Who do you think you are?

I’ve been advocating for some time that the ‘Trusted Adviser’ description of in-house counsel and GCs has the potential to encourage too much detachment between those lawyers and the organisations that employ them. While I condone some level of professional detachment, I equally encourage proactivity. I dub this approach the ‘Ethical Champion’ − a style more akin to an investigating magistrate than a member of the judiciary. My research has found that those who are proactive and investigative are more likely to end up in positions where they can maintain an ethical stance.

In 2012, from a combination of literature reviews, interviews and questionnaires, Cranfield research uncovered four different styles for carrying out the in-house role. In practice, in-house counsel can be a mix of these, but typically one type would be the more dominant. The ‘Goalkeeper’ was a reactive draftsperson, great at understanding the law, but not great at understanding the business, or being flexible. Their party trick? Doing more work every year for less. The ‘Moderator’ knew as much about the organisation as they did about the law, but they still operated at a distance and lacked the interest and dexterity to accommodate others’ wants or needs. The ‘Consultant’ was more agile, responsive and flexible – not soft but easy to respect and work with – although they could benefit from understanding, not just knowing, more about the organisation. Finally, the ‘GC as Leader’ knew the organisation as well as the Moderator, but was as adept and nimble in style and approach as the Consultant. Unsurprisingly, the highest value delivery was associated with the GC as Leader, with value delivery falling as we move backwards through the list.