The GC Evolution
In-house counsel need to adapt to shifting business, media and technology trends.
April 30, 2006 at 08:00 PM
7 minute read
I recently spoke about prospects for federal privacy legislation at the annual conference of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. This group didn't even exist when I graduated from law school in the 1980s, but today it fills one of the largest ballrooms in Washington, D.C. Many of these privacy officers work closely with in-house counsel on a daily basis. The meeting reminded me of the constant evolution of roles in our nation's companies. New positions are born constantly, and older roles seldom remain static.
The in-house counsel role has its origins in the late 1800s, when railroads first added lawyers to their executive teams. As they expanded across the country, railroads were the first businesses to be subject to the laws of multiple states on a daily basis. Their continued growth turned on their ability to manage legal issues in a way that no industry had experienced before. No longer comfortable relying solely on outside lawyers, they hired general counsel, thereby ensuring that they could integrate their assessments of legal issues with other business considerations.
The role of in-house counsel has constantly evolved ever since, ebbing and flowing in response to broader societal forces. These have included changes in the regulatory and political climate, economic trends and new ideas in management philosophy. The current decade is particularly dynamic, shaped by a variety of trends.
The first trend is the most obvious–the decline in the public's confidence in business integrity. Regulators and business executives alike have asked in-house counsel to play an expanded role in ensuring stricter legal compliance and stronger business ethics. The roles and responsibilities of in-house counsel have expanded as a result.
A second trend is the impact of rapid changes in science and engineering. History suggests technological advancement almost always leads to important changes in the law. New legal fields emerge and older legal principles are altered to account for the impact of new technology on society. An issue such as privacy illustrates this phenomenon. With the expanded collection and use of personal information, privacy laws are changing around the world. This is driven not only by legislation, but also by new interpretations of long-standing consumer protection laws. In-house counsel are playing a key role in anticipating, adapting to and shaping these changes.
Another trend is the increased attention the media pays to legal decisions. Cable television introduced multiple channels hungry for news, and Internet news organizations and bloggers further intensified media scrutiny of companies' activities.
The result is that business decisions and legal controversies are subject to an unprecedented level of discussion and scrutiny. I'm no longer surprised when an obscure clause in one of our licensing contracts becomes the subject of fervent debate. That's something the railroad giants definitely didn't need to address.
These trends are changing the role of in-house counsel. We need to integrate with a broadening array of other disciplines. This adaptation requires general counsel to have a deeper understanding of business models, science and technology, government affairs, international cultures and public relations. Lawyers increasingly are part of multi-disciplinary departments. We work more closely with these other experts, and to be effective we need to be problem solvers and even diplomats, collaborating closely with business leaders while still preserving our more traditional roles.
Ultimately, these forces are expanding our opportunities to contribute to our companies and the broader economy. In-house counsel positions are becoming even more interesting and more important. But as in all situations when the bar is raised, there are also new and bigger challenges. Change is constant, and we need to adapt to it.
———-
Brad Smith is the senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of Microsoft Corp.
I recently spoke about prospects for federal privacy legislation at the annual conference of the International Association of Privacy Professionals. This group didn't even exist when I graduated from law school in the 1980s, but today it fills one of the largest ballrooms in Washington, D.C. Many of these privacy officers work closely with in-house counsel on a daily basis. The meeting reminded me of the constant evolution of roles in our nation's companies. New positions are born constantly, and older roles seldom remain static.
The in-house counsel role has its origins in the late 1800s, when railroads first added lawyers to their executive teams. As they expanded across the country, railroads were the first businesses to be subject to the laws of multiple states on a daily basis. Their continued growth turned on their ability to manage legal issues in a way that no industry had experienced before. No longer comfortable relying solely on outside lawyers, they hired general counsel, thereby ensuring that they could integrate their assessments of legal issues with other business considerations.
The role of in-house counsel has constantly evolved ever since, ebbing and flowing in response to broader societal forces. These have included changes in the regulatory and political climate, economic trends and new ideas in management philosophy. The current decade is particularly dynamic, shaped by a variety of trends.
The first trend is the most obvious–the decline in the public's confidence in business integrity. Regulators and business executives alike have asked in-house counsel to play an expanded role in ensuring stricter legal compliance and stronger business ethics. The roles and responsibilities of in-house counsel have expanded as a result.
A second trend is the impact of rapid changes in science and engineering. History suggests technological advancement almost always leads to important changes in the law. New legal fields emerge and older legal principles are altered to account for the impact of new technology on society. An issue such as privacy illustrates this phenomenon. With the expanded collection and use of personal information, privacy laws are changing around the world. This is driven not only by legislation, but also by new interpretations of long-standing consumer protection laws. In-house counsel are playing a key role in anticipating, adapting to and shaping these changes.
Another trend is the increased attention the media pays to legal decisions. Cable television introduced multiple channels hungry for news, and Internet news organizations and bloggers further intensified media scrutiny of companies' activities.
The result is that business decisions and legal controversies are subject to an unprecedented level of discussion and scrutiny. I'm no longer surprised when an obscure clause in one of our licensing contracts becomes the subject of fervent debate. That's something the railroad giants definitely didn't need to address.
These trends are changing the role of in-house counsel. We need to integrate with a broadening array of other disciplines. This adaptation requires general counsel to have a deeper understanding of business models, science and technology, government affairs, international cultures and public relations. Lawyers increasingly are part of multi-disciplinary departments. We work more closely with these other experts, and to be effective we need to be problem solvers and even diplomats, collaborating closely with business leaders while still preserving our more traditional roles.
Ultimately, these forces are expanding our opportunities to contribute to our companies and the broader economy. In-house counsel positions are becoming even more interesting and more important. But as in all situations when the bar is raised, there are also new and bigger challenges. Change is constant, and we need to adapt to it.
———-
Brad Smith is the senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readHow Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250