Candisse Williamson | Strategy and Talent: How One General Counsel Builds Legal Teams and Chooses Outside Counsel

Elise Holtzman: Hi, everyone. It's Elise Holtzman here, a former practicing lawyer and the host of The Lawyer's Edge podcast. Welcome back for another episode.

Some lawyers follow the traditional path. Others create entirely new ones. Today's guest made her start in Biglaw, like many people listening, advising on complex M&A and private equity deals.

Over time, though, her career took a creative turn into the fast-moving world of entertainment, where she now sits at the intersection of law, storytelling, strategy, and leadership. In this episode, we're going to talk about what it's really like to serve as general counsel at the highest levels of entertainment and media, how our guest builds powerful partnerships with outside counsel, and how she's navigating the legal challenges of a rapidly evolving content landscape.

Before we dive in, today's episode is brought to you by the Ignite Women's Business Development Accelerator, a nine-month business development and leadership program created by women lawyers for women lawyers. Ignite is a carefully designed business development program containing content, coaching, and a community of like-minded women who are committed to becoming rainmakers and supporting the retention and advancement of other women in the profession. To learn more about Ignite, visit thelawyersedge.com/ignite.

I am so excited to welcome my guest today, Candisse Williamson, who is a creative dealmaker with robust legal experience across entertainment and corporate.

After earning her law degree from Northwestern, Candisse began her career as a corporate associate at top firms, including Paul, Weiss, and King & Spalding, advising on M&A and private equity transactions. She later served as VP of Business and Legal Affairs at the Madison Square Garden Company, where she was lead attorney for the very famous Christmas Spectacular Starring the Rockettes.

From there, she became General Counsel at Skybound Entertainment, where she built the legal department from the ground up and led all transactions across film, TV, gaming, and more. Now, Candisse is General Counsel of Hartbeat, which is a media company founded by comedian and entertainer Kevin Hart.

As General Counsel of Hartbeat, she established the legal department and now handles all strategic dealmaking across film, TV, audio, live events, and branded content, while also contributing as a trusted leader across the executive team.

I can't wait to hear all about this. Candisse, welcome to The Lawyer's Edge.

Candisse Williamson: Thank you for having me.

Elise Holtzman: I'm delighted to have you. As I said to you earlier, I like Kevin Hart quite a bit. So this is a little bit of, "I get to touch some famous people," and that includes you.

So let's talk a little bit about how you got started in the law. What drew you to a career in law in the first place?

Candisse Williamson: I really enjoy businesses. Let's start there. My undergraduate degree was in business and I just really liked understanding the complexity, how you build something, how you create a large machine to do industry-agnostic things.

So I was really excited about learning about business, but I also really enjoy being an advocate. So I was trying to figure out a way to really merge those two worlds where I could negotiate things, advocate for people, help things move further along, and really be a partner to a business.

So that's really what got me interested in the law, in addition to just being a young girl with an opinion, where everybody told me that I should be a lawyer.

Elise Holtzman: Yes, I've heard that. I heard that a bit myself when I was growing up. So I get that.

What was it like then, given that you were so interested in business—the intersection of business and law—what was it like transitioning from being an associate at a big firm doing M&A transactions into an entertainment company?

Because on the one hand, it seems like they would be related. On the other hand, it seems like they're wildly different.

Candisse Williamson: Yeah. I mean, I think the foundation—M&A lawyers will likely understand and agree with this—is the foundation of transactional work in Biglaw is applicable to many, many things.

So you're doing 100-page purchase agreements, and they all include the same thing. You're talking about reps and warranties, indemnities, you're talking about covenants and miscellaneous provisions. So if I can do a 100-page purchase agreement, I can do a five-page actor deal, right?

You're really learning the foundational skills of doing corporate M&A, of how to really draft, how to be really thoughtful, how to be precise. You're also learning project management skills.

You're also learning, as a subject matter expert, as a mid-level associate, you're the quarterback in the middle of employment benefits attorneys and IP attorneys and real estate attorneys and tax attorneys. So you really get a broad industry-agnostic experience generally.

