Cass professor Peter Giblin argues legal professionals should help bluechips take a proactive stance on risk

Most business people would agree that the benefits garnered from a legal education – rigorous focus on critical thinking, preparation, fact analysis and presentation, and the like – would be of value to those who seek to rise within any complex organisation.

Would most lawyers agree to the corollary proposition that they could benefit from applying the rigorous planning, analysis and preparedness tools used by their business counterparts to address systemic risk challenges within organisations? Especially those with significant reputations that can be damaged?

Corporate and private practice lawyers learn the discipline to categorise and multi-task, which allows them to handle a variety of matters as they progress from awareness to resolution, and manage several – often demanding – matters at the same time.

This ability to compartmentalise can have its drawbacks. Many senior lawyers become siloed in their thinking and actions, and defensive by nature. It is no accident that, in football terms, they are viewed as goalkeepers, not strikers – they see success as not losing rather than winning.

They often see themselves as victors over the 'other side'. The absolute necessity to prepare for the currently unknown, but knowable, takes a subordinate position to the here and now. The mentality is that as long at the other teams doesn't score, we are fine.

This world is changing rapidly. It is no longer possible to assume that knowledge, experience, brains and money will sort everything out on the day. Not enough people are truly prepared for the unexpected because they overvalue their own attitudes to the true scope of 'risk'.

Plenty has been written about risk and crisis management, but very little about risk readiness or preparedness. Management implies that you have it in the first place.

There are many able individuals who provide valuable services in cases of the former, when the horse has already bolted; the event has occurred, the deed has been done. Very few try to look out the front window to see what might be coming down the road, rather than wait to look out the back window to see what passed them by.

Lawyers need to be thinking more broadly about their role in the risk ecosystem. The internet, texting, Twitter, YouTube and other aspects of social media make it impossible to control information, keep issues quiet and deal with problems discretely. A quiet word will no longer suffice.

The inner workings of transnational financial institutions are outlined in the media, aggressive regulators are pushing the boundaries of normal/accepted practice, and in some cases tripping over themselves to be the toughest.

Multinational pharmaceutical companies have been fined billions (in whatever currency you choose) and major corporations are suing outside counsel for alleged conflicts of interest – at an unanticipated speed.

All of this has been in the traditional media and more importantly in the blogosphere. It can't be undone, but it can be planned for using playbooks focused on risk inflection points that are more foreseeable than you might think.

Much as in triage in a hospital A&E ward, a penalty kick in football or a reaction to an alarm in a fire station, affected people will know exactly what needs to be done. The key positions are clear, individuals are identified, as are priorities and chains of command; training as well at logical rehearsal is part of the structure.

The reason this works is because long experience shows that the events referred to above happen – there is no doubt.

In the corporate world, things don't always work this way because there is not enough joined-up writing. Risk reduction should mean being ready – if an enterprising journalist calls the chief executive of a major corporation to tell her that the first of a series of articles going to press highlight detailed acts of bribery by her employees across several countries, is she ready?

Does the corporation have an anti-bribery act playbook which tells her who the internal/external team members are, and how to contact them? How wide is the scope of coverage – legal, compliance, risk management, audit, HR, IT, PR, corporate relations? Is the chain of command clear, priorities listed? What about training/practice?

This whole issue of risk readiness is crucial to overriding concerns of brand reputation, regulatory crackdown, share-price, fines and possible imprisonment. Barclays, Standard Chartered, Enron and Siemens did happen.

The legal community is in an excellent position to take the lead in this necessary migration from the reactive, protective mentality which is fundamentally defensive to a position of promoting risk awareness and risk readiness when entity-wide preparation is promoted.

A progression in this direction will benefit the legal community as a whole and your career individually.

The institution of a playbook environment will aid the corporate lawyer as he tries to manage his budget, and otherwise scarce resources by creating a series of safety nets, which should reduce the costs that often mount up when the totally unexpected occurs.

The private lawyer will participate in the preparation of the legal elements entailed in developing the system, and may well strengthen his reputation as a provider of extra value to his client.

The corporate lawyer may save money – and raise the scope of his profile internally – and the private lawyer may earn more fees, while raising his profile with a wider range of internal decision makers.

The time for the playbook focused on risks that can – and will – be encountered has arrived, and the legal community can benefit in a manner which will enhance its credibility across a wide range of stakeholders.

Peter Giblin is chair of the Legal Week Corporate Governance & Risk Forum, which will be held on 18 October in central London. The author has a background in law, banking and executive search, and is a visiting professor at Cass Business School, where he is a founder member of its Centre for Research in Corporate Governance.