remote, but I got three questions right about the same time saying, what's the date? What's the date? What's the date? And of course, the quick answer is the date is, you know, March 10th, 2017, or whatever it was. But clearly that wasn't the answer, right? The answer was clearly like we're going to slip this. How do we do it? etc. I think in the race to efficiency I might have just fired off, you know, March tenth or whatever the date was, right? where is this like? And I think this is something that's happening with AI, is like, how do you pause in these like crazy high powered environments? You've literally got the president asking, you know, do you is it just over time you be people become respected? Is it like a Colombo thing? Or like style wise, how do how do you even just physically do it? And then, you know, any any good examples? And how do you give your team air cover to to take a bo take a beat?

Addar Levi09:15
It's a great question. And it's something that I am still working on. I think this idea of taking a beat, but also resisting the urge to sort of stay at surface or near surface level and creating the time and space to think more deeply. I'm still trying to figure that out. And I'm trying to be more intentional about it. I think the the sort of time management or sort of how do you develop the ability to take a beat is as much about people management and client management as it is about anything else. And it's funny, I had a scenario over the weekend where an outside counsel wasn't being responsive enough, in my own view. Right. And so I I texted her and I sort of thought like, I'm a monster. I mean this is, you know, this person is saying they they need a beat, right? They're, they need the space to give me the best possible answer. But there is that sort of drive to efficiency and to to getting something done that I think is driven by the business cycle and by, you know, business needs that I think I'm trying to be a little more intentional about, you know, distinguishing when it's real and when it's not real. And then when it's real, managing all these stakeholders around it to to give the person who needs a beat the air cover to do that.

Cecilia Ziniti10:30
Yeah, I mean it's it's it's tough because it's like, you know, fast, good, cheap. It's like, yes.

speaker-110:36
Yeah.

Cecilia Ziniti10:37
Exactly, exactly. Lazard's CEO has been very public about wanting the firm to be the premier AI enabled financial services firm. So A little bit bit on Lazard, it's a a hundred billion dollar, I think how many, how many let me pull this up. I have the data. it is basically 285 billion in assets operating in 40 cities, 26 countries, clients ranging from Fortune 500 boards, sovereign governments, PE funds. And, I pulled this stat, 60 lawyers, 30 operating entities, and let's see, a d at least a dozen regulators, the SEC, the FCA, the AMF, others across markets. But basically, how do you obviously working with all those regulators is its own, you know, ball of wax, but what how do you become AI enabled? How do you become AI enabled? Let me start there.

Addar Levi11:28
Well, I think It starts from where you started, which is Our CEO, Peter Orszag, has been very clear That we are going to use AI to be the best at what we do. And I think importantly, you know, we're focused on automation, sure, but more than that, we're focused on elevating judgment. And how do we use AI to bring the full range of Lazard's expertise and institutional knowledge to bear? so I think that's an important piece of it. And then the other piece of it is we made early investments in AI tools and AI adoption. And, you know, we last quarter released data that showed that at this point, 97% of our bankers and 93% of our asset managers have adopted AI in a in a material way. And more than that, I think the use cases we're seeing are becoming more commercial, more comprehensive. So We think it's really exciting and we're gonna continue to grow.

Cecilia Ziniti12:29
One of the there's a thinker named Benedict Evans that was used to be at Andreessen Horwitz and did his kind of like global societal shift thinking and then now he's on his own. But he published thoughts on AI, saying, you know, AI is eating the world. And he spoke focuses specifically on financial services, among others, but tells the anecdote that when Excel came out or spreadsheets and general, Lotus, et cetera, in late 70s, early 80s. He found someone reacting to those very similarly to how you know lawyers or other knowledge workers are reacting to AI today, where, you know, someone essentially created a spreadsheet, made a change on tab one, it cascaded to be able to predict, you know, 19 quarters worth of whatever it is. So he found a quote where an accountant said something to the effect of like, my God, this would have been two weeks of work and I just didn't five minutes. And just this like jaw dropping like what's gonna happen. And he tells the anecdote of, well, okay, so do bankers at places like Lazar today work way fewer hours? And like, you know, of course not, is the is the kind of answer. So his ultimate point was what does the technology make possible that it didn't before? And so for you, you've done this sort of very high stakes, high judgment, litig global litigation, reading the room, taking a beat. you know, deciding seeing the twenty page memo, the risk on page twelve, doing it anyway, you know, dealing with the you know, the ramifications, positive and negative of that. So what does to to his question, you're you're in you're in banking, you and you have seen AI for legal, what does it make possible? So five years from now, what does your job look like? And how are you to your CEO's call becoming more strategic.

