In-House Counsel – also known as Legal Counsel, In-House Legal Counsel and In-House Lawyers – are the type that carry out legal work directly for their employer, as opposed to law firm or private practice Lawyers who earn money for their firm by working on behalf of multiple clients.
This isn’t comprehensive, but hopefully a starting point if you’re stepping into the world of law and thinking an in-house role could be for you. So, what exactly is an in-house lawyer? In simplest terms, an in-house lawyer is someone who works within an organisation or business as their legal counsel.
Some businesses hire a single attorney to oversee all of the company’s legal issues. Other companies have large in-house legal teams that include attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff. Almost without fail, these teams operate differently than a typical law firm.
Another option is hiring a single in-house lawyer, as opposed to having an entire legal team. While this may be cost and space effective, you may also wish to consider whether the legal expertise of that individual is sufficient to meet the needs of your company.
It reminds all lawyers that the definition of "Firm" in Rule 1.0 includes "the legal department of a corporation or other organization." As such, when one in-house lawyer is disqualified, the disqualification can be imputed to the entire in-house department. 7. Confidentiality Walls Don't Always Work
A law firm is a business entity formed by one or more lawyers to engage in the practice of law.
Benefits of In-House Counsel Having a dedicated lawyer in-house means they're part of the team, hands-on, and proactive to provide a more urgent response than outside counsel would. As your trusted advisor, in-house counsel has interests that better align with your company's objectives.
In-House Counsel – also known as Legal Counsel, In-House Legal Counsel and In-House Lawyers – are the type that carry out legal work directly for their employer, as opposed to law firm or private practice Lawyers who earn money for their firm by working on behalf of multiple clients.
General counsel, for example, is typically the title given to the highest-ranking in-house lawyer within a legal department, and that person is usually a c-suite executive like the COO or CFO of an organization. Corporate counsel, on the other hand, is usually just a job title within a legal department.
At its heart, the in-house legal team is there to ensure that accountable decisions are taken at the right level and function in the organisation, and that the individual's making those decisions are suitably informed about the level of legal risk inherent in them.
Sometimes, it takes two. The legal department at Hearst Communications recently took the unusual step of appointing dual general counsel. Here are four others that have adopted this unusual model.
Corporate lawyers structure transactions, draft documents, negotiate deals, attend meetings and make calls toward those ends. A corporate lawyer works to ensure that the provisions of an agreement are clear, unambiguous and won't cause problems for their client in the future.
However, when practising law, lawyers can only provide legal assistance, advice, and counselling to their clients while an attorney can represent clients in court and initiate defendant prosecutions in addition to providing legal counsel and consultation.
In North America, legal counsel refers to a practitioner of law who is allowed to practice in all courts of law. It is why the term is used interchangeably with the title of lawyer. Formally, a legal counsel is an individual who is hired by a large or mid-sized corporation to handle legal matters and disputes.
Typical ones in-house are (from junior to senior): Associate Counsel (rare), Counsel, Senior Counsel, Assistant General Counsel (rare), Associate General Counsel, Deputy General Counsel, General Counsel, and Chief Legal Officer.
The simplest way to describe the difference between the two is that an in-house counsel has to be jack of all trades and an associate is more of master of one or two. As an in -house counsel, I had to advise on day-to-day functions of the company along with troubleshooting the possible problems.
Successful placements include chief legal officers and general counsel across the nation, as well as positions across the C-Suite — CEOs, Chief Operating Officers, CHRO, Chief Financial Officers, CMO, vice presidents sales and marketing, and other director-level leadership roles.
The objective of this guide is to identify the areas of an in-house attorney's work that are of particular importance for a new in-house attorney and to point both new-to-in-house attorneys and the ACC's NTIH Committee to the areas where time and effort can be most effective in improving the output of new in-house counsel.
In House Corporate Lawyer reporting to CFO of DeepVerge plcDeepVerge plc, a UK public company listed on the London AIM Exchange, are seeking a In House Corporate Lawyer to join the management team of this fast growing plc.The company has trading subsidiaries in Asia, North America and Europe with position based in the UK or
'In-House Counsel The candidate will be supporting the CEO, and counsel on healthcare and non-healthcare matters. Provide practical and wide-ranging advice on legal issues; review contracts/renewals related to physicians, suppliers, and independent contractors and other.
