Index

Legal

Introduction/Background

Date of last assessment:  October 1999

Based on questionnaires concerning provision of legal services submitted in May 2000, SLAC legal counsel received an overall rating that may fairly be characterized as “exceeds expectations” for the 1999-2000 period.

 A new type of survey was conducted by the SLAC Peer Review Committee, canvassing SLAC personnel and other University departments with whom the SLAC legal counsel interacts, such as the Provost and Dean of Research, the Sponsored Projects Office, the Office of Technology Licensing, Risk Management, the Public Affairs Office, and the University’s Human Resources Department.  Relevant members of the Department of Energy were also surveyed.  The overall services provided by the SLAC legal counsel were noted by the respondees; services were described as “extremely competent,” “excellent,” and “outstanding.”  No response of less than “very satisfactory” was received. 

Please see a summary of the latest legal services survey.

Department Overview

Laboratory Mission

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is dedicated to experimental and theoretical research in elementary particle physics and in those fields that make use of its synchrotron radiation facilities, including biology, chemistry, geology, material science and electrical engineering.  This fundamental research includes the development of new techniques, technologies, and engineering in 1) particle acceleration and detection and 2) synchrotron radiation sources and associated instrumentation.  The center is operated as a national user facility for the Department of Energy by Stanford University, and it is utilized by over 3,000 researchers from the U.S. and abroad. 

Organizational Mission

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is an academic department of Stanford University.  As such, it receives support from the University’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) on all legal matters, both on an advisory basis and with regard to litigation and litigation support.  OGC is comprised of seven in-house counsel, one of whom is sited at SLAC, and several outside firms retained under competitively bid fixed-price term contracts to provide depth and flexibility of overall operations.  The General Counsel oversees, directs, and coordinates the activities of all the attorneys.  Additional support is provided to SLAC through the University’s Risk Management Department, which maintains the Self Insurance Reserve of the University and participates in valuation of all claims and litigation affecting the University, from Workers’ Compensation to third party liability (exclusive of breach of contract).

An attorney having Federal Government Contracts expertise is assigned by the OGC to SLAC and maintains an office within that department, which is three miles from the main campus.  This individual functions essentially as a general counsel within a highly complex scientific organization dedicated to the study of particle physics, providing advice and guidance to both the SLAC Directorate and the University Office of General Counsel.  Because SLAC operations are fully funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the federal template is imposed on the University’s nonprofit educational activities.  Integrating the two often generates unique and difficult issues concerning federal government contracts, intellectual property, academic and faculty affairs, export control and research scholar immigration, labor, real estate transactions and land use, construction and subcontracting, federal and internal audit and investigation, environmental remediation and restoration, and general business matters.

The attorney assigned to SLAC reports directly to the SLAC Director, the University’s General Counsel, and SLAC’s Associate Director of Business Services.  SLAC’s Legal Office Policy and Procedures Manual is on file with the DOE/OAK Chief Counsel.

Note:  There is no direct charge to the DOE contract for the provision of legal and risk-management services.  However, the contract does support half of the University attorney’s salary and the full cost of settlements or adverse judgments in relation to construction claims and subcontractor actions.

Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff

Names, titles, affiliations of participants

Rachel Claus, University Counsel at SLAC, BSD

Nadine Wright, Executive Assistant, BSD

Scope of Self-Assessment

Status of Open Items from 1999 Review

There are no open items from the DOE/OAK review.  Continuing legal education courses taken included:

40^th Annual Western Briefing Conference on Government Contracts  (Federal Bar Association) – 3 days, Oct. 1999;

DOE/M&O Contractor Attorneys’ (MOCA) Joint Conference – 2 days, Nov. 1999;

M&O Contractor Attorneys’ (MOCA) Conference – 1 day, May 2000.

Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives

Performance Objective/Measure:  #1 Provide Efficient and effective legal services in support of the Laboratory.

The criterion used is “degree of customer satisfaction” which is measured by performing, annually, a customer survey that includes DOE, the University, and SLAC stakeholders

Performance Criteria:

Degree of customer satisfaction.

Performance Measure:

Customer survey performed annually as part of the Laboratory self-assessment process.  

Process used to meet objective/measure:

Customers were identified as those with whom SLAC legal counsel interacts on a regular or intermittent basis as part of providing legal services.  A survey, asking questions related to competence, responsiveness, helpfulness, communication skills, and integrity was employed.  Of 59 questionnaires issued, 28 responses were returned.

Key Factors that were being looked at for individual evaluations were changed this year, in order to get a better sense of how the SLAC Legal Counsel is actually utilized, in addition to finding out how well the attorney meets the needs of the spectrum of “clients.”  (A sample of the survey is attached).

Findings: 

Due to the open-ended nature of this year’s inquiry, responses did not neatly parse along the lines of numerical or adjectival rating.  Nonetheless, with regard to the question “How well does the office meet your needs,” the majority of responders characterized SLAC Legal Counsel services as outstanding or excellent.  A list of the actual responses (without attribution) are included with this report. 

Overall Performance

The Legal Office was found to be effective, cost efficient, and in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, as well as with the terms and conditions of the DOE-SU Contract.

Documentation

Survey Summaries

Problem Analysis

Root-Cause Analysis

Continuous improvement along the trend lines already established is the challenge and the goal.  

Barrier(s) to Improvement

None.

