The Modern General Counsel: New Roles, Rules and Responsibilities

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to The Legal Report from Robert Half, where industry leading experts discuss current hiring and practice management issues impacting the legal profession. Robert Half is a premier provider of talent solutions for the legal field. The Legal Report from Robert Half is here on the Legal Talk Network.

Jamy Sullivan:

Hello everyone and welcome. I’m Jamy Sullivan, executive director of the Legal Practice Group for Robert Half and the host of our program. I’d like to introduce my guest today, legal executive and board member Amy Yeung. In the last 15 plus years, Amy has served in multiple general counsel and deputy general counsel roles leading scale transformations across global, public and private companies across six industries, including Sally Maybank, comScore, Dataminr, and Microsoft just to name a few. Amy is recognized for her team development and technology driven value add consultative approach to developing and executing enterprise strategies, particularly in areas of emerging regulatory law. She continues this work serving as a board member guiding a virtual reality company. Amy, it’s wonderful to have you on the show today. I know we’ve connected a couple of different times this year, so I’m looking forward to this conversation.

Amy Yeung:

As am I. Thank you so much for the invitation. I’m glad to be here.

Jamy Sullivan:

Excellent. And I know it will be a lively discussion given our interactions this year, but for the audience, this episode, Amy and I are going to discuss new roles, rules and responsibilities of the modern general counsel. Today’s general counsels are not just chief legal officers of their organizations. They are strategic leaders who influence business strategy and engage in executive decision-making. We’ll look into the reasons behind this transformation and offer up some best practices for both new and established general counsels to succeed in their positions. So Amy, today’s general counsels have never been more important in an organization. So in what ways has the role evolved for general counsels and transformed from that traditional legal advisor to a strategic business leader and also what factors have driven this evolution?

Amy Yeung:

Thanks, Jamy. You’re absolutely right. The notion of the general counsel and their role has changed, evolved and expanded. I would identify three different things. First, there’s an increasing regulatory environment. Second, the shifts in transformation in business have become a lot faster in nature and third technology. These all interrelate with each other. But let me try and explain at least a little bit of each of these as to why I think the general counsel has now become a much more significant strategic business leader across the organization. The first is the importance of a regulatory environment and the increase of having that regulatory environment pressure on an organization for highly regulated organizations. This was always self-evident from the beginning in those specific industries before the rest of the corporations. The regulatory environment continues to evolve, continues to shift, and it therefore puts the general counsel in more and more discussions about business line business products and how they evolve, react and how they can also be proactive in creating new opportunities for a company.

These shifts in business evolution also are happening a lot faster, and this is intertwined with technology, which I’ll get to in a second. But in the meantime, even our own pace and the globalization of business has made these shifts faster and more rapid, which has then also put the general counsel in that seat for dialogue first as a matter of risk and risk reduction. And then because you are there at the table in a way of being strategic on behalf of the company in scene and peering around the corners. And then third technology, which we’re all facing and we’re all looking to take advantage of, every company now is looking at some form or fashion of technology evolution within their organizations. And while there’s still a wide range of where each company is in their growth curve, the reality is technology in and of itself has changed the role of the general counsel into a strategic business leader because of the way in which we’re now looking at policies and procedures, the way in which it impacts individuals and these days human performance and also just the sheer volume and interest of product evolution with technology, creating a lot of legal analysis and trade-offs between different regimes of the law.

Jamy Sullivan:

Excellent points, and we’ll come back, dive in a little bit more on technology in a minute, but as you talk about the rapid shifts and the regulatory changes, we know that’s going to keep coming what has to come in 2025. So as we are witnessing this new era, if you will, for general counsels, seeing how much the role has changed in these new responsibilities that come with the title, I’d like to discuss more specifically, how can a GC set themselves up for success? So if I’m asking you Amy, what do you feel like are some of those essential leadership and business skills that are a must have for a general counsel? That way they can possess effective ability to navigate those complex legal challenges and then overall drive the organizational success?