Articles From the Team An interview classic: Why do you want to be an in-house lawyer? “Why do you want to be an in-house lawyer?” This question is not only one of the more frequently asked questions that are posed in interviews but importantly, the answer that an individual offers provides a tremendous amount of insight into the type of character, motivations and ambition that a candidate ...
In house counsels are talented who can tackle all their tasks in an impressive way. They deal with all the legal issues. Despite so many advantages, there are some dis-advantage which lower its importance. These are the things authorities should consider to overcome the difficulties. So that more students can be enrolled in this program and work for a good cause.
Low income: being thelawadvisory and dealing with different kinds of problems within the corporation. Playing the major role in handling all the stuff of company and managing team yet after all of the hard work their income level is low. They usually receive less as compare to the task they perform.
In general, the biggest advantage of corporate lawyers over corporate brothers is their high “quality of life.” The predictability of the internal working atmosphere is priceless, lack of obligatory paid working hours, lack of responsibilities for attracting more clients, while exclusion of partnerships make internal expertise different from experienced corporate lawyers.
Most of the students fail to keep hold of their dreams due to lack of scope, limited institutes, and more importantly lack of jobs in the future.
Although the staff of the law firm in the first year may belong to a group that specializes in the field of law, in-house lawyers have the opportunity to deal with issues outside the scope of the law. For contract law or complex civil litigation, a permanent lawyer faces an array of legal challenges that arise.
Senior lawyers supervise the lower-level lawyers, providing advice to the company in specific legal areas, or assisting CG to coordinate with external litigation consultants. You need to assist a senior lawyer. Some legal departments delete this hierarchy by deleting these headings. Therefore, in addition to the general counsel, lawyers are called corporate advisors.
A lawyer refers to an employee who serves as a law for a company. Like any other employee, paid lawyers are mainly used to meet the needs of the company. In house counsels are hired to handle all legal issues, security management, protection of properties and assets, manage tax policies and other matters of the corporation.
Simple. The organisation who employs you as their in-house lawyer is your one and only client. What’s not so simple is the blurring of boundaries that can occur. Are you answerable to the board of directors? The shareholders? Company clients? To the person who recruited you as an in-house lawyer? No. You remain the legal counsel for the company who employs you, and if a conflict arises, side with the best interests of the company over any individual.
According to Glassdoor, the average legal in-house lawyer salary is £89,396. But that covers the entire spectrum of jobs from junior legal counsel to Head of Legal positions. A General Counsel's salary in the UK could easily be more than £100,000 - taking home one of the highest salaries in the UK. But before you go buying that superyacht or flash car, the salary will depend on the sector you work in and your experience. You could equally be looking at starting your first in-house lawyer job for less than £40,000. With legal counsel vs lawyer roles remember, an in-house lawyer salary is usually lower than the private practice equivalent.
Plus, leadership and communication skills are vital, because you’ll need to get across complex legal information to colleagues who don’t know the lingo.
A legal team is a permanent entity in your company that provides legal services to the business. It consists of a group of lawyers who may be specialising in different fields, such as employment and commercial, and may also include paralegals.
As mentioned earlier, an alternative to having an in-house legal team is engaging external counsel when necessary (for example, for a specific transaction). This may be more cost-effective if the amount of legal work required for your business is not significant.
Of course, there are other considerations you should take into account in determining whether your company should hire a legal team.
When many legal professionals begin their careers, they believe their job options are limited to working for law firms or government agencies. There’s a third option, however, that can lead to a long and fulfilling career. Specifically, we’re talking about working as an in-house legal professional for a private company.
Career development, General. When many legal professionals begin their careers, they believe their job options are limited to working for law firms or government agencies. There’s a third option, however, that can lead to a long and fulfilling career.
In-house legal teams can vary in size, scope, and responsibility. Some businesses hire a single attorney to oversee all of the company’s legal issues. Other companies have large in-house legal teams that include attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff. Almost without fail, these teams operate differently than a typical law firm.
