When I landed my first in-house position over twelve years ago, I believed that my role was limited to providing legal advice to my client. When presented with a legal question, I believed that it was my job to provide possible options and to provide an explanation as to what risks were associated with each option. If asked which option I would recommend, I would routinely respond by simply stating that it was a management decision and that it was beyond my purview. As time went by, however, it became increasingly clear to me that my response was no longer acceptable. The executive level leaders with whom I worked wanted more. They wanted me to actively participate in the problem-solving process. They expected me to weigh in and make recommendations based on my understanding of the problem and the potential risk. Coming to that realization was transformative for me and it impacted how I interacted with executive level leaders moving forward. I began shifting from more than just a legal advisor. I began to become more of a strategic business partner.
Recently, I came across a book called “A New Vision for Corporate Lawyers” written by Peter Connor, Founder and CEO of Alternatively Legal Pty Ltd. Reading his book left me wondering if I needed to rethink my approach to being a strategic business partner. In his book, Conner points out that “[m]ost lawyers, and most commentators, refer to business partnering as ‘understanding the business and developing strong working relationships with… business clients’…, however, as Connor also points “[b]usiness partnering is something you do, not something you are.”
“[I]t is much more than:
– being business minded or having business acumen
– understanding the business, or
– being a business partner (the noun).”
“You can be a business partner, as many in-house lawyers are, but not engage in business partnering at all. To put it another way, if you are business partner it means you probably have a ‘seat at the table’ but business partnering focuses on what you do when you are at ‘the table’. “
“This is an expression sometimes used to describe a situation where you are considered part of the business team on an informal if not a formal basis.”
“Being a business partner is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to engage in business partnering.”
If you are as intrigued as I am about this idea, you should consider downloading a free copy of Peter Connor’s book at https://peterconnor.legalbusinesslibrary.com/. Peter Connor can be contacted at peter.connor@alternativelylegal.com or on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/petercon/.
Check out the full article, go to Above the Law.
Over the course of my career, I have done many things. Of those things that I have done, I have enjoyed most being an in-house lawyer. What is it about being an in-house lawyer that I have enjoyed most? I have enjoyed helping business leaders identify and remove obstacles that get in the way of business growth. What have I learned when it comes to identifying and removing obstacles?
I have found that in-house lawyers who are most successful at identifying and removing obstacles:
- have the ability to become a subject matter expert quickly,
- have the ability to work independently,
- have the ability to make sense out of chaos, and
- have the ability to manage complex projects.
I have also found that in-house lawyers are most effective when they:
- understand the vision, mission, and goals of the organization;
- develop and nurture open lines of communication with people in the various units across the organization;
- learn what the people in various units across the organization do; and
- establish trust and rapport with those people in the various units across the organization.
Over the years, I have received plenty of really good advice about identifying and removing obstacles from those leaders with whom I have worked. As it turns out, many of my colleagues have heard some of the same things. What have we heard? Check out the full article on Above the Law.
Failure to acknowledge the risk with juggling multiple roles can result in more than just losing a job. It can mean losing a bar license.
When the in-house counsel assumes both legal and nonlegal roles at the same company during the same period, the in-house counsel must recognize that the chances of an ethical issue arising increases exponentially in a variety of ways.
Potential ethical pitfalls that may arise may include:
- ability to assert attorney-client privilege;
- strain existing resources; and
- result in client confusion.
If the in-house counsel fails to recognize these boundary issues and the in-house counsel fails to make efforts to establish them, they can find themselves in a difficult situation that may result in negative consequences for the company and the company employee.
As with anything in business, risk is all around us. The takeaway here is not to discourage you from assuming more than just a legal role. The takeaway here is for you to carefully evaluate the role before you take it; THEN you work proactively to manage and mitigate the risk associated with having both roles.
If you are looking for CLE ethics credit, check out How to Avoid Ethical Pitfalls about the Ethical Pitfalls When Partnering With the Business available through In-House Connect On Demand, where we talk about this topic and more!
Go to Above the Law for the full article.
In its 2023 GC Survey, Axiom asked general counsels how they perceived themselves in terms of their role as the company conscience. According to the results of that survey, an overwhelming majority of general counsels saw themselves as guardians of the company’s values. While it does appear that “corporal counsel as company conscience” is now a widely accepted belief among many general counsels, it is not held by all.
For some of us, the general counsel is not THE company conscience. The general counsel is merely ONE of many who serve as the company’s conscience. The responsibility for corporate conscience is not the responsibility of ONE. It is a responsibility shared by ALL.
As I see it, general counsel satisfies the responsibility by actively participating in company functions relating to leadership, training, reporting, and investigating along with other staff and business leaders.
- Leading: Senior administrators and managers are responsible for creating an ethical company culture:
- 1) by communicating expected ethical norms to employees;
- 2) by making all employees feel part of the company’s effort to create an ethical culture; and
- 3) by demonstrating ethical behavior.
- Training: Senior administrators and managers are responsible for:
- 1) training all company employees about the company’s ethics and compliance program; and
- 2) training all company employees on how to use a systematic approach to ensure ethical business decision making.
- Reporting: Senior administrators and managers are responsible for creating a process by which employees can report behavior they believe to be either unethical or unlawful without fear of retaliation.
- Investigating: Senior administrators and managers are responsible for fairly and impartially reviewing alleged unethical or unlawful activity and fairly taking appropriate action.
For the full article, check out the full article on Above the Law.
If you are a law school student or a even a lawyer who is relatively new to the practice of law, you may be surprised to know you have choices.
Lots of them.
When I went to law school, I thought I had a limited set of options when I graduated.
I thought I could either enter private practice with a firm or I could work as a public defender or a prosecutor. The thought of working at a company as an in-house lawyer never even crossed my mind.
Pablo Picasso once said: “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” As a junior lawyer in private practice, I was most comfortable when I could say firmly and with confidence, “This is the law, these are the facts, and, therefore, this is how I recommend that we proceed.” As a senior in-house lawyer, I learned very quickly that I did not have that luxury. I learned that I had to be flexible in my mindset.