Amy Yeung:

Great question. Jamy. There are obvious leadership examples for any leader at the top. These include effective communication, developing high eq, being able to have and then showing and having in fact empathy. What I want to focus on are three traits that I think a general counsel in particular needs, especially as you say in this evolution of regulatory environment. The first is helping build and creating a culture of communication. And that’s a little different from communication and having effective communication, but being able to build a culture of communication means that there’s active dialogue between, for example, the product folks and the legal team. There’s an opportunity to exchange ideas between and amongst the groups and including at the C-suite level. It’s also a top-down reflection. To be a creator in this culture of communication means that that is how the rest of the employees will act and can then encourage all of the innovation that in changing cycles, in rapid shifts in technology, we want to see as a matter of business evolution.

The second is engaging in continuous learning and this modality of how we approach our jobs is in my opinion, the most difficult thing that any leader seeks to seek out because there is a lot of complacency and comfort in the ability to keep things as is. But when we face quickly changing regulatory environments, when we’re facing an onslaught of technological changes where inaction results in rapidly becoming behind rather than slowly or at least keeping pace, being able to engage in continuous learning and empowering your team to be continuous learners only then helps the legal team maintain their top spot as leaders within an organization and also gives you the ability as the leader to be able to embrace all of the viewpoints that the good team that you’ve hired can then be able to optimize and implement for the company. So engaging in that continuous learning is super important.

And the last thing that I would say, and this really comes from a lot of the Gen Xers, gen wires, gen Zs that I work with these days is creating a culture that focuses on employee happiness and wellbeing. The reality is whether or not you believe that hybrid work or working from home or being in the office is whatever your cup of tea is, people whom you spend many hours with enjoy their time together, they’re going to stay. And so being able to make sure that you maintain and you create that culture where people care about each other, they care about stuff beyond work where they take that moment, that’s the culture that will keep individuals there. And wellbeing too, which includes making sure and maintaining that curiosity. It goes to continuous learning. So there’s a lot of overlap with that, but being able to provide those opportunities for your team to then individually go out and enjoy those passions, whether or not they are aligned with the job or whether or not they are the ones that they personally seek.

Jamy Sullivan:

Yeah, culture hits home with me, especially in the world that I live in from a recruiting standpoint and helping with onboarding and retaining, as you said. So that retention factor, so all of your points, it really goes to stating that we have to maximize the legal team’s potential that that’s going to be very essential to the ongoing success of the organization. So if we follow up to that, what strategic initiatives can a general counsel implement to optimize their legal team’s performance and then overall enhance the organization’s effectiveness?

Amy Yeung:

Yeah, this is a great question. In a lot of the regulatory and compliance work, we talk about people, processes and technology. And I would actually say that’s probably a really great place right here to use that both as an analogy and as is first the people to create that culture that I was just describing of being collaborative, of sharing ideas in a way that you’re not going to face retribution or shame for having brought a new perspective along. These are all actions that convert a closed system into an open opportunity and innovation, which is precisely as you describe how we can maximize a legal team’s potential. The second is the processes. So as a general counsel and as a general counsel on behalf of an organization, there are a number of different processes that can then necessarily include these types of collaborative opportunities. It’s not just buy-in actually an opportunity for different pockets of the organization to ensure that they are having a place to then identify their innovative ideas, raising considerations for further evolution of the topic at hand and also moving forward the organization in collaborative ways that one might not have necessarily connected the dots on in a traditional process.

And then the third of course is the technology. And these days especially, we are having a lot of those discussions on how technology can create and unlock a potential. One of my mantras that has particularly resonated with others this year is practicing at the top of one’s license. As a general counsel, I want each and every one of my team members to be practicing at their fullest and best potential. It tends to highly overlap with the way in which people are interested and find passion in their work because that’s what they want to work on. And technology is a great way to be able to accelerate, automate, encourage other actions that do take a lot of time, but may not permit attorneys and non-attorneys alike to practice at their fullest potential because technology simply accelerates that. And so being able to look into those as a proactive way to then enhance and accelerate your team’s ability to seek out what they do best is really, in my view, the secret sauce to why technology is such an incredible opportunity for all companies at this stage.

