Will In-House Opportunities in California Grow With Budding Cannabis Industry?
With California's legalization of recreational marijuana sales, the outside-counsel-only approach for cannabis companies could go up in smoke.
December 14, 2017 at 12:22 PM
3 minute read
In less than a month, Californians will be able to legally buy weed just for fun.
While recreational marijuana usage has been legal in the Golden State throughout 2017, the sale of non-medical marijuana was still against the law. That's changing on Jan. 1, 2018.
And though California's cannabis industry is still facing some speed bumps, bringing the currently-underground recreational market into the light of day means more customers and more money. A study from University of California Agricultural Issues Center at UC-Davis estimated the state's recreational marijuana sales could reach $5 billion a year.
It's an expansion that could turn small companies into big ones—ones that need full in-house legal departments, a cannabis industry rarity today.
“As companies get bigger, then people may see the need for a GC,” said Burke Hansen, a San Francisco-based cannabis attorney at Hallinan and Hallinan. “The way it works now is most businesses have a regular attorney they work with but not a formal in-house counsel relationship.”
That's the relationship Nicole Howell Neubert, a principal at Clark Neubert, has with a few cannabis companies. She's been on the legal side of the cannabis industry for years, and she guides companies on everything from general corporate issues, including financing and structuring, to marijuana-specific regulations. In the months leading up to 2018, she's also worked with cannabis companies of all sizes to secure local permits necessary to apply to sell recreational marijuana.
Companies are also prepping for the new licensing fee structure for marijuana in the state. Fees depend on the company's size and purpose. Companies that transport marijuana and don't need to quality test the product they deliver would only pay $500. But the largest distributors, which do have to test, would pay $125,000 annually to stay licensed.
A growing market also means more deals, and cannabis companies in California may need more legal firepower to carry out mergers and acquisitions.
Neubert says that as the industry grows from small and niche to large and becomes relatively accessible to adult consumers, cannabis companies will begin to look more like regular businesses, potentially with the in-house lawyers to match. A background in cannabis law may be helpful, but attorneys looking to go in-house at a marijuana company mostly need the same skills as they would in any other industry.
“These businesses, like all other businesses, need lawyers of all practice areas,” she said. “They need good litigators, they need estate planners and they need good corporate counsel. On some basic level these are just businesses. They've had to exist in this nonprofit land and haven't been a traditional business until now. But they will be very much so next year, with opportunities for all kinds of attorneys who aren't [cannabis] specialists.”
Still, smaller and midsized cannabis companies may stick with the current outside general counsel model, at least for the moment. Neubert says developing an in-house team may not yet be financially viable for these players. But that doesn't mean lawyers shouldn't be paying attention to the growing industry and their potential role in it.
“I would encourage folks interested in entering the industry to focus on their specialist area,” Neubert said. “Focus on your strengths because the businesses need really good lawyers of all practice areas.”
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 AllApple GC’s Compensation Flat Again in 2024, but She Might Snag No. 1 Spot on Top-Paid List Anyway
After Solving Problems for Presidents, Ron Klain Now Applying Legal Prowess to Helping Airbnb Overturn NYC Ban
7 minute readDLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
Trending Stories
- 1DC Bar’s Proposed Anti-Discrimination, Harassment Conduct Rule Sees More Pushback
- 2California's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
- 3Justin Baldoni Sues Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for $400M in New Step in 'It Ends With Us' Fight
- 4Top Leadership Changes Coming for NJ Attorney General's Office
- 5SCOTUSBlog Co-Founder Tom Goldstein Misused Law Firm Funds, According to Federal Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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