Roger Chae was exposed to the business side of law from an early age, as his father asked him to look over contracts for the family business in Hawaii. “ ‘I’m sure you’ll figure it out. Just use common sense and keep learning’ was his instruction to me,” recalls Roger. “The compensation for the legal service was lunch and ice cream. I savor ice cream. Sometimes I would skip lunch and just eat ice cream; there were so many flavours!”
Looking back, Roger shares how his legal career was very much by design and, curiously, ice cream has played a notable part in his journey. “I’m grateful I grew up in Hawaii, but I felt isolated when the world was so vast with diverse histories and cultures — there were so many global flavours.” This quest led him to experience his university studies in the east coast in Massachusetts, his legal studies in the west coast in California, and advanced business studies in the Midwest in Indiana. “Each region in the United States was different in so many ways and I learned a lot — about people, cultures, and about myself.” A life changing event during law school expanded his quest to be immersed in Asia Pacific and explore Europe.
GC: You’ve had interesting legal careers in Honolulu, Los Angeles, Seoul, Shanghai, and business travel to countries worldwide, and not to mention all the different legal areas you’ve accomplished. How did you get to where you are now?
Roger Chae: As a child, eating ice cream made me happy. It still does. I’m sure you’ve heard of Baskin-Robbins ice cream. They had 31 flavours and my goal was to taste all of them. I think that drive continued into my career – I wanted to taste all the flavours of the legal profession, in a way (laughs).
I didn’t plan to be a lawyer. In high school, I wanted to be an auto mechanic so that I could build my own car and have two Labrador dogs. No one in our family or relatives was a doctor or lawyer. I guess my parents didn’t expect much from me (laughs). I’m still surprised I’m a lawyer. My parents are even more surprised than I am (laughs more).
Growing up, I thought a lawyer was a profession for the elite, the wealthy, and really smart people. I was an average student in a public high school who had his share of getting into trouble. When my father told me to review business agreements, he told me that I was doing something important and that the effort I put in would either hurt or help our family. That was a lot of weight to bear for a teenager; failure was not an option. Needless to say, I asked many questions for my task. After all, my job ensured my ice cream! I felt I needed to understand not only the what but, also, the why and how. I went off tangent many times, but I learned much along the way. “Keep learning, keep growing” was something my father told me frequently.
As I matured over the years, I learned more about contracts and business. My perception about lawyers also changed from, “I’m not lawyer material” to “Why can’t I be a lawyer, especially if it means I can help my family and others?” Studying then became interesting as I was learning—not by mandate and rote memorization, but because I wanted to really learn. That’s when the light bulb came on.
In law school, legal issues in international business came natural to me and my father was my core professor. I recall my father frequently telling me, “Look at the big picture– what’s going on and how can you shape the outcome?” That was powerful – knowing that I had the ability to determine an outcome.
After law school, I was fortunate to join the Prosecutor’s Office where I gained valuable insights in oral advocacy, due process, and notions of justice to safeguard society. I learned to identify stakeholders as I delved into the intricacies of law enforcement and the criminal justice and judicial systems, including experience in rehab centers and jails at different security levels– the big picture. I wanted to learn more.
I transitioned to private practice and joined law firms where I learned how businesses leveraged law to attain their interests. I better understood contracts, strategic drafting and negotiations, and the dynamics of business. The experience in the corporate department taught me M&A, LBO, IPO, joint ventures, operations and countless transactions. I also worked in the finance department and appreciated how capital and cash flow were the “oil” that drove corporate transactions. Project finance was particularly meaningful as I learned how visions became realities by identifying and quantifying risks and managing various moving pieces to ensure project completion. The light bulb became brighter; new lights also appeared.
A big thrust came in year 2000. During a period of financial turmoil in many Asian countries, the International Monetary Fund intervened to bail them out, with Korea being one of the recipients. Ethnically, I was Korean but I grew up in the United States. Restated, I didn’t know anything about my heritage and I also wanted to taste the flavours outside of America. The opportunity in Asia was there so I left the comfort of a secure job, friends, and family and headed to foreign lands.
I boarded a plane on my own and flew to South Korea. There was no email then, so I physically visited law firms in Seoul. This was at a time when there were only about 30 lawyers at “large” law firms in what are now considered mega law firms, averaging over 500 professionals.
The entire country was in the throes of bankruptcy, and while numerous foreign investors were entering Korea, local lawyers were not well versed in cross border transactions and, thus, there was a large demand for lawyers with experience in corporate and finance transactions and, also, fluency in English. Back then, very few lawyers in Korea were comfortable with English; many could read but writing and speaking with fluency were a challenge for most. Fast forward to modern day where many Korean lawyers are now bilingual, with some being bi-cultural. This gives you an idea of how the IMF reforms skyrocketed the entire economy of a nation that was categorized as a developing country into an entirely new dimension where it matured into a developed nation by repaying US$60bn (in full) and within four years. That’s really impressive and it shows the strength of a unified country with a mission.
Mega deals were frequently published in local newspapers and it was common for company employees, lawyers, bankers, consultants and others to be working long hours — but the experience was exhilarating as we were directly contributing to transform Korea. I used all the skills I learned, and developed new skills. It felt good — to be making a difference. I wanted to do more and learn more.
GC: So, you were based in Korea, adding flavours to your legal palette along the way. What came next?
