Walking the Regulatory Tightrope as an In-House Lawyer

May 3, 2024

Recently in one of our Legal Bite sessions that we run for members of the Watering Hole we delved into the often complex world of morality, ethics, and regulation for in-house legal counsel. It's a role fraught with challenges, so we took some time to explore how these professionals navigate through them.

With the Post Office Inquiry, we’re all witness to in-house lawyers being interrogated on their decision-making and legal advice from over a decade ago. We’ve seen evidence that the former CEO complained about the fact that one lawyer was seen to be putting professional obligations above the interests of the business. This clear example of the fine line that a lawyer walks between regulatory obligations and the business’ desire to do things in a certain way, is particularly tricky when the lawyer in question is employed by the business.

The Mason Independent review of Legal Services Regulation highlighted a critical point: in-house lawyers must be able to raise concerns without fear of reprisal and the Post Office Inquiry has shone such a bright light on this delicate issue. But how do they balance this obligation with the demands of corporate culture?  

One aspect that emerged from our discussion is the varying dynamics within different organisations. Each presents unique challenges, whether it's the absence of established processes in a new role or the pressure to conform to business objectives.

For junior lawyers, the dilemma can be particularly daunting. The expectation to voice concerns may clash with their position in the hierarchy. There's a concern that they might be held to a higher standard than their senior counterparts (the very people who should be providing guidance in difficult scenarios), leading to hesitancy in speaking up.

However, regardless of experience level, the consensus is clear: trust your instincts. Even if you're not consulting the regulations daily, that gut feeling can be a powerful indicator of potential issues.

But what happens when legal advice falls on deaf ears? When directors opt for a course of action that straddles the line between legal and ethical boundaries? The responsibility lies in robustly communicating the risks, documenting these exchanges, and, when necessary, seeking external advice.

A significant concern raised is the potential conflict of interest posed by tying a lawyer’s remuneration to business performance metrics like revenue. It's a system that inherently compromises independence, nudging lawyers towards decisions that might prioritise business interests over legal integrity – even at a subconscious level.

While there's no one-size-fits-all solution, several suggestions emerged. Some advocate for bonuses tied solely to personal objectives, ensuring that lawyers aren't incentivised to compromise their principles for the sake of getting a deal over the line and securing revenue. Others propose a higher base salary, divorcing compensation from business outcomes altogether.

Furthermore, fostering a culture of open cross-departmental dialogue and mutual respect within organisations can encourage lawyers to voice concerns without fear of repercussion. Building strong relationships with colleagues can facilitate smoother communication and garner greater respect for legal insights. A C-Suite that understands the importance of a lawyer’s regulatory responsibilities, and respects the same, will get more from their lawyers than one which seeks to suppress a lawyer’s independence.

Ultimately, the journey to finding the right balance between legal obligations and business objectives is a nuanced one. It requires a blend of legal acumen, ethical integrity, and interpersonal skills. But by staying true to their principles and fostering open communication channels, in-house lawyers can navigate these challenges with confidence and integrity.

Receive our insights directly to your inbox by signing up to our newsletter

Recommended content