We were joined by Greg Bargeton, founder of The Emerson Partnership, a consultancy delivering pragmatic, accessible legal advice across the UK, EU, and US.
With over 20 years’ experience in-house and in private practice, including ten years as General Counsel at William Grant & Sons, Greg has led global legal teams for iconic brands like Glenfiddich, Foster’s, and Carlsberg.
In this interview, Greg reflects on his professional journey, the mindset shifts in-house lawyers need to add commercial value and his approach to balancing legal risk with creativity.
He also shares insights from his work with The O Shaped Lawyer, an initiative that rethinks how legal professionals operate, and offers practical tips for managing cross-border legal challenges while nurturing a collaborative, human-focused legal team.
How would you describe your professional journey in one or two key themes?
Luck and rebellion.
I’ve been so lucky with the roles I’ve had, the companies I’ve worked for and how that work has taken me all over the world. More than that, I’ve been lucky to work with great people who have taken a chance on me and supported my development.
I’ve also been a bit of a non-conformist, challenging the status quo and the stereotype of what a (good!) lawyer is supposed to be. I’ve always tried to ask why we do things the way we do and to experiment with different approaches. That’s not always been successful, but it has always been good experience.
You spent 10 years as General Counsel at William Grant & Sons. What were the defining challenges and rewards of leading the legal and compliance function in a global, fast-paced, brand-led business?
The challenges were typical of most in-house teams: the difficulty of prioritisation, how to demonstrate value, getting a seat at the table (and making a meaningful contribution when you get there!), delivering compliance and assurance without taking up too much corporate oxygen/goodwill. The list goes on.
The greatest reward was being able to build and work with an amazing team of legal professionals. It took time, but we developed a collegiate approach to providing legal services to the global business. We had a good idea of what good looked like for us and for the business and we had a culture that encouraged contributions from across the team.
You work with The O Shaped Lawyer, an initiative that rethinks how lawyers operate. What drew you to this, and how does it align with your own philosophy of legal practice?
O Shaped aligned with my experience of the legal profession, its challenges and its opportunities. The O Shaped framework is very similar (although much better thought out!) to the framework I used as a leader to encourage a legal service that goes beyond technical expertise.
As anyone in-house knows, most people come to the in-house team when they are in a mess or in the dark. At that point, they just want you to solve the problem or shine a light. The O Shaped framework gives legal professionals a way of developing the “human skills” that are needed to build great relationships and deliver great legal support.
What do you think are the biggest mindset shifts in-house lawyers need to make to be more commercially valuable and people-focused?
Be curious! People working in-house are often drawn to that role (versus working in private practice) because it is, by its very nature, more “commercial.” But the most effective legal professionals I have seen in-house are those that really want to learn about all aspects of the business: its operations, its supply chain, its P&L, its strategies etc. Armed with this knowledge, these people deliver a truly value-add legal service.
Where I’ve seen great legal professionals struggle in-house is where they have held too tightly to the idea of being a “technical expert.” This means they give legal advice but leave it for their commercial colleagues to decide what to do with that advice. Whenever I give advice, I always try to push myself to make a tangible, actionable recommendation. Without it, the legal analysis isn’t really worth very much!
You’ve supported iconic brands like Glenfiddich, Foster’s and Carlsberg. What have those environments taught you about navigating legal risk in creative, consumer-facing industries?
Legal and Marketing are a bit like Alien v Predator! Both really good at what they do, but they are creatures from different planets! There can often be (and probably should be!) a natural tension between the legal team and other functions of a fast-paced business. It wouldn’t be good for the business if the legal team won the argument all the time and it probably wouldn’t be great if the legal team never won the argument either.
I’ve learnt that (a) having the best argument in the world doesn’t matter if you don’t persuade anyone and (b) what really makes a difference is building rapport and good ways of working promote healthy, robust debate without damaging the valuable relationship between the legal team and its key stakeholders.
What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in the role of in-house legal teams over the past 20 years — and what still needs to change?
There definitely seems to be increasing demand for in-house teams to be able to “demonstrate their value.” For some teams, this has long been the case, but there will be others that fondly remember a time when the legal function wasn’t particularly challenged when it came to annual budget reviews.
I don’t know if anyone has really cracked this problem of being able to demonstrate value in the way a procurement or sales team can demonstrate value. I don’t think being able to report how many contracts were reviewed or how many data subject access requests were dealt with really gets to the heart of the value that in-house teams provide in managing risk and solving problems.
The real value of the legal team is its ability to partner with the business, to embed itself in teams across the business and be part of the development and execution of the business strategy. There is value in that contribution. I just don’t know how you measure it!
You founded The Emerson Partnership to bring pragmatic, accessible legal advice to businesses. What does “pragmatic” legal advice look like in practice?
With The Emerson Partnership, I’m able to provide a service that is built on more than 20 years of experience of working in and for fast-paced businesses. It means I’ve got a keen sense of trying to balance the management of legal risk with the pressing commercial realities of business. Being pragmatic also means I don’t take on work unless I really think I’ve got a smart, simple and cost-effective solution for the client. If the work doesn’t fall into that category, then I happily say to clients “that’s not really my area but let me find someone who is really good at this.”
What are your top tips for in-house teams working with global or cross-border legal issues?
My tips would be:
- It’s important work, but don’t be self-important. Yes, our knowledge as legal experts is valuable, but so is everyone else’s. The legal function is just one cog in the machine.
- Try to have fun. Honestly, things are rarely as important as they might seem at the time. Don’t miss the chance to enjoy the ride.
- Don’t work too hard. Burn-out is real.
- Be creative. The legal profession isn’t particularly recognised for its creativity (preferring instead its templates and precedents). Start by asking “why do we do it this way” and then give yourself some time to explore what alternative approaches might be. You might end up using that template after all, but the time will still have been well-spent.
- Nurture your career. Work can be so busy with the demands and priorities of others that you lose sight of what you want to do. Figure that out and fight for it.
When you’re not working, how do you like to switch off and relax?
I’d like to say, “I play tennis,” but a better description would be that “I participate in racquet-based cardio.” My forehand is from the 70s, my backhand is all slice and I’ve never purposefully hit a ball with top-spin. But I do have a great pair of luminescent orange trainers that probably get me a point or two each match, just because of how distracting they must be to my opponents.