Jamy Sullivan:

Yeah, definitely. And in my travels and at many of the conferences that I attend, it is people process technology. We talk about that all the time. So I love that you incorporated that. I know that will resonate with the audience for sure. I might chime in here for additional ways to optimize performance. We’d also can look at the benefit of bringing in resources such as contract talent or working with an alternative legal service provider, an A LSP. And for us in our 2025 salary guide from Robert Half and the surveys that we did, legal administrative legal specialists, particularly in the areas of contracts and compliance AI automation are among some of the talent that’s sought after by organizations on a contract basis. And we’ve also seen the volume of work for legal departments increased due to keeping more work in-house versus sending it to outside counsel. So contract talent can actually be a great asset in really helping to drive change but also maximize the legal department’s potential while helping to tackle the influx of work, if you will.

Amy Yeung:

I absolutely agree. There are certain revenue cycles for which this makes logical sense and certainly for the commercial teams also makes logical sense and therefore is a very competitive argument in terms of the cost balance there because they tend to align really well. I’ll also say just yesterday I was speaking with another chief compliance officer about the value of a LSPs because he had not previously been working with these types of organizations. And where there is a lot of value of considering some of that work externally, not only as a cost cutting measure, but really because again, this goes to practicing at the top of one’s practice, you want to create opportunities where you’re best and brightest and the curiosity and innovation can take place with the team that you have. And it’s really hard to do that when there’s a lot of the day-to-day burden.

And so what you are trading for is maybe a cost savings, but in my view is actually not just the cost savings, but it’s cost savings and being able to then give your team the opportunity to find and develop more efficient ways of creating compliance, which takes time, energy, and evolution. It’s an opportunity for them to further innovate in the way in which they can best practice or just simply elevate up compliance to the value of the business or otherwise. And so there are a lot of great considerations there that don’t necessarily always get brought in the initial discussion.

Jamy Sullivan:

Yeah, a great example in your time, in my time in the legal field, we’ve seen how a LSPs have evolved. So a great example that you’re providing and talking with that chief compliance officer. So now maybe let’s talk about that critical responsibility that I call it in establishing legal department resiliency. So how can the general counsel cultivate and really reinforce that resiliency within the department to ensure its adaptability, continuity and effectiveness in the face of evolving risk and the organizational challenges that they may face?

Amy Yeung:

I spent a lot of time thinking about this question because in some ways it wraps up many of the good points that we’ve already been talking about. And where I came out on this is the following. I thought that one example in the teams that I’ve built and had the privilege of managing kind of synthesizes all this together, it was a technology company, which is to say most companies these days think of themselves as a technology company. And so there were a number of aspects about the company that aren’t necessarily pure technology and it was a pretty broad team. And before I had the privilege of being in a leadership role there, the company had historically put the technology aspects and limited them to a certain subject matter expertise and therefore a certain group under the broader umbrella. And my choice was to strengthen across the board everyone’s strengths through cross-training and skills diversification.

And so I put individuals in certain subject matter groups. Some of those subject matter groups were very naturally aligned to each other. Some of them were actually quite opposite for very deliberate reasons. And I put first and second chairs on each of them. So folks would over the course of six months together have some exposure. And then there was also a clear accountability for making sure that the work was able to get done and somebody that you would be able to buddy up with. And over the course of years, it meant that everyone across the organization had technology savvy, not just in technology as in what is intellectual property, but how intellectual property is then applied to contracts, how that’s then applied in the vendor management and the organizations that the company brought in from as third parties. It was about licensing and some of the aspects that related to commercial agreements.

