Venable's New York Real Estate Group has long played a role in shaping some of the city's most recognizable institutions, from cultural landmarks and transit hubs to schools and mission-driven organizations. In this conversation, Venable associate Neda Ameri talks with partner Michael Phillipou about the group's work, the realities of construction in New York, and the collaborative approach that defines the team's success.
Neda: Michael, a lot of your work involves construction-heavy matters, often for schools and cultural institutions. But how would you describe your practice?
Michael: If I had to distill it down, I'd say: "I help good people build great things that help New Yorkers." It sounds like a Hallmark card, I know! But I do find it meaningful that, at the end of the day, on a project like Moynihan Station or the 9/11 Museum or Lincoln Center, I can say that whatever small role I played, I helped bring it to fruition. But yes, construction is a huge part of what I do, and a lot of that comes from having great mentors here at Venable and modeling my practice on theirs. And of course, it comes from our clients, who are smart, committed people trying to make the world a little better through transformative projects.
Neda: That's something I always appreciated about this group, the clients and the kinds of projects we work on. When it's a school or a cultural institution, there's a lot more at stake than just getting a deal done. And that makes the construction side especially interesting and complicated.
Michael: That's exactly right. Many of our clients are not in the business of building properties. Amtrak runs trains. The Archdiocese runs houses of worship. Museums and performing arts institutions have entirely different missions. They don't negotiate construction contracts every day. There are common pitfalls that are not always obvious unless you've been doing this for a long time. So, a big part of what we do is taking complex issues and legal principles and distilling them into something the client can understand so they can make the best decision possible.
Neda: I've seen firsthand that the earlier we're involved, the better, because once you're too far down the road, there's less opportunity to structure and strategize for a smooth project. Especially with school clients, time is never really on their side.
Michael: Early on, I sometimes show clients a graphic, it's a little stick figure in a race bib. It shows "your plan" as a straight line from start to finish. Then it shows "reality," which includes a cliff, a pit with alligators, spikes, a rope swing, and eventually you do get to the finish line.
That's construction.
It's rare to have a project where everything goes perfectly—no changes, no delays, on time, under budget. Our job is to skew things closer to that better outcome and away from the version where everything goes sideways.
Neda: And a lot of that comes down to planning for what can go wrong before it actually does. I think one thing you've emphasized consistently is building those guardrails into the contract from the beginning.
Michael: That's right. Every project comes up against delays, cost increases, scope changes. The question is, how do you allocate that risk fairly? If you try to push all the risk onto one party, you're going to get a price nobody likes, and probably a relationship that doesn't work. On the other hand, you can't leave things so open-ended that every minor issue becomes a major claim. Ultimately, the client is focused on three things: quality, schedule, and budget. The best contracts are the ones that incentivize everyone to achieve the best outcome in those three areas.
Neda: I think that's where your approach really stands out, especially in how you handle unexpected challenges. Over the past few years, we've seen everything from COVID to supply chain issues. How has that changed the way you think about these projects?
Michael: It's made everything more dynamic. During COVID, projects kept moving, but under very different conditions, labor constraints, supply chain issues, cost escalations, all of it. And those kinds of disruptions haven't really gone away. Right now, for example, we're dealing with tariffs, fuel costs, material availability. The question becomes: How do you address those risks fairly, but eliminate opportunities for abuse? Most of the time, neither side caused the problem. So, the goal is to build a contract that incentivizes a fast and fair resolution with objective measures for cost and time impact calculations versus the type of provisions that allow for endless debate.
Neda: Looking back, are there projects that really stand out to you?
Michael: I've been fortunate to work on a lot of incredible projects. But if I had to pick, I'd say Moynihan Station and the 9/11 Museum. With Moynihan, you're essentially creating the spiritual successor to the original Penn Station, while simultaneously delivering a facility with enormous capacity and efficiency and balancing the interests of at least five major stakeholders. And with the 9/11 Museum, the challenge was capturing the gravity of that day without being overwhelming. One of the things I thought was especially considerate is that visitors can control the intensity of their experience. You can choose how deeply to engage with certain elements. That kind of design sensitivity was critical for a project like that, and the teams involved did an extraordinary job bringing it to life.
Neda: On the school side, one of the first major matters where we collaborated closely was for Barnard in connection with their new science building and some other capital projects. And that's just one of many independent school projects the team has worked on. What do you think makes those projects unique?
Michael: Schools have their own ecosystem. You're dealing with academic calendars, multiple stakeholders, faculty, students, boards, and often very tight and inflexible timelines. Our job is to look around corners and anticipate issues the client may not even be thinking about. I remember being in a meeting where an architect proposed a two-week turnaround for design comments. The client nodded, and I said, "Is that realistic, given the number of constituencies involved?" And the answer very quickly was no. That's where understanding the client's world really matters. You have to build a schedule that reflects reality, not just ambition.
Neda: That's something I've learned from you, really understanding the client's environment and tailoring the approach accordingly. Before we wrap up, let's talk a bit about mentorship. You've spoken before about the impact your mentors had on you. How do you think about that now, working with more junior lawyers on the team?
Michael: I really believe the law is an apprenticeship profession. I was lucky to work with incredible mentors who taught me not only the substance, but how to approach the work. One lesson that stuck with me was about fairness. Early in my career, I came back from a negotiation proud that I had "won every point." And my mentor asked me, "Why, when some of the counterparty's requests were fair and could be accommodated without hurting our client?" These projects are long-term relationships. If your approach is to win at all costs, you might win the battle but lose the war. Don't get me wrong, no one's ever accused me of being a pushover, but it's important to cultivate a reputation for fairness so the other side will consider your view when it matters. That's something I try to pass along.
Neda: I think that's what makes this group special. From day one, people took the time to explain not just what we are doing, but why, and how it ties back to the client's mission. And over time, you start to see the impact of that work, not just in the projects themselves, but in the relationships we build with clients.
Michael: That's exactly right. It's about helping clients achieve something meaningful, leveraging our experience and relationships, and caring about the project as though it was your own.
Learn more about Venable's New York Real Estate Practice.