As an opinionated and jaded observer of the legal industry, it’s rare I read commentary so on point that it not only strikes a chord but that I wished I’d written it. We bring you one such piece this month from LBC Wise Counsel founder Paul Gilbert, tackling head-on much of what remains culturally unsound in many in-house legal teams.
Paul’s case is that too many in-house counsel, craving individual affirmation from businesses that view them as biddable providers of legal wallpaper, rely far too heavily on personal graft and commitment when they should be thinking about process and infrastructure to manage legal risk. He goes as far as to state: ‘The legal team is a team in name only. It is individual contribution that motivates the majority of lawyers. Self-serving internal networks are set up to validate their individual contribution.’
In this reading, such ‘destructive behaviours’ lead teams to take on unsustainable levels of work, with Paul concluding by slaughtering the sacred cow of the modern general counsel (GC): ‘Stop hanging on to snake-oil paradigms. The age of the trusted adviser (if it ever existed) is gone for the vast majority of in-house lawyers.’
It is strong stuff that speaks to rarely addressed institutional realities of most GCs. The stock of in-house has clearly risen in recent years. As the employed profession has exploded in size, the calibre of in-house counsel has much improved in the years I have covered the law. That’s great but it doesn’t mean everything is rosy in the garden, despite the cheerleading habitually directed at GCs.
The calibre of in-house counsel has much improved. That’s great but it doesn’t mean everything is rosy in the garden.
Talk to GCs at any length and two things are indeed notable: the extent to which they remain focused on individual excellence over process and the huge and seemingly increasing premium placed on getting close to the business. On the former point, individual excellence is obviously important but it seems at times forgotten that strong personal performance and well-designed processes are not only not mutually exclusive but surely downright complementary. My own feeling is that a sense of insecurity drives many in-house counsel to the point that they often strongly resist any perceived threat, with some perverse consequences. On the latter point, the issue with the close-to-the-business mantra is less the aim itself – which is in many contexts necessary – and more the pretence that it’s not a very tricky tightrope for legal professionals to walk on, with which utmost care must be taken.
It also always strikes me as a curious achievement when in-house counsel proudly report that business colleagues forget they are a lawyer. Genuine respect comes from asserting your right to be at the table for what you are, not pretending to be something else.
Paul believes this situation is leading to a well-being crisis. On this I’m less convinced – at least compared to private practice, you sense a lot more genuine enthusiasm and engagement from in-house for their roles.
But he raises some overdue questions. Plcs have added prodigious numbers of employed lawyers in recent years. At some point, the answer will have to be more imaginative than adding more bodies.
alex.novarese@legalease.co.uk