Episode 169: Monica Palko
Chief Legal & Administrative Officer Of York Space Systems
00:59:35
Subscribe and listen on…
Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Amazon Music | PocketCasts | iHeartRadio | Player.FM Podcasts
Watch Full Interview
Show Notes
Chief Legal & Administrative Officer of York Space Systems
Episode Description: As part of our continuing series on Space, Monica Palko, Chief Legal and Administrative Officer of "NewSpace" company York Systems shares her path to the C Suite and the space industry. Along the way, she provides some practical insight for inhouse counsel on how to succeed in their roles and to become a valuable part of the business.
Relevant episode links:
About Monica Palko
Monica Palko, Chief Legal & Administrative Officer of York Space Systems in Denver, Colorado. She provides strategic and operational guidance within the C-Suite, with responsibilities that include government and commercial contracting, legal and compliance, and corporate governance.
York Space Systems, which designs and manufactures space systems, is one of the fastest-growing aerospace companies in the country. They were awarded a $382 Million dollar contract with the Department of Defense's Space Development Agency to manufacture satellites and recently received a significant investment from AEI to continue their impressive growth.
Prior to York Space, Monica was the VP & General Counsel of Lockheed Martin Space and is a Director of the Global Board of the Association of Corporate Counsel which is a 45,000-member global bar association that promotes the common professional and business interests of in-house counsel.
Transcript
I'm very excited to have as our guest, Monica Palko, Chief Legal Officer and Administrative Officer at York Space Systems. Welcome, Monica.
Thank you so much for having me, MC. I'm glad to be here.
I'm so glad that you're here because you have such a wealth of experience in-house and in the space sector. You have a great background in in-house council roles and leadership. Also, important stuff to contribute to our coverage on the show of space-related, space-adjacent careers. I wanted to ask first how it was that you decided to go into law and why you wanted to go to law school in the first place.
It's such a great question for me because I came to it in almost a triangulation. My father was a military pilot. I grew up mostly in New Mexico and Arkansas. I’m not bringing politics into it, especially immediately early on here, MC. I promise I won't then raise religion. I grew up in Arkansas and the Clintons, again, not thinking Democrat or Republican, showed me how government could change people's lives for the better. There were proponents of education. Suddenly, there were honors classes. There was Arkansas Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented, a program you could be nominated for before your senior year.
I started to realize how important laws and those types of requirements were. They filmed Crisis at Central High in Little Rock when I was there, and I was in extra. I learned at the time all about Brown versus Board of Education and the way that Earl Warren penned this eloquent explanation about the 14th Amendment and what happened there. Part of it was always in the back of my mind about how important laws and government were.
I also took a Constitutional Law class in college, and it was a real thinkers class. I found that to be very important. I was an English major, and that's a long story, MC. That's probably the subject for another episode. My father wanted me to be an engineer, and speech and drama were much more my path. Somehow, being an English major, I could still go home at Christmas.
That's at least somewhere in between.
Father-acceptable, but not father-approved. I remember speaking with someone. Mentor might be a strong word, but he was in my state legislature, and I told him in my senior year in college, “I may want to be a lawyer." I didn't know what his reaction would be. There were no other lawyers in my family. He said, "That's a great idea. Women can make better lawyers than men, for example, in divorce or family law." I like your reaction to that because you could say, “Isn't that aggravating? Isn't that offensive?” It wasn't for me. I was like, "He thinks I could make a good lawyer."
When I went to law school, I thought that I would practice law for a couple of years, move back to Arkansas and run for office. That was more why I went to law school. Life happens and I fell in love with other parts of the law, other places to live. I learned that I liked business. That's more where I belonged than in the policy government side at that time. What caused me to go to law school isn't why I remained a lawyer.
There are some stories like that from other guests on the show. It seems like as long as you have a good reason to go, when you do, that keeps you focused and directed, and you have a goal in being there, then it can serve its purpose. Even if the goal ends up changing or what you end up doing is different, at least it served the role of keeping you disciplined and moving forward and thinking that there was meaning in going through that law school experience, which can be hard. What did you like about business?
I considered getting a JD-MBA. Maybe I'll start by taking you a little more along my path. I did start in environmental law, and that's another interesting aspect as I reflected on this in preparation for the show. I found it unseemly to say, "I'd like to make some money." That can't be why you go to law school. I do recall sitting with some people who were counting their money to see if they had enough money for a cup of tea. This was in the student union. I remember thinking, "I don't want this to be me forever." I believed in the power of law to do good, and I was interested in the environment. I started out practicing environmental regulatory law, which, to me, the only worst thing would probably be being an actuary.
It was not for me. I also learned that being an environmentalist is a complicated thing, caring about the environment. Many companies are highly compliant and do very important things. Making really important metal structures that can prevent fires and things like that that are highly compliant, and then others that aren't so much, and that whole world was very blurred. Also, in my third year of law school, I participated in moot court. Anyone who knew me well would've told you you belong in litigation pretty much doing an environmental regulatory law. I did shift into that.
