Run a multi-hundred-million dollar a year enterprise
without appointing a general counsel? Sounds like the
kind of thing you’d advise your clients against in, say,
a heartbeat? News
flash: 26 of the AmLaw 50 firms are doing
just that.
Well, but, ahem, you protest, law firms are different—I
mean, everybody is, like, their own general counsel. OK,
so now we have hundreds of different opinions on such things
as what constitutes a client conflict, whether outside income
from publishing articles, speaking engagements, writing books,
being approached to be an expert witness, joint-venturing
in a business with a client, etc., is acceptable, and how
the book of business of a potential lateral recruit should
be analyzed from a risk management perspective.
Face
it: Law firms are faced with a "business risk portfolio"
just as any other enterprise of comparable scale, and it’s
scarcely more than common sense to designate an individual
primarily responsible for analyzing and mitigating that risk,
and developing and applying consistent policies across the
board to ensure theory meets up with practice.
To be sure, you are pursuing a profession; but you are also
in business on a large scale. Appoint a GC; give him/her
real authority (reporting to the managing partner or executive
committee, for starters); have them do formalized training
sessions with partners, associates, and staff, and oh, by
the way, introduce them to your malpractice carrier as your
head of risk management. They may just pay for themselves.