Addar Levi14:21
Yeah, I mean, I should start by saying we believe in legal AI. I mean, I think we've had enormous success with GC AI in a way that we didn't come in with any priors. You know, We sort of tried all the tools. We have a range of tools available to us. We think there is a difference when a tool is trained to think like a lawyer. I think the going back to the Excel point. I think it's true that even with the Excel innovation, there was the danger that, you know, there still is the danger that you have one number wrong, right? And that cascades throughout the sheet. I think what's different, There are two things that I think are different about AI. One is just the velocity, right? You're Just There's so much more you can do so much more quickly. And Then the second thing is, I and I think this will change over time, There's a and I find this with myself, there's a There's a temptation to view unfinished work product as finished because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck right? It used to be when someone asked you to write a legal memo the blinking cursor on the blank screen right? That that was where the work happened It was in putting together that first draft. And so I think Pre-AI you were further along pretty far along once you had a fully formed first draft now you get this first draft and it's appealing right? it has the headers it looks really compelling and the thing I try to tell myself and my team is that's when the work starts now

Cecilia Ziniti15:45
Yes, yes, that is exactly right. and I think your fashion analogy is actually fantastic because when you think about, the sewing part, usually you would design the out the outfit and then start sewing. Here you can sew, look at it, undo it, redo it, etc. It's just a completely different like the time shift that here. a guy from from Quinn Emanuel posted about this, and I'll I'll I'll try and drop it in the show notes, but that shift And then I think the thing is, is like you can't skip it. And so it's to the point where even me, I'm the CEO of an AI company for gosh sakes. And I get, you know, we've had to rethink how we do candidate exercises. We sent out an exercise that was very contained because we didn't want to send real data for customer success. And we got back three identical presentations down to the font from Claude. And Claude essentially essentially one shotted the Prezzos pretty well. And you're like, all right, it's one thing if you're gonna be like, okay, you know, I'm gonna ask the code base for a summary of what we've done, and then you're gonna go through it where you're not having that original thought, but the like, what should our customer, you know, success strategy be? Like and of you know, shocker, I hired none of the three. and then I'm like, Okay, it was on us for redoing the exercise. But okay, so so how do people a lot of I get the question a lot and I obviously have a point of view, but in that scenario you mentioned training your team. So now that that shift has happened or you know, you can get to something that quacks like a duck, do you, you know, still go back and design the duck? We're mixing metaphors, but anyway, what was so what what do you do? What do you do for learning? And for you, obviously you've had, you know, two decades of of progressive experience to get to that great judgment, to to s know what good looks like. How are you training your people?

Addar Levi17:26
think a lot about advice that I got from this professor in law school, Jack Goldsmith. And he told us, this was his only piece of advice to us when we were sort of setting off to be lawyers. He said, read the statute. And he said it's shocking how many people, once you get out into the real world, practicing lawyers, they read the summary of the statute, the law firm's take on the statute, the case that analyzes the statute, but very few people actually read the statute. And so I think there's an element of that here, which is to say you can't skip the work and you gotta put in the time. It just looks a little bit different. And I think in order to really refine that first draft that we were talking about, you have to understand the subject matter, right? You have to understand the customer strategy or the litigation risk. It's sort of hard to do it if you don't.

Cecilia Ziniti18:19
I love this. So in financial services then, anything specific there? So I I'll admit that same job where I I messed up the the litigation risk. I think after that job it happened to be in education, but I I thought, you know, I'm not sure I want to be a G C in regulated industry. It's it's just it's it's too much. all the DC stuff, which I love from having, you know, gone to Georgetown and so on, it's it's too i i I I want it I want to have a wider playing field. So I kind of made that decision and ultimately obviously led here to being a CEO. you know for a lawyer, I think financial services and you know the kind of Wall Street and the, you know, the DC equivalent of the, you know, the suits and everything, there is a view that that's like being a real lawyer. what do people that don't work in the industry not not understand about that?

Addar Levi19:07
So I I think that's a little bit of a grass is greener view. I think probably there are a lot of people in DC or on Wall Street who feel like they'd rather be in tech. and I also think, I mean, you'll have a perspective on this, but I think the world is changing and the gap between, for example, lawyering in a highly regulated industry and lawyering in tech is narrowing. with increased scrutiny both here and abroad from regulators. It it's just I think it's I don't know that anyone is immune from being able to really understand the regulatory effects on their business today. I do think one one difference in working in a let's call it an industry that's more used to being regulated is, and this is a good thing, I think, lawyers are brought in earlier. And I think lawyers more often have a seat at the table in a real way. because it's just sort of part of the DNA, at least, you know, at I think the majority of places on Wall Street are trying to do the right thing. But doing the right thing is kind of complicated because there are lots of different regulations and lots of different conflicting legal obligations. And so that's one thing I would say to lawyers who are sort of trying to decide what industry to focus on.