I was about a sixth year when I got to handle my trial. It was much more of an appellate argument. It was the merger of a couple of railroads and a big antitrust matter. The partner who handled transportation law had left our firm actually to go in-house. I said, "I can do this. Let me bid on it. Let me speak to the client." They agreed. I first chaired that, and we were one of the only parties to get any relief in that case, and I loved it. That's when I knew I needed to try my cases. It's interesting that they offered me a job to be their in-house general counsel. That was my first chance, and I didn't take it, MC.
You must've done a great job. They appreciated that.
I enjoyed it. Another part of the lesson is following your passion, and that was where I belonged. I moved to the Department of Justice, where I did have a chance to try cases. It was more government contracts law, international trade compliance, and large personnel matters that were large enough to be outside the agency OPM enjoyed that very much before I went in-house. That's when I moved to a company called BearingPoint, which was the spinoff of KPMG Consulting. You can look this up in Wikipedia. It became a public company before it was fully prepared, before the IT systems were in place, and before the internal controls room was in place. There were reasons for that in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley, there were some deadlines.
To your point about what made you like business, that was when I started to more fully understand how law compliance governance furthered business interests. That was my first real introduction to technology as well. It's hard to say why I found it more intriguing to be part of a business and promote a business over having many clients that are changing in and out. That was when I first got the bug of getting excited about the strategy of a company and figuring out how I could use my skills and my role to further those interests.
For a lot of companies, they don't see it the way you see it. How can you use the regulations and all of that to move the company forward? Unfortunately, some people have the view or their experience with the regulatory end. That's the part that stops things from going forward.
I know some view the legal department, and I learned this later over time. It's certainly not the most senior executive, but it's like you don't want to have to go to Mom and tell her you did something wrong. There is that aspect of it, but not at the C-suite level. At the C-suite level, people understand the role of the legal department. Also, in a position like mine, it's not strictly speaking more of a general counsel role, but certainly, by the time you're a member of the C-suite, you're expected to further the strategy of the business and you're expected to build a team.
That's the part that gives you jazz, all of those components, because there are a lot of different aspects to leading in that role that are different than if you're leading just a legal team at a firm or something like that. It's a different combination of skills and growth. There was a thing that you said earlier I thought was so interesting. I was like, “There's something there to unpack,” when you said, "This other senior person left and I decided to put me in there. I can do it." There's something in that story. A lot of people wouldn't say, “Put me in, coach,” or suggest that they have that role. It turned out to be successful. Even if it weren't, having that, what made you think like, "I'm going to go ask for this role?"
One part of it was they put me in the room. The partners did have me in the room during the conversation. I was hearing them saying, "Maybe we have to turn down this work." Another thing that I felt I could be good at was budgeting the work. Sometimes, we'd work for a partner and if I said, “This is a $100,000 project,” he'd tell the client we could do it for $75,000. If I said it was a $75,000 project, he'd tell the client we could do it for $50,000.
I remember very much wanting to put my budget together to explain why those were solid hours and what it was going to take. It was higher than even the client expected, and I came in on budget, but they very much appreciated knowing what they were headed for. As I think about it, I have to give my law firm credit for giving me that opportunity, putting me in the room with a client, and it did work out.
Being in the room and being able to speak up and say something gave you that opportunity, but still, some people wouldn't have done that. That's a special person who would do that.
You're reminding me, MC. It's very kind of you to say, but there were probably a lot of times I didn't raise my hand or didn't speak up and I didn't get the chance. Maybe it's a matter of just playing the odds.
What a great opportunity and a great pivot point, too. I had a similar experience in the environmental law arena. I thought it was going to be interesting. It was not to me. It was to others, but finding your fit. That's one of the great things about law as a career. There are so many different things you can do with that training. For some people, certain things are a great fit and for others, something else is, but there are a lot of choices in there.
For me, it was this intense regulatory environment and that wasn't as interesting as some other aspects of environmental law but I completely agree. Some people just take to that and that's all they want to do. It was terrific. I find that, if anything, law firms will take a smart student and put them in the litigation group. You can tell immediately if people don't belong in litigation. There's a huge difference between being a litigator and a real trial lawyer. Many of these poor people are expected to grow into being a trial lawyer because they're very good at discovery or they can crush legal research.
What I find can be unfortunate is to start someone on a litigation track because they need warm bodies. That person wakes up 4 or 5 years later and says, “I don't have a knack for this, nor do I love it.” I would say if there's a lesson here, it's to pay attention to your passion, to follow it. Don't worry too much. I know people had said to me, too, when I was deciding what to do, that litigation is not a good role for a woman. When you're in trial, it's going to be impossible to have a home life. I'm glad I disregarded all of that. It is true that trial and litigation can indeed be very taxing, but so can deal work.
