Summary
In 2007, I was fortunate enough to secure a position as assistant chief counsel (ACC) for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). I had formerly been an assistant district attorney (ADA) for Middlesex County, Massachusetts, under the capable leadership of Martha Coakley. Now, I was about to enter the expansive landscape of immigration law.
Few litigation positions are as dynamic and demanding as that of an ACC for DHS. It’s a veritable crucible where legal expertise intersects with national security imperatives, where every decision carries the weight of the possibility of life-altering consequences. For many who have traversed this terrain, the experience is transformative, honing skills, refining perspectives, and ultimately making them more effective advocates and leaders. I had the privilege of serving in this capacity for more than 18 years. The lessons learned during those years as an ACC have been invaluable in shaping my approach to the law and to life itself. Here, I share some insights gleaned from my time as ACC for DHS and as an immigration judge (IJ) for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), illustrating how the extremely challenging experiences forged me into a more focused and effective legal professional.
Homeland security law is a maze of statutes, regulations, and policies, constantly evolving in response to emerging threats and geopolitical shifts. Navigating this complexity demands a keen intellect, an eye for detail, and a relentless commitment to staying abreast of developments. Over the years, I cultivated a deep understanding of this intricate legal landscape, mastering its nuances and intricacies. This mastery not only enhanced my effectiveness as a lawyer but also instilled in me a profound appreciation for the interplay between law and national security. However, to accomplish all this, I first and foremost had to perfect the fine art of prioritizing—to quickly discern the difference between immaterial and relevant. Very early in my career as an ACC, I was often the grateful recipient of sagacious snippets from the then-presiding IJ, Judge Leonard Shapiro. Late one afternoon after a master calendar had concluded, Judge Shapiro said to me, “You are almost there, but you are not as good as the best, ACC Billy McCullough.” Shapiro went on to say that Billy was of the opinion that if prosecutors truly knew their case, they would never need to ask more than five questions. As I struggled to litigate in that rarified stratosphere (I never got down lower than seven questions), I added my own truism to Billy’s. I came to understand that if I closed a file secure in the belief that I had mined every last relevant detail, but could not immediately make a detailed and cogent closing, I had to reread the entire file. This approach never failed to show weaknesses in my case and that some part of my thinking about the case was off.
As ACC, whether crafting litigation strategies or advising senior leadership, I learned to anticipate potential pitfalls, devise creative solutions, and leverage legal principles to achieve broader strategic objectives. Of note, I also learned never to submit a problem to leadership without proffering at least one solution. This is called leading up. For instance, if there is an issue for the line ACCs, then they should make a detailed report with options for a resolution to the deputy chief counsel (DCC). With the detailed report in hand, the DCC can discuss the issue(s) with the chief with improved chances for a positive outcome. This approach can only be achieved through meticulous preparation. In litigation, as in life, you cannot successfully chase a problem. To be an effective litigator and leader, you must identify an issue, formulate a strategy, and get out ahead of the problem. Equally important is the pooling of diverse backgrounds, such as colleagues in all forms of law enforcement and intelligence. For me, this spirit of collaboration not only fostered a culture of innovation and excellence but also broadened my own horizons, exposing me to new perspectives and approaches.
All of the above must be combined with prioritizing and preparation. As an ACC, I was in the office and at my desk every morning by 6:00 am. There is no doubt that tireless preparation is the straightest pathway to a successful outcome.
As ACC, I faced my fair share of setbacks and challenges—from legal setbacks in courtrooms to policy reversals in the political arena. Yet, through it all, I learned the importance of resilience. These experiences made me a stronger, more resilient advocate, capable of staying focused on the case at hand. As an ACC, I was entrusted with our national security, which was my honor. Therefore, quickly bouncing back from adversity was an overriding imperative, but the same holds true for defense counsel as well as an IJ.
As ACC, I was often confronted with difficult moral dilemmas—balancing the imperatives of national security with the principles of justice, the notion of fairness, and human rights. My guiding principle was never to betray the public trust. Your good professional reputation can require years to build and yet be destroyed in a twinkling with one careless, angry statement or petulant remark. The blueprint for avoiding destructive conflict is never to take anything said or done in the courtroom personally. To do otherwise precludes a litigator from staying calmly on point and representing the client in the most positive manner.
