In 2000, after almost 10 years in private practice, I began serving as in-house counsel at a major university with a current student population of more than 13,000. I was initially charged with the responsibility of establishing an office of legal affairs, which inherently involved negotiating a change in campus culture. In establishing a campus presence, I was met with a few challenges.
There were some employees who were uncertain of my role and some employees who applauded the development of a legal affairs office. However, some employees viewed me with suspicion and were apprehensive that I would interfere with time-honored ways of doing things.
My challenge was to send a clear message that the office was a resource designed to support the endeavors of faculty and staff by complementing the mission of the university by protecting its interests. Because I understood the importance of valuing and cultivating the institutional knowledge and talents of long-time employees, I relied on their wisdom, and they assisted me greatly in the transformation of the campus community.
In addition to addressing the campus employee infrastructure, I also had to develop my understanding of higher education law. My private practice experience provided me with the necessary skills to dissect an issue or controversy from the perspective of competing interests with a heightened sensitivity for potential litigation. While my civil trial experience prepared me for dealing with the legal ramifications of a complexity of issues, I was still new to the practice of law in a postsecondary setting. I quickly learned that higher education law is a unique body of law that fits neatly under a huge umbrella of broad legal areas.
Indeed, in higher education, in-house attorneys deal with a myriad of legal issues.
Without providing an exhaustive list of examples, in-house attorneys deal with issues ranging from employment matters, constitutional law, intellectual property, discrimination and contracts to personal injury. In providing sound advice and drafting documents, we must navigate a variety of federal laws, state laws, various regulations and policies. Education law is, at times, unique because it encompasses issues that generally surface in the context of a higher education setting, such as tenure or academic freedom.
In-house counsels must remain current because, as with all law, education law is malleable and the legal terrain is subject to sculpture by case law. The recent announcement that the United States Supreme Court will once again revisit Grutter v. Bollinger to hear a challenge to a university’s use of race in undergraduate admission decisions in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin speaks directly to this point.
