Georgia Morgan-Wynne

When should you call a spade a spade? I want to talk about adverts for "General Counsel" positions. In the past month, we’ve come across over 50 job postings in the UK alone, all advertising roles under the title "General Counsel" across various job boards. A lot of these could probably have been more accurately titled "Head of Legal", "Sole Counsel" or "Legal Director". If you are thinking of advertising a “General Counsel", my advice is to make sure what you are looking to hire is the right fit for the title. Whilst the "General Counsel" job comes in a variety of shapes and sizes (like the Companies who have one), the term itself carries weight, and is click bait 🪤 for In-House Lawyers. In my experience, Lawyers of all levels and background see the sexy job title and can't resist throwing their hat in the ring and clicking the "easy apply" button on Linkedin. The title signals a strategic leader and if the job you’re advertising doesn’t match the scope and responsibility of a true GC, you are probably likely to attract candidates who are massively overqualified (and overpriced) for what you actually need. Here is my hot take on the elements that I think define a General Counsel role. If these don’t apply to the job, I'd recommend considering adjusting the title to reflect the role’s true scope: 1️⃣ A Seat at the Leadership Table: A General Counsel isn’t just a legal advisor; they’re part of the executive leadership team, shaping business strategy and decision-making. If the role doesn’t report directly to the CEO or engage in C-suite discussions, it’s likely not a GC position. 2️⃣ Ownership of Enterprise-Wide Risk: General Counsel means owning more than just legal matters: it’s about managing the company’s risk, governance, compliance, and reputation. If the focus is solely on running the legal department BAU, perhaps think again about the title. 3️⃣ Direct Interaction with the Board: A GC works closely with the Board of Directors, providing advice on governance and strategy. If the role doesn’t involve board-level accountability, it’s probably a senior legal role (Head of Legal) rather than a General Counsel. Why does this matter? Using the title “General Counsel” in your job ad ensures you’re targeting the right talent for the role. Misusing it risks mismatched applications and hiring frustration on both sides / candidates being ghosted. Anything I've missed on what defines a true General Counsel role?

114

20 Comments

The ‘Perfect Fit’ Myth in In-House Legal Hiring My classic brief is: "We need someone with 2-7 PQE, from a well regarded firm, in-house experience & will only consider a near perfect technical fit. It’s understandable — when legal heads are under pressure to get it right, the instinct is to look for someone who’s already done it all. But here’s the problem: You might find that person. They’ll probably have 3 other offers. And if they join, they may leave just as easily — because they’ve outgrown the challenge. Some of the strongest in-house legal hires I’ve seen have: - Come from a different sector - Taken a stretch in remit or seniority - Learnt the product and regs on the job - Had the mindset the team needed, not just the CV If the team has enough depth to support it, hiring for potential can be a better long-term move than chasing the “perfect” brief. What’s one quality you wish hiring managers looked for more? #inhouselegal

12

3 Comments