Cecilia Ziniti20:21
Yeah, you know, it's interesting because I definitely I I worked with a privacy leader at Amazon, his name's Bill Way, and he made that essentially that exact point that privacy and data protection, particularly considering now, you know, what is it, five of the top ten in the fortune, five most valuable companies in the world are tech companies. And data protection is like, you know, data's new new oil, and now with AI, even more so. And he basically made the point that like we're just not used to being regulated. And we have to think of ourselves as a highly regulated industry. And you know, you can imagine it at Amazon that that basically, even though Amazon was obviously very customer obsessed, the idea that technical privacy would be this requirement to comply with was, you know, it went over like a lead balloon. Like it was just just not a thing. And so I guess over time you mentioned financial services are used to being regulated. I would agree with that, brought in earlier. does it swing too far? potentially of like, you know, the lawyers or the compliance dictate the business? And if not, how do you prevent that?

Addar Levi21:23
It's probably case by case, right? It's hard to make a sweeping statement. and I think there's still the sort of clarifying true north of the bottom line. You're still trying to make a profit. and I think if you hire, you know, the lawyers who are really good financial services lawyers who have been in the industry for a long time, I think understand that that push pull.

Cecilia Ziniti21:42
Let's talk about crisis. So you worked on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. you know, and it's funny 'cause that was these two worlds meeting. I very clearly remember it on that day on Twitter. And I had accounts with First Republic, which also similar. without getting anything privilege, any lessons from that moment?

Addar Levi22:01
Sure. So I was at the Treasury Department on that very scary weekend in March of twenty three. And, you know, I think with any banking stability event, there's always this macro tension that the government or regulators are trying to navigate, right? Between do we take steps to protect deposit holders and increase trust in the system and reduce the risk of Contagion, which is bad and could harm a lot of people. Or do you worry about moral hazard, right? The idea that you're sending a signal to financial institutions and to the market that it's okay to take outsized risk because the government will always step in and be a backstop. So I think this was really, you could sort of see that tension playing out in real time. And ultimately, obviously the government did step in. I was surprised, and I don't think this is an original thought, but I was surprised at how quickly it moved, right? I think a lot changed from the global financial crisis in 2008 to this, just in terms of the effect of social media, digital information flow. I mean, you had, and you will probably remember this timeline too. I think on a Thursday, Silicon Valley Bank. lost something like $42 billion in deposits. On a Friday, the FDIC stepped in as receiver. Over the weekend, Secretary Yellen invoked the systemic risk exception, which permitted the government to provide liquidity to deposit holders. And by Monday morning, when Asian markets opened, we'd found an acquirer. So it all happened in a super compressed timeline, which was really striking. and then at the same time, it's like surprisingly analog still, right? Like there's a lot, and again, I'm sure you were doing some of this, there's a lot of phone calls of people, including government, right? Just trying to figure out what's going on in the market.

Cecilia Ziniti24:04
I love that. And and it it reminds me of the other kind of iconic tech moment of the, you know, when Sam Altman was exited from OpenAI for a twenty four hour period. It was literally like Thanksgiving. And it was the same thing. And, you know, the journalists talk about, you know, being on the phone and the what's going on and all this and then the t imp Twitter impact. But yeah, I hadn't thought about it. It really was just over a weekend. It's amazing. And I mean, I think for me we had my company had I think it was payroll through Rippling, I think at the time, or one of the common providers and had been affected. And then we had actually just moved, our CFO had just moved everything over to, you know, more of a of a bigger bank. And and he was kind of, I remember we did it was the all hands up Thursday. He's kind of like, well, this happened, but it was a week later. So it was kind of like we did all this stuff. We're so, you he's kind of breaking his arm, patting himself on the back. Yeah. but no, it worked out. You had at the time you were the head the acting G C of the treasurer, Treasury, right? So two

Addar Levi25:03
Yeah, I was actually the principal deputy at that time.

Cecilia Ziniti25:05
this is gonna sound like super basic, but basically at the Treasury you had a team of two thousand attorneys. It's it that's a lot of lawyers. So I did I did hear that that D C a fun fact for folks, more lawyers per capita in D C than actors per capita in Hollywood. So I did did hear that stat.

