Very similar organisations in similar sectors will often have teams which are very different in size, scale, specialism and focus.
But are there pros and cons for small and large teams – and which should you choose?
Growing numbers of lawyers are employed in-house, with the Law Society’s Annual Statistics Report now showing that more than a quarter of the solicitors’ profession is now employed in-house, whilst at the same time the number of practising certificate holders employed in private practice has fallen slightly.
Organisations are increasingly realising the benefits of in-house legal teams, appreciating that they can bring more focused and timely advice. Often, an organisation will set up an initial in-house resource with a single lawyer. It is likely that the lawyer will soon identify legal issues which have not been surfaced in the organisation, and will also start to examine how best the organisation handles law. The relationship between in-house and external legal advice will likely change, and efficiencies introduced, for example through the use of standard documents and templates.
Small teams – pros and cons
Small is beautiful – or so they say. In many cases it can be an ideal solution.
For a start-up legal function, it allows the team to be close to the organisation. The General Counsel will often be an integral part of the management team, with informal and immediate access to senior colleagues and the Board. The team can be agile and flexible to deal with issues as they arise, and will often find themselves treading new ground within the organisation as they explore where they can be most effective.
It can be particularly fulfilling for team members to be part of a small team. A junior lawyer can have more general experience and perhaps learn faster than in a larger team where they are a smaller cog in a larger wheel. They may find themselves ‘in at the deep end’ more often, which can suit some people very well, and they will have more exposure to more senior colleagues than can be possible sometimes in a larger team.
New – or growing – legal teams will often find that their work is much in demand.
Organisations which haven’t had the benefit of in-house lawyers will appreciate the value of having advice immediately in hand, and available to join meetings and discussions with colleagues, suppliers and customers. Transactions will be dealt with more efficiently, disputes avoided or dealt with quickly, and contractual issues bottomed out without delay. It is very likely, though, that a small team will quickly become the victim of its own success. The work available will soon exceed the capacity of the lawyers to carry it out, and decisions around prioritisation – what work is to be carried out and by whom – can be unpopular.
It's also the case that a small team can find itself under pressure to save money.
An organisation might think that it has brought lawyers in-house, so it no longer needs to spend money on external advice. There may be lack of understanding of the specialisms of the legal team, and as such a reticence to allow the team to engage the external advice needed for specialist advice or because of capacity issues. There may be a reluctance to pay for that advice.
That can lead to demands or expectations – sometimes explicit, and sometimes unsaid – that the in-house team should advise on matters outside their expertise, or even do something that they may feel isn’t quite right, even if not unethical. It can be hard for the team to resist such pressures. This can especially be so if the sole lawyer or small team are quite junior, and have perhaps joined directly from private practice where they have not personally had to challenge their client – who is also their employer – in this way.
Sometimes, though, there can be resistance to the introduction of a legal team.
Colleagues may have been used to dealing with ‘legal’ matters themselves, either alone or through external lawyers, and will not welcome what they may see as interference. Those colleagues may not recognise that they are outside their comfort zone, and relationships with them may need considerable care and diplomacy.
Small teams can also find challenges in funding the support they need within their budget – both in terms of support staff and the technology and know-how they need.
Books are often said to be a lawyer’s tools, but most of us are now very familiar with (and reliant on) on-line research tools, and for a small team without access to a law firm’s knowledge management resources, such tools are critical.
One final point to think about regarding small teams is their reporting line.
New and small teams often find themselves reporting to the Finance Director, in common with other professional support functions. This is something which needs to be thought about carefully. The Finance Director’s primary role is to drive the financial performance of the business, and that can lead to difficult conversations when the in-house lawyer needs to instruct external lawyers for specialist work, or to provide additional legal resource. There is a possibility that this can lead to a conflict, and as with a larger team, it is often better for the General Counsel to report to the Chief Executive.
CLL’s own event research has identified that you may benefit from a fuller and perhaps more diverse workload in a smaller team, and that the skills you learn may contribute actively to your career development.