So going into entertainment, I was really just working in one of many industries that I had already touched. But you also learn that while industries are varied, they have a lot of commonality.

That's where the transactional lawyer can sit, putting all those things together in one place. So that foundation was sort of an easy transition.

What made it, I guess, challenging is entertainment is a lot more casual. It's a lot more fun, I guess, in many instances. The thing that makes it most exciting for me is how tangible it is.

It never gets old to work on a contract for a TV show and then go to your TV and have it on. There's nothing that’s more rewarding than working across the year and then going to the Radio City Music Hall and seeing the show that, like I did that contract for that piece of music. I did that costume deal. All of that stuff is really rewarding.

So not every industry across the law allows for that. That's what I really enjoy about transitioning into entertainment.

Elise Holtzman: Putting aside the notion of having to pivot a little bit and learn about, let's say, the culture of entertainment and the terminology that they use and the sorts of contracts that they have, what about the idea that when you move into a VP role or General Counsel role inside a company, you're required to manage people?

You're the boss. We know that law school didn't bother teaching us those sorts of things. As an associate—even a senior associate—at a law firm, you're not typically in very much of a management role, except perhaps managing a junior associate here and there.

What was that like for you? Was that a difficult transition, or did your background having been an undergraduate business student help you with that?

Candisse Williamson: That's a great question. I certainly was not prepared for what I consider the most challenging thing: hiring and managing a team. Not because I haven't had great teams—I’ve had wonderful teams—but it's the work that's required to get it there.

I'm very intentional about how I lead, how I form and lead teams. So you're right. As an associate at a law firm, yes, you'd have junior members of the team, but law firms are very notorious for, "If I didn't really enjoy working with that associate, I'll just choose another junior associate on the next deal." You can ebb and flow.

So, going into a situation where—at Madison Square Garden—I had people under me, but they may have already been there. We ended up being friends. It’s a much bigger legal department.

But once I got to Skybound, where I was really deciding not only who to choose, but what the roles were going to be and what type of skill sets I needed to hire for and what backgrounds were the right fit—not just for me, but for the client groups that we were serving—it was quite challenging.

It was a lot of talking to my peers, asking friends, really being thoughtful about what I needed at that time in my career, what the company really needs at that time in the company’s growth.

So my philosophy has always been to be the best of any other leader. I've had great bosses and great leaders that have poured into me, so I try to mimic as best as I can those particular skills, while also dumping the things that I didn't like so much and making sure that I improve people's experiences on my team to the best of my ability.

I say it all the time, hiring is one of the most challenging things about being a general counsel. But it's so rewarding, because I really do have the best team, and I’m only as good as I can be because they are so fantastic.

Elise Holtzman: I mentioned in the introduction that you have built a couple of legal departments, most recently at Hartbeat, where you are now. Were you the first lawyer in Hartbeat, or was there something there before that just wasn’t as robust as it is now?

Candisse Williamson: I was the first lawyer inside the company.

Elise Holtzman: So that can be pretty daunting. What was that like for you? How have you been able to intentionally build the team that you were looking for?

Candisse Williamson: Can be daunting, but I actually viewed it as a creative challenge. It was a similar situation when I got to Skybound. So I had done it at Skybound before I joined Hartbeat.

I think for me, it was two things. One, it was a bet-on-myself moment. It was like, "Do I have what it takes to really build a legal department?" When you're at a law firm, they have every color of pen and manila folders and things that lawyers like. When you walk into a company that has never had a legal department, there's no redlining software. There are no file folders. There's nothing.

So I really was able to take a moment to really think, "If I had the opportunity to build this thing myself, what would I want it to look like?" I was excited about that opportunity, but that's the dressing. The substance of it is really you go in, my approach has been to go into a new company, speak with all of the stakeholders.

Speak with all of the business leaders, all of my peers, and my bosses that I'll be working really closely with, and understand the current state of affairs. Who are they currently using for certain services? How are they using them? How are they performing for them? What are the challenges that they're experiencing to really understand the status quo?

