Back
Kathleen Burke
Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, MKS INSTRUMENTS INC

Gemma Dreher speaks with Kathleen Burke with additional questions from the Be the GC! event.

🎥 Apr 15, 2021 📺 ACC Northeast ⏱ 9m 👁 43 views
Gemma Dreher, President of ACC-Northeast speaks with Kathleen Burke, Senior Vice President and General Counsel from MKS ...
Watch on YouTube

About Kathleen Burke

In December 2021, Burke testified at a DMCA Section 1201 hearing, arguing that the environment for video game console repair had changed since 2018. She stated that Microsoft had stopped repairing devices not in active production, such as the Xbox 360 and Xbox One, leaving consumers with no official repair options. She also cited global supply chain vulnerabilities, including the COVID-19 pandemic and trade relations with China, as reasons for the necessity of repair exemptions. In September 2021, Burke participated in a virtual discussion where she described her approach to managing a legal department. She said that the right contract review process depends on a company's risk profile and available resources, and that training non-legal staff and developing a playbook can allow for greater autonomy. Burke emphasized the importance of hiring lawyers with business pragmatism and a sense of humor, and noted that her department grew from a one-person role to a team of 20 as MKS Instruments' revenue increased from $300 million to $2.3 billion.

Source: AI-verified profile updated from Kathleen Burke's recent appearances. Browse all interviews →

Transcript (11 segments)
G
Gemma0:00
Hi Gemma here, I am together again with Kathleen Burke. We had done a Be the GC program in March and there were a few outstanding questions, so we're here today to address those questions. So hi Kathleen, it's great to see you again.
K
Kathleen Burke0:18
Hi Gemma, how are you?
G
Gemma0:20
Good, good. So, one of the questions that came up that we didn't address fully, and then there was some follow-on questions around this, is the concept or idea that your legal team and other legal teams within the in-house profession do not review every contract. And so the specific question was: are there certain categories of contracts, or what factors and criteria do you consider when deciding whether or not it's a legal resource or another resource that reviews a contract? So, speaking in generalities here over the course of your in-house career, can you give us a little bit more information on that question?
K
Kathleen Burke1:05
Yeah, and I think the right answer depends on the nature of the business that you are representing. So what might be right for my company wouldn't necessarily be right for somebody else's. So I think you have to look at what's the risk profile of your business agreements, what's the skill set that's available to you in terms of resources, do you have a contract administrator, do you not, how sophisticated are your sales guys, and so on. There are a lot of factors that kind of go in initially, but then I think you look at both quantitative and qualitative things. So for some companies, you might just sort of have a dollar threshold and say, look, under a certain dollar threshold we're going to live with this. But sometimes, at least in the case of my company, we layer qualitative factors on top of that. So for example, anything that has to do with IP ownership when you're talking about developing something with a customer or a vendor, or anything that has to do with development and IP, that's going to get reviewed by lawyers. There are certain product categories that are particularly complex and bring their own set of risk factors with them; those kinds of products are always going to get reviewed. Even some end markets, right? If it's for, you know, we do some work in defense, so those are areas where there's a heightened risk and you're going to want to look at those. So it's really for us it's a combination of all those different things. You have to kind of look inward and outward to assess the risk profile. I think there's no single right answer, and you have to know the nature of your business to know when you can get to a comfortable level.
G
Gemma3:03
And that's very interesting because in the various roles that I've played in my in-house career, there has sometimes been that quantitative analysis, but I see that businesses are moving away from that and applying more of the qualitative analysis. As you said, understanding how your business is staffed is really important. And if there is a contract management function, I also think – you mentioned intellectual property – there are instances from talking with members and in my own experience where there are categories. Even if the contract as a whole is not going to the legal team for review, the legal function doesn't own it, there may be certain provisions that in every instance, like intellectual property or limitation of liability or indemnification. So when we think about the automating of contract review right and some technical solutions now for contract management, there might always be a short list of sections that go to legal.
K
Kathleen Burke4:05
Yeah, and it brings up a good point. There's two other things: one is obviously if it's on your own form that's already been fully vetted, I think you can get a little bit more comfortable with that. And the other thing is if you are able to train the other people who are touching the contract, in terms of saying, here's our risk profile that we can live up to. You know, we can't live with unlimited liability, so if that's proposed, escalate it. So you can also sort of say here are some parameters, and if you go beyond these parameters then you escalate it.
G
Gemma4:44
Right, and I'm glad you re-emphasized the training piece. I think for folks that are considering this, training is really a critical component. Right, so rather than just cutting folks loose and saying, okay, you can run with this, we've deemed this low risk, you can run with it, you really need to train the folks that are going to be on the front ends of some of these deals.
K
Kathleen Burke5:05
Yep. And we have developed a playbook for review which allows people to reference information, sample clauses, things like that, so that they can take a little bit more autonomy, but the legal department's always there as well.
G
Gemma5:22
Great. Okay, and there's one other question. We talked about the skill set that you look for as you grew the department over your 16 plus years with the company, a skill set outside of the strict sort of academic legal acumen. Can you talk a little bit more about that for us, Kathleen?
K
Kathleen Burke5:46
Yeah, and I think we may have alluded to this a little bit in the prior discussion, but for me, I will say, depending on the size of your department you may or may not have room for specialists, people who are deeply knowledgeable in one area. But for everybody across the board, for sure one of the most important things from my perspective is sort of a business pragmatism, which is solutions-focused analysis. So not just identifying things that are wrong, but taking that and translating it into an assessment of the corporate risk profile and then coming up with a solution. So your deliverable isn't the legal analysis; your deliverable is the business solution. And I think that because we've built a department that really has that same sense, we are really approachable and we have a very good relationship with the business. It's not like, 'Oh god, we got to go to legal with this'; they really see us as, 'Hey, these guys can help us navigate these issues.' And even with the most complex, sensitive IP, biggest customer issues, you know where our team is absolutely essential because we can help brainstorm and focus on how we get to the place we're trying to go. So I think bringing that to the table is not only important because of what you're doing as a job, but it's also important because it makes you very credible as a department. And again, people don't see you as a box that has to be checked but see you as a means to help drive to the end. And then in those cases, once you've got that credibility, in those cases where you want to say no, you can't do that, but here's what you can do; people aren't throwing up their hands and saying, 'Go ahead, legal is getting in the way again.' So it really is kind of a mindset. And the other characteristic that is very important to me is a sense of humor, because it's pretty stressful. Things can get pretty crazy, and if you can sort of laugh about it and feel like your teammates are rooting for you too, it just makes things a lot easier. So that's important to me.
G
Gemma8:45
You know, that's right. I love hearing that because I think as in-house practitioners we strive to be trusted advisors. Right, we don't want to be – I've heard the Office of Business Prevention or the Department of No, all these negative nicknames. And I really like what you said, and I agree that if we can embrace the business and really analyze this from a broader perspective than our counterparts in the private bar can, then when we do have to say no, we say it and there's credibility to it. Right, we're not saying no all the time. So well, Kathleen, it's always a pleasure to speak with you. Thanks for taking the time to give our members this invaluable advice. We really appreciate it. And enjoy the rest of your day. Thanks everyone.