What I noticed about litigation is that you have a judge who's setting the deadlines, and you can very nicely request an extension of time. If you're working a deal, there's none of that. Many subscribe to the phrase, as I do, that time kills deals. If a deal drags on, it's less likely to happen. There's that constant pressure there as well. I remembered hearing that at the time, and trust me, it can be very taxing. That's not a reason to shy away from it. I do think if you want to go to law school and you're in law school, just do your best to follow your passion.
One more thing, if I may add, is that you won't always have a chance to do that right away, and that's okay. If you get a job at a terrific law firm, you may need to go into whichever area has work or whichever partner was pulling for you to get the job. That's all right. Give it a shot. I know someone who wound up a FERC lawyer and loved it. They never planned to do energy regulatory work but wanted a commissioner of the FERC. You never know where it's going lead to. I guess that you might like it if you try it.
Also, there's a sense from law school that you need to do a certain path and if you don't do that path, then nothing's ever going to turn out right. That's not true. Being able to adjust and move and finding other paths that work for you also at different points in your life. When you need a new challenge or a different arrangement, whatever it is, it's okay to adjust.
It's not only okay. That may be the best way to advance and grow. You're reminding me of how different people are. I'll say this to your audience. Don't necessarily take my advice or MC’s. Follow your own path. I completely agree. You go to law school and there are those jokes about the ones who make the A's become their professors and the ones who make the B's. I probably did everything wrong. I didn't have a mentor who was walking me through it or a parent who would. I learned too late about clerkships, for example, and things like that. It doesn't matter. There's no one perfect way to do things.
I think when you're a little bit younger and trying to find your way, you're very vulnerable to people who can make you feel that there's only one way to do it because that's their viewpoint or because they've seen it work out well. I would say don't worry about that at all. You don't get into whatever was your favorite law school, or you decide to take a couple of years off in between and change your mind. It's more important to discover your passion and follow your passion. This is too hard of a career not to like it.
It's more important to discover your passion and follow it.
That's what I was going to say. I think that's the key and what people like and what you like might change at different points. It's hard, it's a lot of work. There has to be a payoff. What you would see as a payoff may be different from what somebody else sees. I had a pretty stark experience when I was maybe five years out where I had a trial and I was like, "I don't like this at all. This is the Holy Grail. I don't like this. I don't like cross-examining people. I don't make them feel bad. This is not good.” However, I love talking to the judge. I loved writing motions. I loved doing all of that part. I was like, "If I could do a trial where I just did that, I'd be pretty happy." Everybody said, "No, that's not how it works. You have to do it all." I was like, "Maybe I need to reconfigure things."
A couple of months later, I had this opportunity to write an appellate brief in the US Supreme Court, and I felt like I got it. This was something I felt comfortable with. That set me on the path of being an appellate lawyer. What we do is talk to the judges and write motions. Sometimes, I am in the trials doing exactly just that part of the trial. Sometimes, too, you can bring it into existence. You can find what matches your skills.
I love how you've put it. That is correct. What I find fascinating is I had a similar experience to yours. My first large trial was many weeks long. It was already well into the deposition phase of discovery when I got to the Justice Department. It was up on appeal when I left some six years later. When you're responsible for the outcome of a significant trial, and you put everything you have into it, I didn't have any weight to lose at the time. I lost weight. You don't eat, you don't sleep. Everything goes into that.
As with you, I did not like the cross-exam as much. I don't know if this was the case for you, but I was surprised at how many people, the truth is whatever cannot be disproven in writing. It was almost a game that they played. I had colleagues at the Justice Department who loved that. They enjoyed it, the off-the-cuff, they got you. I was horrified every time. “How dare they? How would they?”
I also gravitated toward the appellate process and the prepared briefing, which I enjoyed very much. When I left and went in-house, I thought about applying to the appellate division. It's just so much more genteel. It's not everyone's cup of tea, but that's the part that I enjoyed as well. I agree with you. To your point, try it, see what you like and enjoy. Don't be shy to reach for a different path. I agree too that something will appear in your path or you will see something differently that you might have let pass you by if you hadn't been more attentive to what you really want to do.
Try it, see what you like, and enjoy. Then don't be shy to reach for a different path.
That's an important lesson. Tell me about your in-house journey from when you moved from government to law firms and the different kinds of companies that you've been a part of.
My first in-house role, as I said, public company compliance. I struggled with that. We wound up with an informal inquiry from the SEC because we had to restate earnings. It became more of a formal inquiry. I'm not sure the market understood our product, which was consulting services. Services can sometimes be hard for the investing public to fully understand. Also, we implemented large ERP systems that were interesting, and not everybody knew how to value them.
As the stock price balanced and dropped, we wound up with a derivative action, challenging whether the board and senior executives had behaved responsibly in the management of the company. I wound up handling not only sophisticated commercial IT matters but also governance litigation. I remember scratching my head, thinking, "How did I go from the US Department of Justice to this?"