And what that also did as a broader consequence is not only did it create the agility that you described that we all want within a legal department, it also created a much larger pool of individuals who recognized and understood the fuller importance of technology that by the time the organization was ready to be there, everybody in the legal department was at the ready to be able to analyze and proactively help the business with the solutions they were looking for. And I think that to me is the epitome of what agility is. It’s being able to be in a position where the team not just you are in a position to be able to adapt to where you think the business is going to go. And that example was eight, nine years ago, technology and the importance of that hasn’t changed. So I would say that this example is still a perfectly valid example for many years to come in a way that you don’t really have to be as prescient. This is still going to be a very relevant example and perhaps a very relevant tactical solution for all of the leaders out there listening to this podcast to be able to enhance agility within their organization.

Jamy Sullivan:

Yeah, it’s a great example. And you’re right, it’s timeless. It’s a very timeless example because we talk about cross-training quite a bit when we’re mentoring or working with organizations, not even from a hiring perspective, just cross-training to a, find the skills gaps, but then to your point, build that agility and that resiliency in the department. And I guess some other things I would ask, another tip or maybe that I have seen or want to hear your opinion on this is having some clear protocols in place in the event that there’s a crisis or proactively looking to the future, what might come up, what could happen and how would you, maybe in the example that you gave with the cross training and skills diversification, has there been any examples of maybe establishing kind of a chain of command or delegation of roles in advance of a crisis or risk that was maybe coming down the pipe?

Amy Yeung:

Jamy, I’m so glad that you asked this question, which was not planned, but is totally on point and absolutely relevant across multiple organizations. I’ve had the privilege of creating a crisis playbook, and that playbook has come in different flavors. Some have started quite rudimentary and perhaps even in part due to regulatory requirements of making sure that you’ve got that business continuity and for the legal department, legal continuity for all of the prime leadership positions that we have to not only be in a position for but also then facilitate for others to other more robust crisis management playbooks. In the past few years, I’ve pulled together for example, initiatives that then resulted in 35 40 pages of footnotes alone just because that then immediately provides the regulatory documentation for how and where the playbook itself is being designed and why we are from a legal perspective doing the very thing that we’re doing.

And did that need to be necessary? Maybe, maybe not. It’s clear that it’s a robust evolution of crisis management, but what that does is it already proactively places the legal department and the company in a place where there is rhyme and reason in the process to why the organization did something the way that it did. And also, you don’t have to then spend time during a crisis trying to figure out what those rules are because even if it was dated, it’s still a solid place for which you can start from, which then you can then ask outside counsel or otherwise research what needs to be updated to the extent that it does. And so those are somewhat tactical examples of what that playbook looks like. And again, different flavors for different organizations and for the different seasons of life that a corporation is in. But there’s no question that the general counsel and legal leaders are in pivotal places in an organization when it comes to crisis and even when they are not, I would ask my team to step up as I bet most CEOs too would then expect a number of lawyers and non-professionals to then be jumping in on crisis.

And so being able to at least think about this and start to put it in play is again, Jamy a great example of how to be able to be adaptable and anticipatory.

Jamy Sullivan:

That’s great. Another strategic approach. I love all the insight that you’re sharing and we have great dialogue and insights as always. But first, before we dive into some more, we’re going to take a quick break.

Announcer:

Is your legal team buried under rising workloads, having trouble containing costs or staying ahead of changing regulations? Robert Half can help. We assist thousands of organizations including Fortune 500 companies and AmLaw law firms, offering an alternative to legal staffing and project management. Our flexible talent solutions can be customized and seamlessly integrated into your organization to help alleviate the time or budget management challenges facing your team. Connect with us today at Robert Half dot com.

Jamy Sullivan:

Welcome back to The Legal Report from Robert. Half Amy Yeoung and I have been discussing new roles and responsibilities for today’s modern general counsel. So we’ve touched a bit on technology and I’d like to now take a deeper dive and talk about the emergence of technology in legal and the role that the general counsel plays. Amy, how has the adoption of legal technology fundamentally altered the responsibilities of the general counsel and also what implications does this have for their traditional legal functions?