Addar Levi25:23
if that's a fun fact or a depressing fact.

speaker-125:25
Ha ha ha ha.

Cecilia Ziniti25:27
Well, I mean, I I guess like you you and I are probably have a similar definition of fun around you know, like this like like you know, dealing with a bank crisis and global stuff. Like I mean, I majored in international relations and I I think this stuff's fascinating. But curious, here's the basic question. What did two thousand attorneys at the Treasury do?

Addar Levi25:42
I mean, broadly speaking, it's just it it's like any company, right? There are verticals. So there was a domestic finance vertical, there was an international affairs vertical, there were folks working on what we call terrorism and financial intelligence. there were folks doing general law and ethics, sort of the day to day of the running of of the department. And then there were a lot of tax attorneys. And so those were which makes sense. And actually a big portion of those 2,000 attorneys are tax attorneys. Because it turns out administering the IRS is a lot of work. And so that was the the legal division was really divided among those five divisions. And everyone except for what they called the general counsel front office, which was you know the GC's sort of core team worked for one of those five divisions.

Cecilia Ziniti26:33
And any lessons from from operating at that scale? And then I think those of us two part question, lessons, and then those of us outside the beltway, I think there's this well no for first that question. Any lessons from that operating at that scale?

Addar Levi26:47
It for me it was a total crash course in scaling leadership, right? I had built this small but spunky team at the Obama Family Office and Foundation, which was about 10 attorneys, and you know, had hand-picked or interviewed everyone and we were extremely close-knit and it's a wonderful team. Going from that to this. And by the way, I had a learning curve because I didn't have all 2000 reporting to me initially. It sort of happened over time, but still it was a big shift. I I think in a in a funny way, it all the fundamentals are the same, right? You know you need to be a good delegator, you know you need to set sort of strategic goals for your team. It's just easier to cheat when the team is smaller. It's a little bit like You know, you can sort of fake your way through a 10K, but you can't fake your way through a marathon. so I think when it's a smaller team, you can still kind of be a micromanager. but when you have a team that's 2,000 attorneys, you can't be a micromanager. The role became a lot more about setting really clear strategic goals, facilitating good information flow. How do you empower people to actually want to do good work? day to day exercising the judgment of like what issues do I personally need to touch versus not and how much time do I spend on each issue. so I would say the fundamentals were the same, but it got a little bit harder to cheat.

Cecilia Ziniti28:17
how transferable is the government experience to your experience at Lazard today?

Addar Levi28:22
I think the government experience is transferable. I think first broadly being a lawyer in government is very similar to being an in-house lawyer at a company, right? You're playing this advisory role, helping a client navigate complicated legal regulatory situations. I also think being a lawyer in government. you have to make hard decisions with incomplete information really quickly. And you have to do that in the private sector too. But I I think the difference is that the US government doesn't always have the privilege of doing nothing. Right. You often actually have to be in the stream of commerce, as it were, every single day. And so you're you're in this sort of posture of having to pick from least worst options. Which I think help h helps you hone, I think, sort of analytical skills and sort of press you know, calm under pressure. well as messaging, right? How do you then message that least worst option?

Cecilia Ziniti29:20
that's a a key point. I I literally was on the phone with one of our advisors and I think I I I realized the ridiculousness, but I said something to the effect of like, I wish the people stuff or that this particular gnarly issue that I'm dealing with could just pause while like we have like fourth of July and have, you know, this other business initiative working around. But like that's just not how it works. So like it it it is that ability to keep on, you know, over a weekend, over a negotiation, et cetera. It's Hats off. I I think the or the the folks listening probably can't see me, but I'm like I'm so just incredibly humbled and impressed at your background. So Harvard Law, litigator at Covington, the White House, the Treasury, the Family Office of Obama, 180 billion dollar asset manager. was this the path younger you set out on?

Addar Levi30:05
The honest answer is no. I mean, I could reverse engineer some smooth narrative for you. but the real answer is no. I I mean, I think I can say each of my moves made sense at the time I made them for different reasons. The through line to the extent there is one is it was really gravitating towards places where I thought people were tackling really hard problems. at scale and in a way that was slightly beyond what felt comfortable for me at the time in terms of the skill sets or the issue areas that would be sort of central to my role. So no, it wasn't planned.

Cecilia Ziniti30:44
I think part of what you described, so you're a daughter or you're an immigrant yourself. You came to the US when you were five. as am I. I came to US as a a little bit younger, but similar. I was super proud, I really was. But I guess question for you is this immigrant experience, and you specifically mentioned in the prep that that you have awe about the United States. Well tell us about that.