First of all, that's a big change. I was wondering, "I hope Monica wasn't thinking, 'What was I thinking?'"
There was an element of that as well because what you don't realize is when you're outside counsel, the whole point of the law firm is the law and practicing law. It's the same thing at the US Department of Justice. As we say, we're the nation's litigator. You go in-house and you're just one function of a much larger company. Most view you as a cost center, which in many cases is appropriate. We certainly weren't going to make any money on that litigation. It was also learning how to adjust and show your value in a completely different environment.
I will say that there were many times that that job felt difficult, but it's probably one of the best jobs I had. That's because it forced me to grow. I knew government contracts very well by then, and those were more or less humming along. I was asked to handle more commercial contracting, a completely different ball of wax. I was able to learn that management handles it. I got to know some general counsel at some very large companies, and we stayed in touch. I learned a lot from them and how they handled the matters.
In the end, it was a very good experience. With the banking crisis of 2008, 2009, that company struggled to make it. I was at a crossroads, saying, "What do I want to do now? Do I want to stay and remain in litigation or do I want to take a different path?" I started to move along a different path, because if you look at most general counsel, very few of them come straight from litigation. Litigation is a fantastic background and foundation. You learn where all the bones are buried, especially if it can be in the subject matter that you're going to continue to pursue, terrific.
There are lots of business matters that have nothing to do with litigation. People want to know you can put a deal together and handle various matters, leases, and whatever comes your way. Compliance was an excellent segue for me. I also became passionate about the value of compliance and internal controls and how important those are to keeping a company on track so it can conduct the business that it needs to. The extraordinary financial and emotional resource drain on employees and senior executives while they were also trying to run a business cannot be understated.
I moved into more of a compliance role. My title was Vice President of Corporate Responsibility, reporting to the Legal Department, but as a separate department. That was a very good experience for me as well. I was handling significant international trade compliance matters and then also helping construct more of a compliance program. That was environmental compliance. You never waste anything you learn. Industrial security, handling of classified data and the like, international trade compliance, and the core ethics program.
That was a good segue to me. My next role had a heavy international compliance component, and then I was also a general counsel of a small business unit. I moved more into that role with a Deputy Chief Counsel title. Ultimately, I became the Vice President of General Counsel, moving out for Lockheed Martin Space and then moving into next-generation space at York with Chief Legal and Administrative officers, so other duties as assigned.
I know that was a very fast recitation of my in-house position. If I were reading and I was someone considering going to law school or in my early years of practicing law, I would say that for someone like me, it made perfect sense to try different things, new things, learn, and grow. For other people, they love doing the same thing in the same place for a long period. I would say that's another way of getting to know yourself.
Many people think that if you go to a very large company, you'll have more opportunities for internal promotions. That can be true in the more junior ranks. There's always somewhere to move, but remember, too, you want to watch the executives who have the positions you want to move into. Sometimes, there's not a lot of movement up and out. It does make sense to try something new elsewhere and potentially even come back.
In my journey, I would say that it helped me to consider where I want to wind up. Do I want to jump at another good litigation job or do I want to take more of a general counsel path? Just stop and think about those things when those opportunities arise. Don't rush because something. That would be part of my advice. Don't necessarily rush into what feels comfortable.
Looking from the outside and hearing some of the paths of my in-house friends, it's different navigating a career in-house than navigating in a law firm. The thing that sticks out to me the most, is in the law firm, the more specialized and narrow and all of that, and you have clients in that area, the more valuable you are to the firm. It seems that in companies, it's more like the more broad knowledge you have, a wider view of the business, all of these different experiences, you're much more likely to have a strategic role in the company than if you just had one narrow area that you knew a lot about substantively for the company.
That's the thing that most jumps out at me as the difference between in-house. What you're talking about is there are a lot of other things that are different when thinking about navigating an in-house career. There are a lot of other roles, but do people just stay in those roles? Is there movement? That's a good question. Thinking about those things, once you said that, I was like, “That seems practical,” but I've never actually heard someone say that before. That's pretty good. That's a good idea to check that out.
You brought up so much that I started to take notes because you said two different things that struck me there. I do agree that if I'm going to very high-end outside counsel, easily you're spending $1,500 to $2,000 an hour. I expect you to be very deep and to be able to get to the point quickly. I also expect you to stay on top of what our business is doing and the industry. It's hard, but I don't need to pay someone who dabbles in everything. I agree. That may be the way you become very valuable at a firm. In-house, I would say absolutely, the more you can learn about different subject areas within the legal department, the better.
I was at a company where we needed to move a facility. We were reducing our footprint in a given area, and we had to ship important things to certain places. There was so much to do. I said, "What do you think about real estate?" She said, "What?" She learned a code and it was yet another quiver. I would hire her now. Just for the experience, she got there. I would say in-house, do think broadly, and don't be shy to learn new things. They will always help.