Amy Yeung:

I’d respond in a few different ways. Legal technology has altered this by creating greater emphasis on metrics. It’s helped evolve the legal departments from being a department that is more reactive to one that is more proactive. And I also think that it has evolved the role of general counsel in that the general counsel themselves needs to have a stronger understanding of legal technology more broadly than legal technology. Technology generally has created more emphasis on data-driven outcomes and for legal technology and for legal departments specifically. What that means is that as general counsel leading the team, we need to have and we need to show greater emphasis on metrics because other departments who have those metrics for which then you’re not showing up with any, it encourages and creates a lot of pressure in order to do that, and it forces us to define how we do our work in data driven ways.

From that, I think it has also shifted the reactive to more proactive, and I say that first because the technology itself helps to then accelerate that pivot and help shape our work from being responsive to really then being more proactive facilitators across the organization. But I also think the data-driven outcomes component of this also then forces us as a forcing mechanism to become more proactive when you just have that data. And I think that’s why the of organizations then focus on data-driven metrics. It just encourages one to be mindful of that 48 hour turnaround or the week deadline that’s coming up to then proactively follow up with the other stakeholders that you need to follow up with. And then for all of these reasons, the general counsel as a result needs to be much more familiar, much more familiar with the technology that’s out there, much more familiar with the third parties that can both supplement support and then implement a lot of these things as well and to understand what’s out there such as with ai.

Jamy Sullivan:

Excellent. And maybe taking it just a little bit further, what are some specific ways and proactively that general counsels are utilizing AI technologies to optimize legal processes and also that measurable impact those metrics as you’re talking about and those technologies having an operational impact to the efficiency?

Amy Yeung:

I think the most obvious core examples that exist today are contract management systems, contract review and analysis and doc review in a discovery. I think for our industry, those have really become tried and true opportunities where there are clear metrics, there are a lot of services and a lot of technology that help design and develop those data-driven metrics. And in my opinion, those metrics definitely provide clear metrics of what is being done within those processes. For general counsels and other legal leaders who are listening to this podcast, I encourage you to additionally recognize that there are other practices at the top of one’s license that then are created that may not be in this workflow, but absolutely. Then are other data-driven opportunities for you to show additional value as a result of then implementing these types of operational efficiencies?

Jamy Sullivan:

Well, we know AI is going to continue to evolve, so that’ll be an ongoing continuous, proactive aspect that general counsels will need to make. So you’ve really pointed out some great benefits that AI overall delivers, but we also know that AI does come with some ethical concerns. So if you think about maybe what you’ve seen yourself, let’s face it, you’ve been in a lot of different industries and a lot of different examples as we mentioned on the front end of the call, what are some of those critical ethical considerations that a general counsel needs to address when integrating AI into the legal practice?

Amy Yeung:

First, I’d focus on policies, procedures. Second, I focus on outcome determinative results. And then the third is transparency in the process. The first relating to policies and processes, making sure that an organization is using certain AI methodologies consistently. And the best way to do that is to put in place thoughtful, robust policies and or processes to do that. And that probably goes back to the people processes and technology indeed point that we were talking about. So I won’t spend too much time on it, but just to say it really is an opportunity, especially within the legal department, whether or not compliance is within or as a solid partner to legal to then really think about fully incorporating that and not just for today’s use case scenario, but really for tomorrow’s use case opportunity. The second is the outcome determinative component. And I’ve written a lot about this including more recently within Bloomberg Law article about diversity and the impact that certain assumptions that go into building AI can then result in because you could still have a very consistent process along the board, but if you are making certain assumptions that are in fact incorrect in the beginning, you’re still going to have a very consistent but unfortunate outcome at the end.