I also have similar conversations with outside counsel, and I understand how they're being used. If they have the right piece in the right place, as I alluded to earlier, I want to make sure that we have what the billing arrangements look like, what the scope of their services is.

Oftentimes, what I found in both instances is that there are always well-meaning players, but sometimes it just ends up being that it's really not the right firm for this type of work or the right scope of work for this particular company.

So what I do then is I go in with the scaffold, with a very fine-tooth comb, and make sure that what's working well—both for the firm and for the budget and for the client groups—stays where it is. Then move the pieces where I think it makes more sense, where it could be easier, more efficient, and more appropriate for the state of the business.

It's a long process of diligence on the front end to make sure that I'm not upsetting the apple cart or challenging the cultural norms of the company on day one or even on day 90. But eventually, forging the right pieces in and then identifying where we're going to continue to build the team internally and invest in resources internally versus continue to invest with the relationships with outside counsel.

Elise Holtzman: We have a lot of outside counsel who listen to this podcast, and a lot of lawyers that I'm talking to on a regular basis who are in firms. I think that they're always trying to figure out, obviously, how to best serve their corporate clients.

From your perspective, what are you looking for in a firm? How do you maintain relationships with people? What works for you and what doesn’t work for you?

Candisse Williamson: I think that outside counsel is there to serve two main purposes. We either go to you for your expertise, or we go to you for overflow. In either case, the goal is to really supercharge the in-house lawyers, the in-house legal department.

Where it works really well is where they make my team and I faster, more efficient, better at delivering either a contract, legal advice, thoughtful strategic maneuvering on a myriad of issues. That is where we work really well.

Where it gets a little bit more challenging is there are instances where sometimes outside counsel may have an existing relationship with other people around the company. So they may choose to try to make themselves look better at the expense of the in-house legal team or try to forge tighter relationships with the principals of the company.

When really it's important—if you want to maintain the client—that the GC is making the decision about who stays and who goes, what the budgets are going to be, and for how long.

So I value the lawyers that we use very much, very heavily. We have great relationships. It's because, one, they understand their role. But two, it's really important that they understand that I understand how much I need them.

It's important to me that we pay their bills on time. Because "you can't have a tough conversation about the bill being too high if you don't pay them on time." So I want to make sure that we're giving them as much as they give us.

I think where firms can serve in-house counsel and general counsel well is where they understand that they're here for expertise, they deliver that expertise in a way that is incredibly efficient, and they are consistently responsive.

Where there are challenges is where either they don't understand the business and they are focused really on the lawyering and not the lawyering for the particular client and for the particular business that they're in, or where they sort of set it and forget it. They may have people staffed on a project that are not really focused on what the needs are.

That’s where I find we end up having to potentially make adjustments or part ways with firms.

Elise Holtzman: It sounds like you've had to have some difficult conversations. I think every general counsel probably has to have some difficult conversations with their outside counsel at some point. Do you have a particular philosophy about handling those sorts of conversations?

Candisse Williamson: I do. I'm very direct. It's important to me to build a level of trust and camaraderie because I have the ability to hire who I want to work with. I don't have to hire anybody.

I don't intend for that to sound like I'm coming from a place of privilege. It's just a matter of fact. So it's important to me that when I work with outside counsel, that we have a rapport—oftentimes a friendship—and they understand exactly what I need from them. I understand what they need from me.

So there are tough conversations that come both ways. Sometimes I'll call a firm and I'll say, "Hey, I know that we’ve decided to work on this as a retainer, a flat fee every month. How's that working for you?" They may say, "Actually, the work is great, but we're like X thousand under. We've been basically overextending and you guys are underpaying."

I'm like, "I hear you. I didn’t intend for that to be the case. Let me see if I can bump this up," and I’ll go back to the woman on my team who handles our budgeting and give them more, even if they didn’t ask for it.

Those are the things that I think are important for me to do to let them know that I actually care about the work that you’re doing, and I'm going to do you a solid because you're doing me a solid.

