Top corporate counsel believe they are the technical equals of their private practice counterparts, as the growth of in-house teams helps boost the prestige of the profession. Michelle Madsen reports on the latest findings of The Verdict survey

In-house lawyers believe they are the technical match of their colleagues in private practice, with one in four going so far as to claim that they are more legally proficient.

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents to this month's The Verdict survey, conducted in association with Davies Arnold Cooper, believe that their technical skills are either on a par with their private practice counterparts (59%) or superior (28%).

Just 13% subscribe to the traditional view that the generalist nature of the in-house role blunts the technical prowess of corporate counsel.

The results suggest that the perception that in-house lawyers have inferior technical skills is outdated, at least within the in-house community. This is underlined by the fact that 90% of respondents to the survey said that the technical skills of in-house lawyers have improved over the last five years. Only 6% said that standards had remained the same and not a single respondent said standards had deteriorated.

This change in perceptions about the capabilities of in-house lawyers is put down by some senior corporate counsel to the rapid evolution and growth of the in-house legal profession in the UK over the past five years.

ITV's head of legal for sport, Neil Harvey, said that the growth of in-house teams had helped change attitudes towards corporate counsel.

"These days you see more high-calibre candidates going for in-house roles," he said. "There is more room for good people to develop their careers in-house now that teams have grown, and fee increases have made in-house teams a more favourable economic option for many companies."

Hans Peter Frick, general counsel at global food giant Nestle, said that the increasing profile of in-house positions meant that it had become easier to recruit top talent and raise the quality of in-house teams.

"If you look back, the in-house lawyer started off as a corporate gatekeeper and little else," said Frick. "Now they are involved in the upstream business and have a hand in designing the way the business should be run."

However, not every senior in-house lawyer shares this viewpoint, as testified by the minority of respondents who believe they are less technically skilled than private practice lawyers.

KPMG associate general counsel Chris Arnull said: "Some very senior in-house roles are more commercial than others and the technical legal side of things, like drafting or organising leases, is just a small part of what they do. For those in-housers who are totally immersed in their industry, other less legal opportunities may arise, but it would be unfair to say that their technical skills had diminished – they just do not need to use them so much."

Another respondent commented: "It goes without saying that private practice lawyers are more up-to-date in terms of academic legal knowledge, but that does not mean that they know how to apply that knowledge practically in business. It may be that each role demands the same toolkit of technical skills, but the disciplines use different skills and develop them to different degrees."

Allen & Overy partner Bart Capeci, a former in-house lawyer at Credit Suisse, said the lines between private practice and in-house were becoming increasingly blurred.

"If you look at the transactional legal departments at any big bank you will find them filled with top associates from magic circle firms," said Capeci. "On the other hand, if you are specialising in a certain field in-house you are not going to have the same market perspective as someone who is in private practice. It is difficult to generalise."

Arnull agreed, saying that there has been a definite increase in movement between in-house roles and those at
law firms.

"The expectation now is that there should be no difference in terms of performance and value between in-house and private practice," he said. "It is a level playing field."

But for some in-house counsel, the argument as to whether corporate counsel have the technical know-how at their fingertips that private practice lawyers enjoy is arbitrary.

A senior lawyer at a top US investment bank said: "The fact that in-house lawyers are less technically proficient than private practice lawyers is beside the point. In-housers buy the services of private practice lawyers."

The extension of the in-house lawyers' brief beyond technical law was underlined in the survey by a question that highlighted the pressure being exerted on corporate counsel to act as their companies' ethical guardians.

Three-quarters (75%) of the respondents said they were expected to act as ethical watchdogs to 'a great extent' and a further 3% claimed it was their sole responsibility. The remaining 21% said that they acted as ethical guardians to 'some extent'.

David Brimacombe, Standard Chartered Bank's head of legal and compliance for Africa, Pakistan, the Middle East and Europe, said the role of ethical gatekeeper was a vital one.

"You can lose a deal unscathed, but you cannot lose your reputation," he said. "The corporate watchdog responsibility is real."

Talkback: Are in-house lawyers more technically able than those in private practice? Click here to have your say.