Improvement Action Plan/Goals 

Goals for FY 2001

Maintain and improve upon current ratings. 

Documentation

How well does the office meet your needs with their services?

SLAC

1. Quite well.  

2. Outstandingly

3. Very well (4)

4. They give us an excellent support.

5. Rachel and Nadine have always responded immediately with sound advice and help when needed. This is greatly appreciated.

6. Excellent!! I feel honored to be able to work with folks of the caliber of Rachel and Nadine. They are prompt and professional in their dealing with me and act in the best interest of SLAC and SU.

7. Excellent provider of services. Office is customer oriented.  Rachel always is careful to inform of her availability by voice and e-mail messages and Nadine provides backup in a most helpful manner. Rachel is prompt in response to messages and in providing requested information and/or opinions.

8. Very well. I think its great to have counsel for SLAC that is interested in the issues more than in minimizing the work of the office.

9. They legal office meets my needs. Rachel always makes herself available even for consultation at the last minute, and Nadine is always very pleasant.

10. Very well. I find Rachel very accessible and her professionalism is excellent

11. They are always more than willing to help, provide good information, and usually in a good mood. I enjoy working with them both.

12. Outstanding, insightful, efficient, and extremely competent.

13. I have known Nadine for quite some time. She worked nearby (I can't remember where nor for whom at the moment) before she moved to A&E. Nadine has always been a joy to work with, always helpful and enthusiastic. My work with her lately has been somewhat indirect, but I am glad that there are competent people like her working here at SLAC.

14. I hope these comments are useful. In their very different respective fields/ responsibilities, I rank them both excellent.

15. Extremely responsive with comprehensive answers in a timely manner.

16. YES.  Very professional - responsive, interested, helpful, forthright.

17. The office provides prompt outstanding legal services.

18. I would say we are very well served, by an individual who understands this institution rather well, who is confident and well informed and interacts strongly and effectively seeking advice from outside whenever she feels she or we would benefit.

19. I give her high marks !

20.  When I use their services, Rachel and Nadine both provide excellent service.

21.   EXTREMELY WELL

22. Exceptionally well in their advisory capacity.

23. I receive outstanding service from Rachel. She researches thoroughly and gets back to me in a very timely manner.

DOE

1. The services fulfils DOE's needs in that legal matters are resolved at the appropriate level and DOE is constantly informed of current legal affairs.

2. The office meets my needs very well. Information is provided on a timely basis and is as complete as the situation allows. Follow up information is provided without my having to request it.

3. Outstanding

4.  With excellence, in terms of legal knowledge, understanding of the DOE-Stanford/SLAC M&O Contract, competence, and sensitivity to DOE Science mission and landlord responsibilities. Rachel Claus and Nadine Wright are outstanding professionals in terms of their knowledge, wisdom, courtesy, and practical application to efficient resolution of issues that arise in the DOE relationship with SLAC and Stanford.

STANFORD

1.  I have always found Rachel to be very competent and responsive

2. I found the counsel very helpful.

3.  Rachel provides excellent service and is very personable. She is responsive, thoughtful, cooperative and insightful. Often, I am not familiar with how SLAC and DOE operate and she is an invaluable source of information and background. Overall, she is a pleasure to work with.

4. Very well

5.   Rachel Claus is superior in her knowledge and background involving SLAC and it's interaction with Risk Management

6. She has done excellent work on behalf on both SLAC and the university.

Do you have any ideas for improving their services, or and desired services not currently provided?

SLAC

1.  No (4)

2.   No. I might comment that I don't know Nadine Wright and in fact didn't know that Rachel had help.

3.   Yes, actually. Rachel should help Mimi with CAS.

4.   NOPE, THINGS ARE GOING JUST FINE, THANKS

5.   I cannot think of anything we need which is not provided.

6.   Keep up the good work!

7.   It couldn’t be better.

8.   None, except to say keep up the great work.

9.   It’s satisfactory for my needs

10.   Not really, I think it works very well.

11.   I had an occasion where the legal issue should have been researched further before we took action.

12. For me, no. For others, perhaps more publicity of the kinds of services our legal office can provide. I'm not sure how well-known her office is at

13.   SLAC or if relative lack of visibility is intended. Just a thought.

14.   I would like to see the authority of the legal counsel increased, as we are often both frustrated with known problems in various areas of SLAC that neither one of us has direct authority to correct.

15.   Not really. Rachel seems to need more support than she has. I'm often surprised at the 'lower-level' stuff she has to do for herself.

16. I congratulate them for the exceptional services and I would suggest a joint legal-medical conference for all DOE labs.

17.  No great inspiration -- which in itself is another way to grade the performance of that office !

18. No improvements needed. Would like access to legal research service (from my computer accounts) so I don't have to go to library all the time to look up legal cases.

19. CONTINUE AT PRESENT LEVEL

20.  I am happy with what I receive.

DOE

1. I believe the services are supportive to DOE's oversight role.

2. The service provided is of high quality. I do not anticipate the need for additional services.

3. Cloning Rachel – she has a heavy workload. She protects SLAC and Stanford University interests while balancing DOE’s needs. I wish we all had her fine sense of humor.

4.  No. Just maintain their exceptional performance.

STANFORD

1. No. Except that it might be nice to see more of her.

2. I can't think of any. Rachel is so open to feedback, that on an ongoing basis if anything comes to mind, I feel confident she would respond positively.

3. Clone Rachel (2)