Then there are other instances where I’ll give a firm a couple of instances to improve. I’ll say something like, "Hey, I noticed that the work that you're doing on this particular topic hasn’t really hit the mark for this reason, that reason, and the third reason. Here's what I'm really looking for. These are my expectations."

They can either meet those expectations. If they aren't able to meet the expectations, then I will say, "Listen, we're going to give you one more shot, but I may have to move the work."

I’ve done that. I've actually been surprised. Sometimes I’ve had those conversations a few times over, and then I’ll move the work and they'll say, "Hey, can you just give me some feedback?"

I'm like, "Happy to give you feedback, but I had given you feedback throughout the whole time. I just want to make sure you understand that it's not personal." Because we do have great relationships. But that's really rare.

Most of the time, it's a conversation about, "Hey, this is the scope we're using." Especially if I use smaller firms, which I often do, I want to make sure they have the runway because they're worried about the same thing. They're worried about cash flow. They're worried about how they're going to have enough work for their teams.

So I want to make sure I give them—usually toward the end of the year—I go through my budget, I'm thinking through what our needs are going to be, whether it's hiring or not for next year. I’ll give them a heads-up and say, "Hey, just so we’re on the same page, this is what I'm thinking for next year. We may adjust your scope in this way. We may need you for this," so that they can plan and prepare their budgeting and hiring to the extent that it can be impacted by our decisions.

Elise Holtzman: Candisse, as I mentioned to you before we started recording today, I do a lot of work with private practice lawyers who are always excited about growing their books of business. Being able to work for companies that do really cool things, being able to feel like they’re making a difference.

Yes, at the same time, a win-win situation where they get to grow their books of business and perhaps earn more compensation and reap all the benefits that come out of that. But what many people will say to me is something along the lines of, "I don't know how to meet these people."

So you've got someone like Candisse in a position of authority at a fantastic company. She's doing really important work. That's the work that I would love to do. Happy to knock myself out for Candisse and her colleagues.

But I wasn't born with a really great book of contacts. I didn't grow up in the lap of luxury where the people that my dad went to college with are going to hire me. I don't know how to get in touch with people like that. I can't just pick up the phone and call them.

I don't want to be a stalker or a proverbial used car salesman or anything like that. So how do I demonstrate my capabilities? How do I develop relationships with people like this who are in decision-making roles?

So I'm curious for you, how have you come to know the private practice lawyers with whom you work and that you trust and feel comfortable with? If somebody looks at an organization—whether it's one like yours or somebody else's—and thinks, “Wow, I think I could really deliver value there,” what do you think they can do in order to rise above a very crowded field?

Candisse Williamson: So what we need really is someone who has deep industry knowledge area. When I got to Hartbeat, for example, we needed somebody who—obviously business affairs for entertainment companies—but specifically somebody who did business affairs for entertainment companies of our type.

Not a talent attorney company that represents writers or actors or directors, but somebody who really represented similarly situated production companies that are sandwiched between studios and creatives.

So I had to do a lot of what I found—or we have a channel called the Laugh Out Loud channel on many AVOD platforms—the platform business was a new area for me. So I needed somebody who was very well-versed as a distribution attorney.

For me, it’s almost a similar situation. I don’t have that little black book. My dad doesn’t have all these people that he knows how to call. So I have to rely on my network.

What I was able to do was call people that I knew, that I trusted, who I had either worked with before, who had been at larger firms or entertainment companies that are in the mix, and say, “Hey, I’m looking for somebody that does this. Do you know anybody?” Or I even called an attorney at a peer company who I didn’t even know to say, “Hey, I know you guys have these types of similar issues. Who do you use? Who do you like? Why do you like them?”

So I guess the advice I would give for practicing attorneys that are looking for new clients is, one, you really never know where your next client is coming from. So fan out wide. Oftentimes it will be referrals.