You said something else that struck me, which is you talked about learning the business. You were speaking of different subject matter areas that will fall within the legal department or where you might have an important role to play in assisting the business but learning the business. I can't begin to tell you that enough.
In my first in-house role, I had someone coming to me from a law firm, and he said, "I have this opportunity and help me." What everybody wants to say is they want a better schedule. One, we hear that all the time. Two, we work very hard here, too. It'll be a different schedule. I said to him, "What does the company do?" He said, "The company makes routers." I said, "When you're in those interviews, you need to know why you love routers. You need to know why they're the most interesting thing to you and how important they are to your home or why you sat next to your dad and saw the blinking lights." I wasn't asking him to come up with a story. That's why he liked it, to think through why someone who runs a router business has an important part in the economy.
That helped him, but that's so true. It's all about the business. You need to fade into the background, the business needs to run, and everything you do needs to further the strategy and the business interests. Always think of it that way. I thank you for your note about learning the business. I would struggle to overemphasize that.
When I see in-house friends who eventually gain C-Suite or strategic roles, even from the very beginning, Home Depot has this. Taco Bell and Starbucks has this. Everybody in the company is out there working in the store, in the warehouse, for a certain amount of time because they have to understand what it's like to be on the floor, interfacing with the customers, and all that.
They have that in mind when they're dispensing legal advice or thinking about how to deal with legal problems there. It's everywhere. There's some form of that. That's the company's way of saying our culture, we want you to understand what it's like on the ground. When you're lending advice, you have context for that and you understand the realities.
This applies even to outside counsel, I would say. I know someone who is outside counsel for DoorDash who has delivered many meals. It's just a good idea. It goes a very long way toward giving excellent legal advice.
It's easier to have consumer-facing things, but it's the same concept of understanding the business and how it operates.
Stepping outside of the legal department, legal adjacent can be beneficial in-house as well. Not everyone moves back into the legal department. It's certainly not guaranteed. I would say, again, if you step outside of your comfort zone, and maybe it's an internal audit, maybe it's compliance or responsibility, I believe that, too, can enhance your ability to give good legal advice and to be able to give it quickly.
Tell me about your current role at York and your company's business.
I am thrilled to be at York Space System. We field satellite constellations faster and more efficiently than anyone else. It is part of what we call next-generation space. We are all familiar with the legacy space. Some of us remember because we grew up and we saw some of those very early Apollo missions on television. What can make it different is the cycles of fielding those kinds of systems can be very long. Ordinarily, the US government would field those systems. It was the stuff of nation-states, not of companies.
In the US, you might have a 5-year cycle of deciding what is needed, putting it out for bid, and selecting a winner, about another 5-year cycle of non-recurring engineering and design and build phases. Maybe five years, probably in a geostationary orbit. Next-generation space says, "Is that the right path?" Things are moving very quickly. Some will tell you that bureaucracy is a necessary byproduct of democracy, and there is a certain element of that that is probably fair. How much of that environment promotes the advancement of our interests in space and our adversaries have no such constraints.
Many companies are participating in next-generation space, not only nation-states. We tend to launch to Leo or Low Earth Orbit, and at least in terms of satellites, we are more likely to feel the constellation than one very large satellite. A very large satellite. They might be the size of a school bus with solar arrays that can be as long as a couple of basketball courts.
There's a cube-sat arena that is about, maybe, the size of a shoebox and in between our small satellites. Fielding a constellation of small satellites that are connected technologically connected, not physically, but that can communicate with each other almost as a web is a new way of doing things. That's part of next-generation space.
Many more things are part of the next-gen space. Certainly, the movement to have human space flight farther out into the universe than we have previously thought. A lot of work in the areas of space debris and the like. Many ideas about refueling in space, but importantly for us on terra firma, many companies are realizing how beneficial it could be to them to have a satellite system. I hope I answered part of your question.
That's a great description and a good visual of the difference between traditional space and new space. Just the agility of new space because traditional space is driven very much by, as you said, a government. Government contracting is long, it takes time and it's expensive and all of that. There are a lot of opportunities from new space because you're able to collapse the timeframe and reduce the cost, which makes many things possible that might not have been possible previously. Most people, I've heard of the constellations in terms of Starlink and things like that. There are a lot of other companies that are doing that.
If I may nerd out on you for a minute. You mentioned the contracting. That's such an important piece of this, certainly among companies. You're going to be in a commercial contracting environment in any event, but I'm very enthusiastic about what we're seeing in the US government to transact in new and fresh ways.
NASA's pivoted.
Just more firm fixed-price contracting. OTA is another transaction authority, so the agreements can be more flexible and nimble. It makes it possible for the government entity to pick and choose among the requirements that they think are critical to accomplishing the mission and not necessarily all those that have been developed over many years. The Federal acquisition regulations are important, and no question have their place. What I am so excited about is finding ways to field satellite systems faster through more flexible contracting methods. I'm hoping we will see increasing use of that as an effective way to keep pace with our near-peers in space again.