In the case of a paralegal, for example, the in-house professional may be called upon to review the research findings presented by an outside law firm’s paralegal. In other words, instead of doing the research yourself, you’ll give oversight and direction to someone else’s work.
Consequently, legal professionals tend to feel more respected within in-house teams. In one survey of in-house paralegals, for example, over 49% reported that in-house attorneys treated them with more respect than law firm attorneys. In the same survey, only 14% reported receiving greater respect in the law firm environment.
Additionally, some of the biggest perks of in-house work can also be detractors. For example, many legal professionals love that in-house jobs do not require them to track billable hours. Unfortunately, this also means that you will likely be paid less than your law firm counterparts.
While this may sound easy, keep in mind that it actually takes a lot of experience and the confidence to advise your company on what else may need to be done.
Many in-house counsel roles are more generalist than many lawyers would expect --especially after working in a highly specialized practice area in a law firm.
In-house counsel positions can be really rewarding when they’re the right fit for you.
Most of us lawyers have this notion of in-house counsel being the “Promised Land” of work/life balance, but not all in-house roles are created equally.
The expression of legal jargon has been around for a long time and is often used to express things that people don’t understand or they are simply not particularly interested in. Commercial transactions and agreements are becoming longer and far more complex as each party seeks to cover all options and every eventuality. Customers want guarantee of supply at a fixed price and suppliers want certain volumes and to know what standard the volume us being delivered to. The sentences and wording are often complex and challenging for the layperson. The commercial team needs an in-house counsel that can be patient and put these expressions and wording into a format they can understand, they need their legal partner to make it real for them.
Understand the organisational or individual goals and what needs to be achieved, this way you can ensure you are effective in assisting to reach those goals.
RWG Enterprises Limited is a dynamic consultancy business based in Derbyshire, created to support small to medium size companies with both igniting and supporting growth, whilst also supporting with productivity improvements and cost reduction initiatives to ensure year on year bottom line improvements. We also support the creation and implementation of longer-term business plans whilst offering general business advice.
Legal counsel are generally experts, trained professionals with many years of experience. However not all experience is academic, a lot is learned through working alongside different organisations and in different fields and there is significant value in what an experienced in-house counsel can bring to the table in this regard.
The best legal counsels I have worked with are true advisors, they frame things in a way that makes sense and they point out the concerns or potential issues, they are not seen as blocking progress, they work with the business to find a way through a problem.
In-house counsel can be exceptionally valuable internal business partners, providing organisations, individuals and leadership teams with real competitive advantage. For many years, in-house counsel has been seen by some like many other admin and back office functions, however businesses that are switched on are finally giving the legal function the seat at the table they deserve.
It is very easy for a commercially minded individual to only see the upside on a business agreement or transaction and to ignore the pitfalls, they are focused on only a couple of key measures, (often sales growth and profitability). Deals are often done with customers and suppliers of which there has more then likely been a relationship built up over time with a certain level of trust. Whilst this can smooth a negotiation process this is not the basis in which to build a lasting commercial agreement.
It reminds all lawyers that the definition of "Firm" in Rule 1.0 includes "the legal department of a corporation or other organization." As such, when one in-house lawyer is disqualified, the disqualification can be imputed to the entire in-house department.
"Directly Adverse" Conflicts under Rule 1.7 (a) (1). When in-house counsel represents groups of related companies, or officers, directors, owners, or employees at the company where he is in-house , it is easy to develop a "directly adverse" conflict under Rule 1.7 (a) (1). Representation of subsidiaries may occur in dealing with a third-party, and this can lead to a conflict when issues arise between the subsidiary and parent. In other cases, it may be mere inadvertence that creates the attorney-client relationship between the in-house lawyer and someone other than the company that employs him. For example, when an in-house lawyer answers legal questions from officers, employees, or owners about their legal issues (not those of the company), this can create an attorney-client relationship and thus the chance of a "directly adverse" conflict.
Rule 1.11 allows a confidentiality wall to segregate an attorney who previously "personally and substantially" worked on a matter for an adverse government agency. If the lawyer that previously "personally and substantially" worked on a matter came from another in-house job or private practice, however, then a confidentiality wall is ineffective and the entire in-house department may be disqualified.