Obviously, after the referral, we’ll do our own due diligence, have a conversation to see if it’s the right match, and do the work. Longest way that people have gotten to me is through referrals through what I know. So do good work and you’ll always get referred. That’s one.

I think the other way to do it is if you are someone and you're sitting there, you're saying, “I think I could help this company do this thing,” another way is, don’t obviously just reach out to the person on LinkedIn or email them. That can be awkward as you suggested in your question.

But if you know somebody that they know via LinkedIn, you can always come around the corner that way. That’s a softer approach. If they don’t need you, they’ll keep you in mind for the future.

I do think that really it’s about, for me, having somebody that has really thoughtful, specific expertise in our area that also has the right budget level for my team to fulfill what we need at the right level. That is really where the marriage can be really successful.

Elise Holtzman: I think it’s so helpful for private practice lawyers to hear this from someone in your role. One of the things I talk about all the time is that this is a long-term game. This is a game of relationships, and it’s a game of people understanding what it is you do and not being afraid to be specific.

There are certainly lawyers out there—and I’ve worked with a lot of them—who say, “Well, as you said, I love doing all kinds of things. For example, I’m a general commercial litigator. I can do whatever walks in the door.” Then the problem is that when you’re in a situation like yours and you're looking for something specific, they may have some of that expertise and may be able to do a great job for you.

But if they're not willing to identify what that is and be clear with their referral network about what they do, then they’re not going to stand out. So I think that that’s just all—hearing it from somebody like you rather than from somebody like me, I think is—

Candisse Williamson: [inaudible]

Elise Holtzman: Of course.

Candisse Williamson: So the other thing I would say is every law firm has departures. That’s the business model.

But the moment I got into a position to hire, I immediately ran back to the firm partners that I trusted, that treated me well, I enjoyed working with. So I think the best way is, when you cut to 10 years, they’ll call and hire you immediately, because you taught them everything, pretty much, the quality of the work.

There’s no better evidence than that. It may, as you noted, take some time for the payoff. But that is what I’ve done. I’ve circled back to people that I started my career with and said, “I know I can trust you. I need you to handle this for me,” and they do it.

Elise Holtzman: It’s a perfect example of the know, like, and trust factor and, as you say, the long runway. You’re the people who you trust. That’s what we all do when we have to make big decisions. So that’s fantastic.

You mentioned to me that you’re very intentional, and it’s clear from this conversation that you’re very intentional about who you’re hiring and how you’re maintaining and developing the relationships with them. You mentioned to me earlier that you take your role seriously in terms of hiring and that you are frequently talking to law firms about who they are staffing on your matters.

Can you tell me a little bit about some of the conversations you have with people on that topic and why?

Candisse Williamson: Yeah. I’ve been an associate at a law firm, and I know what it looks like to look up, and this is a podcast, but I’m a Black woman. I think that sometimes you can look up and not a lot of people look like you at a Biglaw firm.

You can feel forgotten about because really the clients can pull the strings. The goal for the firm is to keep the client, retain the client, keep the client happy.

If the client is being thoughtful and is saying, “Hey, I really want Candisse to work on this matter,” that is who will get staffed. “I really want this person to be staffed on this matter.” If the client is agnostic, then the partner might pull the person who they're most familiar with, who looks like them, who is friends with them outside of the office.

So there's a young me, there’s a young you, there’s a young whomever at these firms. I try my best—it’s a little bit easier to enforce this at larger firms—but I try my best to make sure that Black people, women, other minority groups, other underserved groups are staffed on my matters to the extent that it's possible.

I try to use women-owned firms to the extent possible, women partners to the extent possible. Again, my goal is to find the best fit, just to be clear. Certainly, there has never been an issue with the quality of the work by doing this.

The quality of the work is actually oftentimes much more improved because of this. But it’s important to me because I'm certain someone took the time to do that for me. I want to make sure that I do my best wherever I can to push the needle, while I have some control over something, to try to just encourage the law firm partners to be thoughtful about it.

Certainly when they’re staffing for me, but they may—even after those conversations with me—consider it in other instances too.