You brought something up earlier when we were chatting. Now, once I started remembering, you hadn't talked about it. I was off track myself, but you were talking about near peers in space. If we don't get there first, someone else will, and they'll start setting the standards and using the spectrum. Rather than take this in a completely different direction, you can see many advantages to our being able to field important systems quickly. I feel that the entire industry is pulling together to make that happen and we all rise together.
It's an interesting time in commercial space, for sure. It’s a time of invention and all kinds of exciting things, too. There's a little bit of off-roading going on. There's also some of the territory that's happening and where space technology is going. There's no road before it. There must be something exciting about being in that time in the industry as well.
There was a time when it was all done through paying cost plus work for non-recurring engineering, as we would say. You have a bespoke build for just this one time. You're going to build something unique that is specifically requested. You put a team on it, set that aside, get a new project, start all over again with new, non-recurring engineering and a new way of moving forward.
If you think about it, should you have a bespoke car every time? What if you did? Some of the best cars may even have the same chassis, but they're going to have a different engine and some other more ancillary matters that may be different. For the most part, you can mass produce because you're staying with the same model. I see that as the future of much of what we're doing in space. We'll keep an eye on that.
Think about it. If we were developing the cell phone, would it be better to have the government develop it? Would the iPhone be the same? It would probably be different. It will probably still be good. Would it have taken longer, been heavier, or cost more or less? I don't know. Would you want to throw that phone away and then start all over again next time? Of course not. It seems so apparent in the commercial arena when we talk about cell phones. Yet, there is that corollary for satellites and spacecraft. I believe that the industry is shifting to realize that and move toward it, and that's a good thing.
There could be an arrangement. Sometimes, couture is good. Even in your clothing, sometimes that's appropriate, other times not necessary.
Let's say it's couture, but you use the same every time. How about that?
There's a hybrid. It's that way of looking at it that putting different concepts together, looking at it differently, that's something that new space can see and that commercial ventures would see differently. Maybe you'll come up with a whole new way of doing something as well. It's an interesting time for sure. You are based in Colorado, where there are a lot of new space companies emerging. Do you know how that particular ecosystem came about? Was it because of the Colorado Springs and the government presence there, which then led to the companies being there?
I'll share with you what I have learned that is anecdotal. The Denver, Colorado Springs corridor is the largest space economy outside of the Cape and Cape Canaveral down in Florida. I have heard that the US government wanted to advance space technology and have it be so far inland that Japan would not be able to reach it at the time. Colorado seemed like a good spot. We all know the weather here most of the time, clear, bright sky, and of course, Colorado Springs and the Air Force Academy.
The economy did start to build around that. A couple of Air Force bases here are now Space Force bases as well. I do believe that some of these excellent next-generation space companies have started to realize that this is more the place to be. Without advertising for some of our competitors, we are seeing more and more of them establish some presence, often in what used to be called the Denver Tech Center area, which is now called Denver South, or elsewhere in the Denver, Colorado Springs Corridor. They have lots of fresh opportunities. I'll add, too, a lot is going on in California and the Upper Northwest, and technology companies are very much turning their focus to next-generation space as well. It's exciting to see what they're developing.
There are those other areas for you. My area, Southern California, is pretty busy in the space arena as well. It's a similar thing. A lot of the original aerospace companies were in the South Bay in Southern California. There's some infrastructure built up with that as well. I had a question for you from one of your other podcasts that I listened to, where you talked about effective leadership and how great leaders are adaptable.
Sometimes, it's the right leader at the right time for the right situation or the right company. It's not something that we talk about in law practice that much, but it's important to think about in terms of management and leadership, what's required or what helps be a good leader of people, teams, and companies. Since you've made that comment before, I want to follow up on it and say what you think are important leadership qualities or other things that lawyers who are in-house, in particular, can grow leadership skills. It's important in many arenas but more important in an in-house setting.
It is so important. When I was at a law firm, the sine qua non for advancement was not, “Are you building a team? Do your associates feel encouraged and respected?”
You do that anyway, but it's not rewarded. It's not seen as, “This is why we need to check all these things happening.” It's nice if it happens, but it's not something that folks are paying attention to in the same way.
If a partner had a bid book of business, then they would get away with more in terms of how they treated people in my experience. There's so much leadership training. I believe I mentioned my father was in the Air Force as an Air Force pilot, and he got training from a very young age, and he would share that with me. I remember I was a little girl, and he would say things like, “Praise in public and correct in private.” We had a problem with the Sears catalog. Something hadn't been delivered properly. He had me sit down next to him and listen to him as he made the calls. He was so respectful. If we needed to, we would ask to speak with a supervisor and he would always send a follow-up note.
I do believe my dad probably would've been good to work for. When he was a commander, he would get calls. I'll never forget a story about an airman who supposedly wasn't paying his bills. He got called in to see my dad because this company was reaching out to him and he explained that the television didn't work. My dad stuck up for this guy. He called, “If you don't treat him fairly, I'm going to make your store off base for my men.”