And so making sure that there’s a process to reevaluate on an ongoing basis, whether or not those initial assumptions are correct, not only minimizes the consequence of outcome determinative results, that may not be what one expected, but it also creates the opportunity for one to continue to incorporate new use case scenarios into the process that the company already has. And so that’s another way to ensure that ethically the processes are in fact being operated in the way that one intends, but also then as an innovation opportunity to create those process opportunities for feedback as those new use cases come in. And then the last one is transparent, and this is where there can be a lot of change and shift depending on which industry you’re in, but I’ll just say at a very high level, the tools themselves have to be transparent in the way in which the decision making process occurs. And that’s different from the policies or processes in which the organization uses ’em. Rather, it’s the way in which the software itself is created and in what way that is transparent. So if it’s a vendor understanding exactly what the methodologies are, taking that opportunity to implement and or adjust it, as well as then having, again, those annual opportunities or biannual opportunities to then refresh one’s understanding of the transparency in the way in which the AI is evolving. Because just as our organizations are evolving, so is the AI software that we’re using,

Jamy Sullivan:

Indeed, it’s a great roadmap. We’ve also, besides just establishing protocols and policies, we’ve even seen general counsels invest in hiring talent in that already has those expertise if they don’t already have that on their team or they’re kind of lost where to go. So hiring individuals with AI automation knowledge, people like yourself to consult with them so that they can then develop those protocols and establish that ethical piece, if you will. So a great roadmap that you’re providing, but also just knowing that as a general counsel, you can look outside of your organization to find that help. Well, Amy, as we know, the role of the general counsel is going to continue to evolve well into the future. So how can aspiring new and established general counsel navigate the rapid advancements in law technology and industry trends and then foster a culture of continuous learning, which I know you mentioned earlier within their teams?

Amy Yeung:

I’d close by echoing some of the topics that we’ve talked about in creating an adaptable and unleashing the potential in one’s team. I’d like to double click on that in two ways. The first is with that culture of continuous learning and that creation of that mindset. And the second one, which we haven’t talked about yet, is with networks and how one can then amplify and quickly amplify one’s own learnings through networks. The first, again, with the culture of continuous learning to create an environment in which new ideas are not being shut off, but rather are being thoughtfully considered is one of the biggest challenges that any leader faces, especially now. And with technology, there is just a huge scale of assumptions that didn’t use to be second guessed that technology now has the opportunity for us to reconfigure and reconfigure to the legal department’s advantage and to the business’s advantage. And so this fostering of continuous learning, of creating a change mentality and an open learning environment is for me the best way that aspiring and current general counsels can really help amplify their team and their team success.

Jamy Sullivan:

Outstanding. Amy, this has been most insightful just as all of the times that I’ve interacted with you, particularly this year, so I’ve really enjoyed it, but unfortunately, we have reached the end of our program. Special thanks to legal executive and board member Amy Yeoung for joining me today and sharing her expertise with all of our listeners. But Amy, before we close, how can our audience contact you and where could they obtain some more information?

Amy Yeung:

Oh, thanks so much. You can contact me at LinkedIn, Amy Yeoung, Y-E-U-N-G, and otherwise Jamy, you know how to get ahold of me too.

Jamy Sullivan:

Indeed, indeed. Well, thank you again, Amy. Been fantastic. So our listeners can reach me at Jamy, JAMY dot Sullivan at Robert Half dot com. If you want to learn more about the topics we covered in the podcast today, I invite you to explore the 2025 Robert Half Salary Guide at Robert Half dot com slash salary guide and the essential toolkit for New General Counsel published by the Association of Corporate [email protected] slash gc. Thank you for listening today. If you liked what you heard, please rate us in your favorite podcasting app and follow Robert Half and the Legal Talk Network on X and Facebook, and please visit Robert Half dot com for more information and resources. Join us again for the next edition of The Legal Report from Robert Half here on the Legal Talk Network as we discuss important trends impacting the legal field and legal careers. Until next time, be well.

Announcer:

The views expressed by the participants of this program are their own and do not represent the views of, nor are they endorsed by Robert Half Legal Talk Network or their respective officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, shareholders, or subsidiaries. None of the content should be considered legal advice. As always, consult a lawyer. Thanks for listening to this podcast. Robert Half is a premier provider of talent solutions for the legal field. Robert Half is an equal opportunity employer including minorities, females, people with disabilities, and veterans. Robert Half is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. Robert, Half project attorneys do not constitute a law firm among themselves.