As in-house counsel, we are often judged by our job titles as colleagues attempt to gauge our influence or level of engagement within our companies. The greater the title (vice president, general counsel, chief legal officer), the higher the level of interaction within the company and apparent knowledge within a given area—or so the theory goes. This historically linear approach, however, does not comport with the reality of the modern business environment. In today’s corporate world, in-house counsel have to ask themselves as they examine their career options (or make a new hire), “is this legal role that of a cop, counsel or entrepreneur?” As we’ll see, answering this question based on the definitions below can help lawyers find greater job satisfaction in the long term.
As a company’s legal or business strategy evolves, so, too, does its corporate legal department. This evolution affects legal staff and can make past legal roles untenable in the new environment. This means that all prospective or current in-house attorneys must understand the roles they wish to have or currently fill, and not rely on the assumption that their future legal role will simply expand with each promotion. This development was well documented in the research of Robert Nelson and Laura Beth Nielsen in their article, “Cops, Counsel and Entrepreneurs: Constructing the Role of Inside Counsel in Large Corporations” (Law and Society Review, 2000). In it, the authors brought together various theories, and their work has only increased in relevancy. The authors found that all in-house lawyers fit into one of those three roles. While situations may dictate that lawyers spend some time outside their base roles, the majority of their efforts reside in one of those three. In-house counsel should examine which of these identified roles they (or their new hires) fill, how to exploit the advantages and how to avoid the disadvantages. Let’s look at the differences.
