Interviewed for our annual in-house report, general counsel (GCs) at leading companies give us their views on panels, pricing, regulation and diversity
Law across borders
‘We are going to see a lot more cross-border, multinational transactions that involve an in-depth legal scope well beyond the UK Companies Act. In-house lawyers, especially at the GC level, even if they just manage a local UK business, are going to see a lot more cross-border transactions and complexity. In my experience, law firms in the UK, especially in the South East and London, are much more flexible and open about the discussion on alternative billing than firms in New York.’
Bill Mordan, senior vice president and group GC, Reckitt Benckiser
Regulatory pressure
‘Reputation is a key asset of our business, and we have to manage societal expectations very carefully in order to gain and maintain an excellent reputation. One of the requirements is to be fully compliant with current laws and regulations; this, however, will in many instances no longer be enough, since we will be expected to go beyond. We live in a period of ever-increasing regulation and I don’t see any trend in reducing regulation and the influence of governments.’
Felix Ehrat, group GC, Novartis
Peaks and troughs
‘There was certainly a bit of panic in the market at first when the Bribery Act was released because it was regarded as the most draconian, anti-corruption legislation in the world at the time and perceived as potentially creating liability where there was no intention to bribe. People are a bit more comfortable with what is expected of them now. If I look at my previous experience in the energy trading space, we may have another peak in regulatory activity as the European Union finalises its approach on the appropriate degree of regulation.’
Jacqueline Hill, group GC, Harkand
Catching up
‘When we advertise for jobs, we are inundated. And we find that people from a variety of backgrounds apply. So you might get someone who has done property work for their entire career apply for a job with us just because they want to go in-house.
A lot of in-house teams now are of a high calibre and they won’t want to regress, so they will continue to develop. In the US they have always had the model that GCs are seen as strategic to the business. They have been doing that for a longer period and we are a bit behind the curve in Europe. We are going into the same phase.’
Carolyn Jameson, director and GC, Skyscanner
Outcomes focused
‘In private practice you are responsible for providing advice; in-house you are responsible for providing outcomes. You need to make sure that the right kind of legal answer gets translated into the right result for the organisation – that involves stakeholder management, lobbying and influencing internally and externally, and making sure your actions and approach align with the company’s strategic aims.’
Kate Cheetham, deputy group GC, Lloyds Banking Group
‘Each in-house legal role will be different because each organisation has a uniqueness about it – it’s up to us to define our own roles in a proactive way. In the last year, I’ve extended my role and branched out because I want to be more involved. It wouldn’t necessarily be appropriate for a GC to be head of compliance or public affairs in another organisation.’
Simon Dowson-Collins, GC, HarperCollins UK
Diversity matters
‘I’ve always had a very diverse team. This is of huge value, but there’s always room for improvement. There’s a lot of space in-house for different types of individuals compared to the traditional law firm environment. When you do business in more than 100 countries, you have to have that expertise – there are opportunities for big roles for lawyers from different backgrounds.’
Maria Varsellona, executive vice president and chief legal officer, Nokia
Survival of the fittest
‘You need the private practice law firms to train the lawyers that go in-house. The good firms will survive and the ones that are rubbish won’t. It’s supply and demand and if you are a bit better, a bit more commercial, a bit quicker, a bit more user-friendly and not so bloody arrogant and greedy, then maybe you will make a much better fist of it.’
Deborah Prince, head of legal and company secretary, British Heart Foundation
Alternative arrangements
‘We pay for output, not input, and hourly rate pricing is definitely not our default position; in fact, I believe it to be an outdated pricing model other than for commoditised, high-volume work where we prefer to pay by reference to a rate card or menu for specified tasks, especially for quotient property, employment tribunal and personal injury advisory work. In general, we prefer alternative fee arrangements, such as fixed and capped fees, milestone or staged payments and a willingness to share risk on aborted deals and transactions.’
Neil Harnby, GC, Royal Mail Group