Conversely, the pressures of dealing with a heavy workload with little or no back-up should not be underestimated, and you may find yourself under client pressure to come up with the ‘right answer’ in the absence of other lawyers to ask or to bounce issues off.
Large teams – pros and cons
Larger team also have their advantages and possible downsides.
They may be better-resourced than smaller teams, perhaps with more legal technology and with additional support staff, so they may feel more familiar for someone moving from a law firm environment. The structure is likely to be more formal, with more of a hierarchy within the team, and supervision and reporting more formalised than the informal nature of a small team.
It may be that a larger team will also be able to offer more immediate opportunities for personal development.
In many in-house departments, promotion is likely to be a matter either of someone moving on or being promoted to fill a gap, or the creation of a new role, which can take time and be a complex negotiation within the organisation. In a larger team, though, there may be the possibility of internal transfers or secondments within the legal team itself, and it may be that the development structure itself is more formalised with personal development plans and opportunities. The larger team is likely to be within a larger organisation, and that too can mean there are broader development opportunities, with many such organisations offering in-house development programmes for their rising stars.
The General Counsel role in a larger legal team is also likely to differ significantly from the role in a smaller legal team.
There may well be much more administration, staffing work and budgeting, and the General Counsel may be able to bring related specialisms within the team, including perhaps legal operations. Whilst in a small team the GC is often of necessity also Company Secretary, in larger teams the roles may be split, or the secretariat role carried out by a professionally-qualified governance team. If your interest is in the broader business, the ability to work with that team may be something that appeals.
A larger team may also offer a greater opportunity to specialise, if that is what you seek.
Often, organisations with larger legal teams will have specialist know-how and expertise in the law relating to the sectors in which the organisation operates, whatever that may be. A lawyer wishing to build on that specialism may find a larger team offers that opportunity, which they could find to be transferable to a law firm or other organisation in the sector.
Equally, though, an individual lawyer may be less visible in a larger team than a smaller one.
They may not have direct access to the General Counsel, still less the board. The team may not be located in one place, and there can be a risk that elements of its work can be seen as a commodity, brought in-house purely as a matter of cost and convenience.
You may also find that a larger team is more likely to have a structured arrangement for the use of external legal advice – possibly a formal panel, with defined arrangements for instructions and costs.
Finally, it’s important to consider how the team – small or large – deals with ethical challenges and the ability to meet its lawyers’ professional standards obligations. It is fundamental that an in-house team is able to do that, and that the lawyers can raise any issues which arise.
What’s right for you?
It should be stressed that both small and large legal teams can be excellent places to work, and can fulfil the needs of their organisations in different ways. Which is right for you depends on the organisation, its present and future needs, the culture and structure it adopts, and the preferences of senior management and the General Counsel themselves.
Organisationally, if there is a very lean head office function, a legal team which is out of scale with that formula is likely to meet resistance, even if it otherwise seems well-suited to the needs and demands which it has to meet. That may seem wrong, but if there is continual tension between the organisation and the team about scale and perceived costs, it can be difficult for the team to function well.
Individually, the ‘feel’ of an in-house team is something which can be really important for you to understand. Some people thrive in large, structured, teams; others much prefer a smaller, less formal team where they can perhaps have more of a say in how things are done, in their relationships with colleagues, and in directly influencing the legal response of the organisation.
Best of both?
Remember, too, that many organisations may have divisional or regional legal teams, as well as an overall group legal structure. You may find that that gives you the best of both worlds – the structure and resources of a large team, but the direct relationships with the organisation of a smaller team.
Whichever size of team you prefer, don’t be afraid to suggest improvements – or to call out concerns. Every organisation will have constraints around costs and resources – very few legal teams will say that they have enough resources to cope comfortably with the legal needs of the organisation – but different teams are able to tackle those in different ways. If you find that one doesn’t suit you, remember that the scale of the in-house profession means you have options to consider other opportunities, and your experience will be invaluable in whatever role you seek.
SOME FURTHER RESOURCES
The Law Society’s Annual Statistics Report Annual statistics report 2022: what does the solicitor profession look like? | The Law Society