In any event, he taught me what it meant, even just growing up. You're dumped into a law firm where, as you say, it's an ad hoc situation. I do agree that in-house matters more to the point of it being situational. There was a time when I was probably better at mentoring very junior personnel and passing that on so people obtain that supervisory responsibility, which I believe is important. Also, knowing when to let go and nurture interim leaders so that they'll be ready at their time is important.
In my current role, we are all working executives. We are not only managers. I enjoy that. It's funny, but sitting still at my desk with a contract is still one of life's simple pleasures. You wind up needing to do both. In an in-house role, I'd say also one of the most important aspects of being a lawyer and a leader is being able to influence outside of your direct reporting line.
So much of the organization will not report to you. Especially legal and administrative, you certainly have core legal and regulatory work, likely contracts and contracting work and a degree in real estate. All of these things will be shared with other components of the business. They'll be shared with facilities, business development, and programs. An important part of leadership is the more subtle side, which is influencing people who do not report to you and will never report to you. That's an important part of developing as a leader in-house as well.
I like that point, so I want to dig into that a little bit. How do you do that? They're not a direct report, there's not a hierarchy, but they're certainly within the ecosystem.
I will say everyone finds their way. Use what works for you. Some people are very quiet and will do a great deal of listening and making suggestions. Other people jump in much earlier to direct it. How do you do it? You are making me think, MC. Something I wish I had realized sooner is how important relationships are that have nothing to do with work. You're already exhausted. You've had a long day. If you make a point of building a relationship, building trust, knowing, liking, and trusting each other before you have a work issue to discuss, that can help.
For me, I do think it's very important to remember to do a great deal of listening because even if you come out on a different side than someone else, if they've truly been heard, that's a way to do it. Another way to do it is to ensure that everyone participates in the decision. The buy-in you will get if everyone has participated and had the opportunity to fully vet a direction will be much greater, even if you wind up more or less where you thought you would in the first place. I leave my door open whenever I can and encourage people to stop in and I always take those stop-in moments.
I'll tell you this, too. Physical presence is important. I know at a law firm, so much can be done effectively, virtually. You have so many different clients. Frankly, I would have some advice for associates there too, which is to get in the office and get some appropriate training, but we can talk about that in a second. I see a difference between people who have spent a lot of time at home billing hours versus some who might have been sitting at the knee of someone being able to participate in phone calls and things that they wouldn't have been invited to as a Zoom meeting.
Setting that aside, I get more drop-ins and drop-in questions than I ever would if I were not physically present with my door open. I would do that as well because you'll learn what's going on. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of learning and understanding the business and being invested in propelling the business forward. If people understand that you will help the business advance, you are looking for ways to promote the strategy. You want the deal to go through rather than coming off as some naysayer who's always pointing out all the things that could go wrong. If you're that person, you will have a little more influence, I would say, or the paths will be easier.
It's another way of building trust in terms of understanding how you operate and what your larger goals are. On behalf of the company, there's alignment there between you and others. People may perceive what you say differently as a result of that.
What you do want to choose a good place for you too. I would not belong somewhere where they were constantly skirting the edges of compliance or the regulatory environment. There may be times when it's not possible when the function's not respected, or when you're ethically at odds or the like, as we discussed before, just change direction.
You get a better sense of that, too. Being in person and in the environment, you can get a sense of things more quickly. I don't know whether it's an intuitive sense or something from people's body language that you can get a much better sense of when you're in person. You can suddenly download this information much more quickly than several phone calls with someone it would be different.
I want to talk a little bit about mentors and sponsors as well. You talked about your dad training you in some ways by being there, seeing how he was handling things. How have mentors or sponsors made a difference to you in your career and how have you paid it forward and mentored or sponsored others?
I would say that at various points along the way, people have appeared or helped and even cited the person who encouraged me to go to law school, who was helpful. You talked about paying it back. I'm going to start with the back end of your question first. We have this terrific organization here called the General Counsel Mentoring Program that a friend of mine started. Often, but not always, general counsel but more senior lawyers are the mentors in the group. More women, people of color, and people who tend to have a tough time making equity partners at law firms are members. We still see the dropout numbers are way too high for women and people of color in those ranks.
That's been a fun and good program. I referred some business to one of these senior associates. I will say you don't have to have an official mentor to ask someone for some help or some advice or to approach them after they've given a presentation and to follow up and get some good guidance from them. Sometimes, we can be wistful almost with people who would had someone with the wind under their sails their entire career. It's okay to have someone at your office who helps guide you in a given direction and to find someone later on who might give you whether it's good advice or encourage you to apply for a given role or the like along the way. I would say keep your ears peaked for good advice no matter where it comes from.