In the complex world of immigration law, the role of an IJ is pivotal. It requires a deep understanding of legal intricacies, cultural sensitivities, and a commitment to fair and just adjudication. However, beyond the courtroom, serving as an IJ can profoundly shape one’s approach to legal practice and enhance effectiveness in all areas of the law.
As someone who has served as an IJ, I’ve experienced firsthand the transformative impact the role of judge can have on legal professionals. In this article, I’ll share how my time as an IJ has honed my skills and mindset, making me a more effective advocate and adjudicator in the legal arena of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
One of the most significant lessons I learned as an IJ is the importance of maintaining empathy while also preserving the delicate balance of being a neutral arbiter. Immigration cases often involve individuals fleeing political or religious persecution, seeking refuge after catastrophic weather events, or pursuing better opportunities for themselves and their families. As a judge, I was charged with listening to their stories, understanding their challenges, and making decisions that could profoundly impact their lives. Toward this end, I never typed a transcript during direct and cross. By typing a transcript, judges run the risk of missing subtle nuances in the respondent’s testimony, such as facial cues displaying sincere credibility or the body language of a respondent testifying about an assault. I have frequently witnessed both judges and counsels listen to a respondent deny she was raped while simultaneously pulling her clothes tightly across her body and pushing back from the defense table. As an IJ, I saw this troubling behavior more often than one might think. Each time, I would pause the questioning to ask the respondent one simple question, “Ma’am, have you ever been forced to have sex when you did not want to?” Each time, the answer was a quiet “Yes.” Many cultures believe that a woman cannot be raped by her partner or husband because she is regarded as property.
As I listened to testimony, I would jot down a few short notations in a respondent’s affidavit, but I was still listening to—not just hearing—the respondent.
This experience taught me to approach every case with empathy and compassion, recognizing the human element behind the legal complexities. This skill has proven invaluable in all areas of my legal practice, allowing me to connect with respondents. This approach would also allow defense counsel to connect with their clients on a deeper level, understand their perspectives, and advocate more effectively on their behalf.
Immigration law is notoriously complex, with myriad statutes, regulations, and changing case precedents shaping each case in each circuit. As an IJ, I was constantly challenged to navigate this intricate legal landscape, applying principles of law while considering the unique circumstances of each case.
This experience honed my ability to analyze complex legal issues, identify key precedents, and craft persuasive arguments—a skill that has translated seamlessly to other areas of law. Whether I’m litigating a contract dispute, advising a client on corporate visas, or navigating a regulatory framework, my time as an IJ has equipped me with the analytical tools necessary to excel in any legal context.
Immigration cases often involve individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds with their own customs, traditions, and societal norms. As an IJ, I encountered individuals from all walks of life, requiring me to navigate cultural differences with sensitivity and respect.
This experience fostered a deep sense of cultural competence, enabling me to interact effectively with clients, witnesses, and colleagues from diverse backgrounds. In today’s globalized world, this skill is indispensable, allowing me to build trust, bridge cultural divides, and navigate cross-cultural complexities with confidence. The experience also taught me to proactively read every Department of State Country Conditions Report so that when I listen to testimony, I have a base knowledge to better hear and understand the story being relayed.
Above all, serving as an IJ instilled in me a profound commitment to judicial integrity, impartiality, and the trust of the American public. As a neutral arbiter of the law, I was tasked with upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and due process in every case that came before me.
This commitment to judicial integrity remains at the core of my legal practice, guiding my decisions and actions both inside and outside the courtroom. Whether I’m advising a client, negotiating a settlement, or advocating before a judge, I strive to uphold the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, respect, and ethical conduct.
My years as an ACC for DHS and an IJ for the DOJ were a crucible that tested my mettle, forged my character, and shaped my approach to the law. They instilled in me a profound appreciation for the intersection of law and national security, honed my skills as a legal professional, and imbued me with a sense of purpose and mission that continues to guide me to this day. By embracing these lessons, I am better equipped to advocate for my clients, uphold the rule of law, and contribute to U.S. national security.