Addar Levi31:07
Yeah, I I was super proud too, for whatever it's worth. I think, and I'm curious your perspective on this. you know, especially as I've gotten older, I am now older than my parents were when they came here. And I have kids who are around the same age or older, you sort of start to, I think, better appreciate the enormity of what they did. And how hard it would be to sort of uproot your life and move somewhere new with nothing and learn a new language and all of the pieces that are part, I think, of of of everyone's immigrant story in a way. I think when I say it's just it I I think you take nothing for granted. my education, my ac ability to work in these incredible places, the opportunity to sit in rooms where people make important decisions, that those aren't my parents didn't have that. And I think that awareness creates a particular posture towards work and life that's different, not better or worse, but different than someone who doesn't have that set of experiences. So that's what I meant. I think by awe.

Cecilia Ziniti32:15
so do you think being an immigrant led to you wanting to become a lawyer?

Addar Levi32:18
I don't know. I mean, I don't have any lawyers in my family. And I think it was probably more than anything. It started as a sort of way to rebel.

Cecilia Ziniti32:28
That's a new one. A waiter bell. Okay.

Addar Levi32:31
but certainly I think when I think of the reasons why I went into government, I view that as patriotic above anything else, right? A way to give back to the country that gave me and my family so much. and I think you can do so much good in the world as a lawyer, whether you're an immigrant or not. So no regrets.

Cecilia Ziniti32:54
I love this. I think you know, it is fun. In California, they just implemented the essentially the ethical and the the the swearing or I guess the affirmation of your duty to, you know, protect democracy, to operate to the best of your ability as an officer of the court and the country and the state. I I forget the exact wording, but it but that affirmation, I I it's funny you say this because, you know, it's like a It's a simple online thing. You're paying your bar dues, you pull out your credit card or you know, Chrome fills it in, whatever. And I I clicked that and I and I got a little like what was like a tear in my eye. Like I literally did. And so like it it it feels like this is like that, except, you know, over over a career. So thank you for sharing that.

Addar Levi33:36
Love that. Yeah.

Cecilia Ziniti33:38
All right, lightning round. So a book, podcast, or idea that has shaped who you think. How you think.

Addar Levi33:45
Since we're talking about in-house lawyering, the book that's probably shaped my views the most on that is a book called Inside Council Revolution by Ben Heinemann, who is a longtime general counsel at GE. and I think he really sums up well what it means to be a top-notch GC, including navigating, I think, some of these. interpersonal quandaries that we've been talking about.

Cecilia Ziniti34:11
Love that. It's it's a favorite. And it he kicked off for those of you who may not read of it, he kicked off essentially the in-house council revolution, where since that book he had permission from Jack Welsh to create an in-house legal team. And since the 30 years of that book, very influential companies have been in-housing legal, you know, including Lazard and then obviously GC AI we're focused on that. So I love it. All right. So the hardest I guess challenge you've had as a lawyer, in two sentences. One. I know. I'm like it's it's a ch this is a really tough one.

Addar Levi34:45
I think any time you have to deliver bad news is a hard day as a lawyer.

Cecilia Ziniti34:52
biggest myth about in-house legal that you would want to dispel.

Addar Levi34:56
That it's a lifestyle job.

Cecilia Ziniti34:59
I a hundred percent agree. Amazing. All right. Last one. You've been in rooms that, you know, most lawyers never get in. You've negotiated with government, structured deals that change policy, advised presidents, helping one of the biggest figures in finance kind of figure out what comes next, adopted AI, risen to the call of your CEO. I'm certainly like super inspired by this episode, but If they wanted to understand how you think and operate, what's the one takeaway?

Addar Levi35:25
Work hard, be nice.

Cecilia Ziniti35:26
Work hard, be nice, love it so good. anything else, Addar?

Addar Levi35:30
No, thanks so much for having me. This was such a pleasure and so different from what I do in my day to day. So thank you again.

Cecilia Ziniti35:36
Hey, thanks for coming. This was such a remarkable conversation. Thank you so much for being here. this was just lovely. That was Addar Levy, the head of global regulatory affairs and deputy general counsel at Lazard, and one of the most remarkable legal careers I've had on the show. I'm so inspired. I'm like, I feel like we should have the Star Spangled Banner playing in the background. But any event, whether you're leading a legal team, working inside one, building the tools that power them, becoming the attorney that childhood you always wanted to be. Head over to GC.ai to see how the most forward thinking folks in Legal are doing their very best work. Follow CZ and Friends wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you and we'll see you next time.