That's an important point. That's why I like to ask about mentors and sponsors. Sometimes, people may not be able to recognize the value when it's in front of them because sometimes people think, “It is a mentor or a sponsor or someone who has had my back my entire career and has done all of this.” That's what it looks like and it can look like that. It can be other things like someone who's providing needed advice at the right time that can open a door. It shows up in a lot of different ways.
There's no question. It doesn't have to be within the legal department. I'm the mentor for someone who is an engineer, and she's a terrific engineer. She asked if I would be her mentor. I enjoy that very much. I have to give a shout-out to my husband, who has been a terrific cheerleader and very supportive of me and my career. I have seen it happen to women. This is the Porsche broadcast that men are very supportive until they have to move for your job or very supportive until you want to do something. They'll probably be making less money at times. Just remember that, don't forget the people who are closest to you and how important they are in terms of supporting you or you supporting them at all stages of your career. Possibly, most importantly, when you want to make a change.
Either in seeing something in the opportunity or you. Standing behind that and helping make it happen. That's true. You cannot forget about those folks at all. Typically, I end with my lightning-ground questions. We'll cover a few of those if you're good with that. First question, which talent would you most like to have but don't?
I liked drama and acting in musicals as a kid. I didn't take my shot at developing that. It just would've been fun to have had the chance. That's a down note, isn't it?
It's never too late. You could still do it. We'll find an opportunity for that. Who are some of your favorite writers?
You were asking an English major about her favorite writers. If I had to choose one, I would go with Virginia Woolf. This may go back to my love of dramas at times over novels because she can write in a way that puts you inside of someone's head and in their emotions like no one else can. Yet you can follow the plot. It's not impenetrable. If I had to choose a favorite type of literature, it has to be Twentieth-Century Southern Literature, Robert Penn Warren, Eudora Welty, Tennessee Williams, and Richard Wright. They captured an era of people. I love that era.
What you said about Virginia Woolf is spot on, too. Even though you're in someone's thought pattern, you're not adrift. You can follow the story, which is a unique skill and talent. I love Eudora Welty as well. Who is your hero in real life?
I already gave kudos to some of my family members, which I probably would have done. I'm going to go with unsung heroes. I do think sometimes our warfighters in our military can be unsung as a child who was left at home when our father was in the war and that sort of thing. My mother had five children at home when my father was flying a plane in a war. I'm going to go with the heroes, the family members who support the military and the military who deploy abroad.
For what in life do you feel most grateful?
I am grateful for the opportunity that lies ahead of us in next-generation space. We are on the verge of a new era. To have even a small role in shepherding that, I am very grateful for that. I know how blessed I am to play a part in that every day.
It's such an exciting time for that and you have such a great seat on that journey, so that's pretty exciting. Dinner party time, given the choice of anyone in the world alive or not, who would you invite to a dinner party could be more than one person.
I would have dinner with Abe Lincoln and my grandmothers. Something I admire so much about him is that he was doing tremendously good things for the country while being bashed and criticized just to smithereens. I don't know how you get up every morning and keep fighting. I would want to talk to him about knowing you're doing good and doing the right thing and how you continue in the face of that. He kept the union together, and still, people found ways to criticize. I admire that resilience.
I say my grandmothers because I'm the youngest child of 5 of 2 youngest children in very large families. My grandparents passed away, unfortunately, when I was very young. I was in elementary school. I would love to talk with them more and learn things about my history and my background that I still don't know. Both my grandmothers were great cooks. One in particular was phenomenal. I do love to cook. I would love to make dinner with my grandmother and have her teach me a few things. Just tell her about my family history in ways that I never got to learn and didn't appreciate when I was that young.
I love the grandmother's cooking in the kitchen. I like that one. That's fun. I always feel like I've never paid enough attention to that stuff, being in that setting.
Someone gave me my grandmother's recipe book, a Betty Crocker recipe book that my mother gave my grandmother when she was dating my father. When my grandmother passed away, they gave that to me and I opened it up and there were handwritten recipes of my grandmother's. English was her fourth language. Much of the recipes were phonetic, which I loved, but a lot of them were done by weights or pounds. It wasn't a cup of this and a half of this. They're a little hard for me to replicate and I could imagine sitting next to her and throwing a little of this and a little of that. If this is dry, then add some water. I can see that's how everybody cooked back then. You can go print a recipe off the internet, I suppose.
That little microcosm of history in the context in which the recipes were put together was cool. Last question. What is your motto, if you have one?
My motto is to bloom where you're planted. We moved around some when I was a kid. Not as much as many military brats. You won't necessarily be able to choose, for example, if you're an associate exactly where they need you. As I mentioned, the company you work for might struggle with regulatory compliance, but there you are. There's always something good to get from it. You can always thrive in any environment. I would say my motto is bloom where you're planted.
That's such a great full circle for your life story and all of that, too. Thank you so much for joining me on the show and sharing your thoughts. I've enjoyed it, Monica. Thank you.
MC, it has truly been an honor. One time, I would like to interview you. Would you let me interview you?
We'll work something out. Thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Absolutely.