Elise Holtzman: Let’s shift gears a little bit and talk about what you’re seeing in terms of legal challenges in the media landscape, because that’s a space that you’re occupying.

Even without knowing too much about entertainment and the entertainment business, even I know that the world of technology and who owns what and privacy considerations and all those sorts of things, things are developing so rapidly that it’s virtually impossible for most people to keep up, let alone somebody who is at the forefront of doing this work as you are.

So what do you see as the biggest challenges or maybe opportunities that are happening in your world right now?

Candisse Williamson: Sure. I think that the entertainment industry has been transitioning for nearly a decade. I think the challenge for most executives in Hollywood is, "Where are we transitioning to?"

Because the transition wasn’t like the dot-com bubble, where everybody just said, “Yep, the internet is a thing now, we’re in,” or broadcast TV to cable, “Yep, that’s a thing now, we’re all shifting.”

At this point, all of us have how many subscriptions to various streaming platforms? Some people still rely on the movie theaters. Most people that are under 30 don’t even care about anything other than watching something on their phone in short-form formats.

Obviously, when you throw AI on top of that—that’s often referred to as a tool—but eventually it may even replace the type of content that we’re consuming as consumers.

So I really think that what we do at Hartbeat, and what I try to focus on from a legal perspective, is that every lawyer knows that the law is always, always, always behind technology. It just is. Because technology is gone, and Congress will eventually come up with some legislation that will address how we look at copyright law and how we look at trademark law in the era of all these shifts.

But really, the way in which you do traditional television deals or traditional film deals, even the traditional budget, the traditional structure of a deal is consistently changing ever since I've been in this industry.

And of course, now the creator economy has completely shifted business. The way that you draw eyeballs and the way that—even a Kevin Hart is a movie star—Time just released the top 100 creators list. For some people, you've never even heard the people on that list, but they are bringing in tens of millions a year without any traditional studio and any traditional audiovisual team.

So it really has democratized entertainment in a way that everybody can. Social media has done that. YouTube has done that.

So how am I keeping up? I'm just doing my best, as none of us can even keep up as a consumer. There are so many new social platforms, so many new ways to use them. There are so many different AVOD.

Elise Holtzman: Sometimes I'm just trying to find a show that I want to watch. It's like, "Well, I don't even know where to find it." So then you try to figure out where to find it. They're like, “Oh, find it on XYZ.” I'm like, “I've never even heard of XYZ platform. Where did that come from?” So yeah.

Candisse Williamson: Yeah. I don't know when it's going to land or where it's going to land. My goal has been to be a little ahead of the business, just trying to think a little ahead of the business in terms of what might be coming around the bend, but also be creative because the traditional deals don't work anymore.

I was speaking at a conference recently where I talked about how offering SAG scale to a content creator when you're doing a talent deal is unimpressive at best, because they make so much per minute that what a standard actor might make is something that we can't do that type of deal anymore for them.

So it's really important that all dealmaking during this really lengthy transition process of the industry is just purely creative, while trying to ensure that what is helpful for us and what's helpful for them, we're really just going back to traditional negotiating tactics and trying to meet somewhere in the middle.

Elise Holtzman: This is particularly interesting to me because one of the things that people who listen to this podcast will know is that I talk a lot about the lawyer personality. I work with some personality tools, and there's some research and just anecdotal evidence to suggest that lawyers tend to show up often in a certain way.

We're not necessarily known for being the most creative. We like structure and we like to think in boxes. We like the rule of law. We like organization, and we like to know what we're doing. We rely on precedent and all of those kinds of things.

So what you're describing is a little bit like the Wild West, where you've got to have a pretty strong stomach to negotiate deals and put things into an agreement and base your organization's investment on something.

Do you think that it's been a bit of a heavy lift for you to be able to step into that creativity and that ability to take risk? Or do you think that maybe that was something that was in you already, and you've just learned to amplify?

Candisse Williamson: That's a great question. I love that context. I think it's the latter.

