What's Up With the 'VP of Legal' Title?
Julie Q. Brush, author of The Lawyer Whisperer blog, takes a look at the reporting lines and salary range for the in-house legal title that's something of a 'GC light' position.
January 16, 2019 at 12:45 PM
4 minute read
A: In earlier Lawyer Whisperer articles, I describe the various attorney profiles that define a private company general counsel. However, one such profile fits more squarely into a role that is not as elevated as a true GC. That role is what I refer to as a “GC Light.” This attorney profile tends to be on the more junior side of the GC seniority spectrum (between 12–15 years), has a strong commercial/tech transactions background and often enters the role without prior GC experience. She has solid law firm and in-house experience often with well-branded employers and served in a high-ranking position within her former legal department (often the No. 2 lawyer). This attorney is tasked with the blocking and tackling of the sales, commercial and other tech agreements, setting up the department infrastructure and handling most general corporate, IP, privacy and other matters that come down the pipe. This isn't a core strategic position and exposure to the board is fleeting.
The title for this type of position does not include the words “general counsel,” but rather is monikered as “Head of Legal” “Head of Legal Affairs,” “Director of Legal Affairs” or VP of Legal. The reporting structure is typically to the company's CFO, but it can also report to other executives like the CAO and COO. It does not report to the CEO, but there are some exceptions.
Compensation varies depending on the stage of the company, funding, geographic region and seniority of the candidate. Base compensation is between $210,000–$240,000, bonus is 20-30 percent. There is a stock (options) grant, but it doesn't come close to the grant of a prototypical GC with a CEO reporting structure. The exact stock numbers are not uniform across companies and depend on their internal compensation metrics. But general ranges are in the .03 -.1 percent or a $250,000-$850,000 valuation (give or take). Of course there are outliers, but these numbers are considered “market” in today's in-house legal market.
This content has been archived.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 AllBuild It and They Will Come: Tips to Market Your Practice as a Junior Attorney
6 minute readYelp Sues Google for Alleged Antitrust Violations, Citing Previous 'Watershed' Government Ruling
There's Something in the Water: San Diego Is Once Again a Hot Market for National Law Firms
6 minute readWhat Happens When You Go Viral? How a Law Firm Associate Manages Her Social Media Success
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
- 2Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
- 3New Associates Yearbook 2024
- 4Disbarred Attorney Alleges ADA Violations in Lawsuit Against Miami-Dade Judges
- 5Free Speech Causes a Neighborly Feud
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