RC: A recruiter contacted me when I was in my 12th year at a law firm in Seoul. They shared an opportunity for an in-house role at a large US company that had operations in Korea. So, I said, ‘You know, I’ve never tasted that experience– working in-house.’ And with that, I transitioned from private practice and joined United Technologies Corporation (UTC) with a remit for Korea and APAC countries. The move to in-house wasn’t difficult, likely because I was in a business environment at a young age. However, unlike a law firm where issues were based on laws and regulations, I learned quickly that an in-house corporate lawyer largely managed risks to support business growth. “Alignment” was also a highly respected and required practice. After serving in leadership roles at UTC for about eight years, an opportunity arose to serve as group general counsel for a listed company in Seoul that had subsidiaries in over twenty countries. This was the ice cream royale with all the special toppings!
I currently serve as the group general counsel at Hanon Systems that has over 20,000 members worldwide. I participate in meetings by the Board of Directors and shareholders and work closely with our global CEOs and regional GCs in China, Europe, Americas and APAC whilst also supporting managers in various countries. A benefit I enjoy about this role is traveling to different countries and meeting people from all walks of life and backgrounds. I really enjoy meeting people and hearing their stories. A rainbow of flavours, if you will. To say the least, the workload in a global leadership role is not easy, but I wouldn’t want the role if it was.
GC: General counsel often talk about the need to be ‘business-focused’. Even when you were young, you were helping out your father’s company with legal work. Is being business-focused a main strength of yours would you say?
RC: I like business. It’s dynamic and new issues and opportunities always arise. I like the challenge to find solutions for a larger goal. Except for litigators, I think every lawyer or consultant that advises a company must like business and have actual experience in business environments to add value. Business people see issues holistically and endeavor to find solutions to reach business targets, whereas lawyers without business experience often see issues in a silo based largely on laws and regulations and are often unable to find business solutions. Law schools don’t teach that – problem solving and being creative. Instead, law school focuses on facts and law to derive a logic based conclusion. Hence, lawyers in business meetings often preface their comments with, “From a legal perspective, … .” In a business environment, law is only a part of the larger picture and sometimes it’s only a small part. You have to appreciate business to really add value as a business lawyer. Seems natural. It also helps if you treat issues as if the company was yours (and not as a billing code). Law is static whereas business is dynamic. I like to think I’m a “dynamic kind of guy” (laughs).
GC: What is the situation like for in-house lawyers in Korea from your perspective?
RC: I think the outlook is positive, particularly as law firm fees are not going to go down and companies are increasingly wanting to keep information internal. The partnership track in major law firms in Seoul is now similar to those at global law firms as the average path now takes over ten years of proven work quality and candidates must also show they can generate work (business). The latter requirement can create challenges (and throughout as a partner), so in-house roles are increasing in attraction.
In my observation, the “first generation” of in-house lawyers was in early 2000. The reform requirements by the IMF, particularly in corporate governance and transparency, coupled with increased government investigations into conglomerates (chaebols), were the impetus for companies to recruit in-house counsel. Companies, however, were uncertain how to utilize the new roles as young in-house lawyers often lacked training and experience; thus, the dependence on law firms continued.
The current generation of lawyers are much more polished, trained and experienced. The perception of in-house lawyers in Korea is also more respected, with some roles being coveted beyond partnership at major law firms. Moreover, Korea is rapidly expanding as companies are aggressively pursuing opportunities outside of its borders. So, what does this mean? Companies will do more internally so in-house roles will increase. Generative AI will also accelerate learning and create efficiencies and, thus, in-house counsel will operate with less dependency on law firms, especially in transactions.
GC: I’m glad you mentioned GenAI as it is a recurring topic with frequent advances in its development, including its potential impact in the legal services industry. What’s your take?
RC: I welcome it and will use it. Outside of legal services, the products and solutions that people and GenAI are creating are incredible and the pace of the growth is even more incredible. Our management supports GenAI, with the first step to meaningfully explore how it can make our company more competitive and efficient.
A solution that provides predictive analytics and qualitative analysis tailored for our global operations – commercial and risks thereto — will help greatly to facilitate business. Similarly, GenAI solutions that can address recurring legal risks where the gamut of issues can be determined will reduce a large workload in daily contract review and allow us to focus on more substantive issues (e.g., strategy). I expect GenAI will cause common transaction contracts to be standardized, or reduced to a few discretionary issues. It’s not much different in negotiations between two seasoned attorneys — each attorney knows the range of options and likely outcomes and, thus, only the real issues are discussed and completed efficiently.
I am hopeful GenAI will allow us to better manage the type and volume of work we ask our law firms to help us with. This practice may lead to law firms hiring fewer junior lawyers and cause law schools and private companies offering courses in GenAI. Lawyers will not be replaced by GenAI but the technology will create a very different landscape to stay competitive in a traditional and static industry. The challenge is that GenAI is advancing and accelerating constantly. The gap will widen exponentially between those who embrace technology and those who choose a conservative path.
GC: Lots to think about. As a final question, are there any new flavours you are looking to learn?
RC (chuckling): Career wise, I am fortunate to have experienced many professions in law, including the judiciary, academia, and public-private sectors. I also learned different industries working together with awesome people.
Recently, I started learning about neuroscience. I would have never known what that meant in high school, other than it was likely a word people studied for the SAT. As I mature in my career and life, I found myself more drawn to understanding how the brain works. The science side, like physiology and molecular biology, are beyond me but the mechanics of how the brain works with our thoughts and behavior are really interesting. In a way, I’m doing what I set out in high school to be– a mechanic (laughs).
There are so many opportunities to experience and taste in life. By the way, did you know that Baskins-Robbins has over 1,400 flavours? They started with 31 flavours, but created over 1,400 during their 75 years of continued success. My favorite flavour was jamoca almond fudge but I’ve added more flavours to be my favorites. Life is awesome and it’s within us to make it that way.