While I am very type A, and I also really like structure, I have never really wanted to purely color in the lines. So even me choosing to be a general counsel, it really is because I don't want to choose. I don't want to choose one subject matter area. I don't want to pick one practice area.

I handle the entertainment deals that we just talked about with the same level of thorough excitement as I do when an employment matter pops up or when a corporate transaction pops up for the company, or if we're dealing with a real estate issue or litigation, which I obviously have to handle as well.

So I really like the diversity of the work. That is actually what's fun for me. In particular, with the substance of the entertainment industry, it's very often for lawyers at big studios to be an expert at one particular segment of entertainment.

They may be a film lawyer specifically for high-budget films. They may be an indie business affairs executive. They may only do unscripted. They may only handle production legal.

In my role at Hartbeat—that's the benefit of my experience of working at smaller companies—is I do all of those things and then some. I think I just get a lot of enjoyment from the diversity and the variety.

So it's not overwhelming at all. It really is kind of a superpower of mine. It's just to create a lot of order out of what other people may view as chaos.

Elise Holtzman: It also sounds to me like you are someone who likes to grow.

So the way I'm hearing it, it's not just a question of wanting to color outside the lines, but it's also, I think, there needs to be a willingness to not know what you're doing sometimes and to be okay with that. To have to figure it out.

So, to me—and I'm a big believer in growth, obviously, or I wouldn't be doing the work that I am—do you find that you're intentional about growing? Do you pick certain things that you want to learn and then go do it? Or is it really experiential learning, whatever comes along, you're just going to jump into it and figure it out?

Candisse Williamson: I think I do—to the theme of intentionality—I think I am intentional about what I want to learn.

I listened to your episode about AI recently, and I very much agree with the conversation that you guys were having. You can't just wait for the technology to take over your life. You have to use it as a tool.

So I've been very intentional about, “Okay, I should listen to some podcasts about AI. I should really start figuring out how to infuse it into my day-to-day work life.”

So I really just enjoy the process of challenging myself to learn a new thing. I like the variety very much. I find the challenge fun. I think any other way would be a little bit boring to me.

Elise Holtzman: Candisse, as we wrap up our time here together today, there's a question I ask all of my guests at the end of the show that I'd like to ask you as well.

There's a phenomenon called the curse of knowledge, where experts sometimes forget that what is so obvious and natural to them is not at all obvious to other people. When it comes to operating as in-house counsel, when it comes to driving change, perhaps, as a corporate in-house lawyer, what's a principle or piece of advice that may seem obvious to you, but you think is important for people to hear?

Candisse Williamson: Know the business. It's highly critical that you really understand not just that we're an entertainment company, for example, or that you're a fill-in-the-blank company, but really what the business's goals are. What they're trying to achieve. What their positioning in the market is. Whether they're trying to adjust that positioning. What their philosophy is and the posture of negotiating that they want to take.

It's really critical to understand where you fit into that larger business plan, because if you miss the mark once or even twice, that may be the end of the relationship. So really, you can add a lot of value simply by understanding and knowing the business that your clients are in.

Elise Holtzman: I think that really is a distinguisher for lawyers, because also in law school—again, and this is going back to the beginning—but in law school, they're very much teaching us about the law and they're not teaching us about the business.

When people get too sucked into the nuts and bolts of what's on the page in front of them and they forget that they're dealing with living and breathing people in a living, breathing business that's different from other businesses, they get themselves into trouble.

Certainly in your role, if somebody doesn't dot an I or cross a T, you're likely to let that go. But if somebody doesn't care enough to take the time to understand your business and what's driving you and what your culture is about and what the risks are, they're not going to be serving you well.

So that's great advice. I love that. I think a lot of lawyers need to hear it over and over again. So thank you for sharing that. Thanks so much for being here today, Candisse. It was really a pleasure to have you.

Candisse Williamson: Of course.

Elise Holtzman: Thank you to our listeners for tuning in. If you've enjoyed today’s show, please subscribe, rate, and review us at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. In the meantime, be bold, take action, and make things happen. We'll see you next time.