The Rise of the In-House Legal Counsel Role in China
From bureaucracy to cultural differences, the challenges of operating in China are well known. In order to stay competitive and address the global needs of customers, both Chinese businesses and foreign companies operating in China are rushing to develop sophisticated corporate legal departments.
April 25, 2018 at 01:11 PM
5 minute read
China arguably shows the greatest progress among all the BRIC countries, with an economy that's now the second largest in the world. Chinese businesses continue to level the playing field with Western companies with new products and ideas.
Yet from bureaucracy to cultural differences, the challenges of operating in China are well known. In order to stay competitive and address the global needs of customers, both Chinese businesses and foreign companies operating in China are rushing to develop sophisticated corporate legal departments.
|The Emergence of In-House Legal Counsel
Traditionally, Chinese companies have not viewed in-house lawyers as integral to business strategy. However, this view has changed as domestic companies conduct more cross-border deals and adapt to extra-territorial laws and regulations. Cost is a factor as well; companies are moving away from the high expense of delegating work to law firms and instead cultivating strong in-house teams that can handle the work.
Following the 1980 “Provisional Law on Lawyering,” which officially recognized law offices and regarded lawyers as state legal workers, the legal landscape in China changed dramatically. By the late 1990s, a substantial number of lawyers from overseas were working in Chinese corporations and managing in-house legal teams. Over time, more Chinese lawyers have come to occupy in-house roles, though a foreign qualification—typically American—and U.S. Bar admission remain a common requirement.
Particularly since China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001, Chinese in-house lawyers with experience working at multinational companies have become increasingly valued by both foreign companies entering the Chinese market and Chinese enterprises seeking to increase outbound investment.
|What Corporations Look For
Due to the nature of the growing Chinese economy, lawyers with expertise in intellectual property rights, compliance, employment and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) are most in demand. When considering a candidate for an in-house legal counsel position, Chinese corporations tend to seek a wide array of qualifications, including experience working in an international law firm, a top Chinese law firm, or a multinational corporate department. Typically, a candidate must also be a fluent English speaker, possess a People's Republic of China qualification, have experience working with governmental organizations, understand domestic and international compliance, and, preferably, have overseas work experience.
Finding lawyers with all of these attributes is no easy task. The small talent pool has resulted in high demand and high salaries. However, some lawyers who obtained handsome salaries prior to the 2008 global financial crisis are finding that they have priced themselves out of the market. These lawyers likely face an atypical salary decrease when moving to another role.
|Common Pitfalls in Hiring
For multinational corporations, hiring in-house counsel in China is not without its challenges. Years of work experience do not always translate to well-developed soft skills or the same qualifications one might expect from a U.S. lawyer. Chinese lawyers are brought up in a rote learning culture where the focus is on memorization of rules and laws. Couple that with a system operating under rule by law (as opposed to rule of law) and the resulting experience and mindset of Chinese lawyers are fundamentally different than U.S. organizations are used to.
Companies then often wrongfully assume that Chinese lawyers are less costly than U.S. in-house counsel, though salaries for Chinese lawyers tend to be just as high, if not higher. Average salary for mid-level counsel (5-8 years' experience) in China can range from $94,500 to $190,000 USD, while senior-level counsel (9-15 years' experience) typically earns $140,000 to $267,000, and salaries for GCs with 15+ years of experience start around $200,000 and continue on up.
|Retention Strategies
For multinational companies operating in China, attracting and retaining the best in-house counsel comes down to providing lawyers with a sense of value and belonging. Title and status are very important to Chinese candidates; having a “General Counsel” title holds a great deal of prestige, even if their responsibilities are not equivalent to those of even a standard legal counsel in the U.S. As with most industries, flexible work hours and performance-related bonuses are common retention strategies valued in the market, but Chinese legal talent is increasingly looking for involvement in major decision-making.
GCs also play a role in retaining Chinese in-house counsel through their influence in shaping the legal team culture. The GC sets the tone for how the legal function is viewed throughout the organization and to what extent legal counsel is seen as a valued member within the team.
At the end of the day, the significance of the in-house counsel function depends on the company and its country of origin. Generally, U.S. companies will involve the legal function at the early stages of a deal or seek out counsel to advise on strategy, whereas some European companies still view the legal function more as support and not part of the strategic discussions. Overall, companies in China are recognizing the value of having a sophisticated, well-developed corporate legal department.
Over the last 15 years, Chinese lawyers working within multinational companies have helped to shape internal policies, business practices and, increasingly, commercial strategies in the Greater China region. This trajectory will only continue over the next decade as China's market continues to grow and senior lawyers take on more strategic roles, becoming an integral part of every business.
Jack McDouall is a consultant in the In-House Practice Group of Allegis-BN, China affiliate of Major, Lindsey & Africa.
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
© 2025 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 AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1GCs Must Act Now to Prepare for the Trump Administration’s First Months
- 2Appreciating the Important Work the Middlesex County Civil Bar Panel Does
- 3Patent Disputes Over SharkNinja, Dyson Products Nearing Resolution
- 4Freshfields Name Change Becomes Official
- 5Lawyers on TikTok Seek the Right Mix of Substance and Levity
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