When the lawyer was later sued by his by-then former client, one of his defenses was that the requirements of Rule 1.8 did not apply to him because he was in-house counsel. This was soundly rejected by the court:
Many laymen, and a disturbing number of lawyers, believe that the attorney-client privilege attaches to all communications with a lawyer. This is not true. The attorney-client privilege only applies where the communications are between a lawyer and a client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice, and are expressed in confidence.
1. The Ethical Rules Still Apply to You. In writing and speaking on ethical issues for in-house counsel for over 15 years, I've encountered numerous in-house lawyers who believe that for some reason the ethical rules don't apply to them. To be blunt, they are wrong. In addition to the fact that the rules as written never suggest ...
Analytically, there is no difference between an outside counsel going in on a business venture with a client and an in-house counsel being offered stock or stock options in the client. In both instances, the lawyer is engaging in a business transaction with the client, and so the requirements of Rule 1.8 must be followed.
Under the "control group test," only those conversations between in-house counsel and the corporation's controlling executives and managers are eligible for protection. Reed v. Baxter, 134 F.3d 351, 359 (6th Cir. 1978). Application of this test requires a determination of corporate governance without regard to the nature of the matter involved and, quite often, a company's "control group" constitutes a very limited number of corporate employees. In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), the United States Supreme Court expanded the control group test to include consideration of the subject matter of the communication involved. Under this so-called "subject matter test," employees with pertinent information regarding the subject matter are deemed to be the client irrespective of their standing within the corporation. Not all jurisdictions employ the test articulated in Upjohn, and many continue to rely on the control group test. Some jurisdictions have not expressly adopted either test. See, e.g., E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Forma-Pak, Inc., 351 Md. 396 (1998). The absence of a uniform rule certainly complicates in-house counsel's efforts in planning ahead to preserve the privilege.
of Eur. (communications by client to lawyer who is "bound to his client by a relationship of employment" not covered by privilege otherwise recognized in European Commission proceedings.) However, because the client is a corporation, and because of the dual roles of the in-house lawyer as both counsel to and employee of the corporation, ...
In order to maximize the possibility of a successful assertion of the attorney-client privilege when, as often happens these days, a corporate problem evolves into litigation, in-house counsel would be well-served to examine their company's routine business practices and make any necessary changes. For example, in-house counsel should use labels on written communications with corporate employees. When writing a memorandum to an employee, a legend should be included such as "REQUEST FOR FACTS SO THAT LEGAL ADVICE CAN BE GIVEN." When an employee sends a memorandum to in-house counsel, it could be helpful for the memorandum to contain prominent language such as "FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING LEGAL ADVICE."
In-house counsel should also document the rationale for a memorandum's distribution in order to deflect a waiver argument; in other words, the writing should make clear why each recipient needed to get the memorandum. There are also a number of "don'ts" which in-house counsel should consider.
When in-house counsel are performing what they consider to be legal services, they should always remember to make a record of that fact. In correspondence and memoranda, it will certainly be helpful to describe the legal considerations which are involved in the subject matter. For example, if there is a concern that litigation may develop, the memorandum should say so. In-house counsel should also document the rationale for a memorandum's distribution in order to deflect a waiver argument; in other words, the writing should make clear why each recipient needed to get the memorandum.
Specifically, counsel was asked to disclose the recommendations made to his employer during the negotiations about certain contractual provisions . It came as a surprise to many litigators that the company's assertion of the privilege relating to these conversations was rejected.
After all, just consider the corporate titles typically given to in-house lawyers: Vice President and General Counsel, Secretary and Assistant General Counsel, Assistant General Counsel and Director of Governmental Affairs. These dual roles lead to an obvious question whenever the attorney-client privilege is asserted for in-house counsel: which hat, business or legal, was the lawyer wearing when he spoke to the corporate executive? Or to put it another way, was the corporate executive seeking and receiving legal advice or business advice in the conversation with the in-house lawyer?
Hiring in-house attorneys is generally more cost-effective than retaining a law firm.
For example, if a legal action is filed against the corporation, an in-house lawyer will not generally handle the lawsuit.