The rewards of an in-house career are well established. In-house attracts lawyers who want to develop and exercise their commercial nous. It is rewarding to work closely with a client over the lifetime of projects – advising from an idea’s conception and well into its operation. There can be, if not shorter hours, more predictability to time worked. Many report a higher degree of agency and flexibility that fits better with life’s other commitments.
A potential downside is that the career path is less clear than in private practice, where progression generally has a structure junior lawyers are familiar with. In-house lawyers may need to move companies multiple times to move up if those above stay put. And there are no definitive answers to questions about the skills an in-house lawyer needs to develop. Career routes and the acquisition of business-critical skills are highly personalised for most, depending on the role the lawyer finds themselves in, and therefore inconsistent.
As a result, ‘there’s a lot of unconscious incompetence’, says John Jeffcock, chief executive of Winmark, an executive networks business. For ambitious lawyers in their mid-30s, Jeffcock says there is an unmet need for developing skills, including people management and communication with both business stakeholders and external advisers. Team-building strategy and budgetary planning will be immediate demands on the nascent in-house lawyer, for which they may also be ill-prepared.
In co-operation with King’s College London and guided by senior members of Winmark’s corporate counsel network, an online course has been developed dubbed the ‘Global GC Academy’.
The seven-week course aims to pool the collective knowledge of GCs worldwide to raise the bar of the in-house community. Its 15-strong ‘faculty’ includes academics and counsel with a wide geographical and industry coverage. The goal is to impart knowledge gained from hands-on, practical and relevant experience. ‘A few GCs have written books,’ Jeffcock says, ‘but they aren’t very substantial.’
He cited issues brought to light in succession processes. Incumbent GCs realised they were handing over to people with no relevant experience. Picking up certain skills on the fly is feasible, but not optimal.
Faculty members, including those interviewed for this article, have filled in-house positions for a significant proportion of their careers. Despite working in a wide array of industries, including technology, telecoms, transport, mining and manufacturing, their fundamental understanding of the role’s requirement is broadly consistent.
Foremost is people management. Spencer Davis, chief legal officer at Lifezone Metals, says: ‘Throughout my career, hiring talent and growing and retaining it, and, in some unfortunate circumstances, exiting it, has been a key area.’
Assessing which areas of legal expertise are covered in-house affects how external counsel is engaged and how that spend is made more efficient. ‘You need to be able to do more with less; law firm fees are going up, there is more emphasis on what can be achieved by the in-house teams,’ Davis says. This also calls for team management beyond evaluating aptitude.
Chris Fowler is Rio Tinto’s chief operating officer – legal, governance and corporate affairs. Before that, he spent 24 years in-house at BT. ‘You can’t just throw people at work; you need to learn how to manage and motivate people, and be responsible for [the productivity] of you and your team,’ he says. ‘Performance is measured in billing levels in private practice, whereas in-house it’s productivity and job satisfaction.’
Communication is another keystone for company stakeholders and in-house team members. Amitabh Lal Das, chief legal officer at Hyundai Motor India Ltd, relates a story of feedback he received early in his in-house career. After writing memos in the same ‘legalese’ to project managers and engineers as well as fellow lawyers in practice, a colleague pulled him aside and told him: ‘Everyone thinks these look very interesting, but nobody understands them.’
He believes that this ability to think beyond the purely legal elements is what makes a valuable GC. ‘The role has become more proactive, with a wider focus,’ he says. ‘It’s not just about delivering the best [drafted] contracts; it’s about how you can improve the company’s functions.’
Transitioning from a ‘legal expert’ to a ‘business leader’ is a recurring theme. Fowler posits that the modern GC is expected to function like any other executive committee member. ‘Legal is integral to the strategic function of a company, especially if it’s in a regulated industry,’ he says.
Another key component is crisis management, so examples of what went wrong are more educational than tales of plain sailing. Fowler says faculty members are encouraged to share negative experiences and how they were resolved.
The course’s content is not expected to be entirely new to everyone. Participants are expected to know a third of the course and have been exposed to another third; with the rest being fresh.
Cohort integration is integral to shaping the course; participants are encouraged to ask questions, and discussion is considered more productive than a one-way lecture. There are also three hours of reading material for each master class, so cohort members are expected to contribute substantially.
Faculty members work together to set the course’s content and presentations are typically made in pairs, principally to share perspectives from different industry sectors and international markets on the same topic. Participants are reviewed on performance, presentations are recorded and cohort feedback is carefully considered. Faculty members commit to seven half-day sessions and course presentation preparation.
Sam Kenworthy is a freelance journalist
No comments yet