A PROFILE IN PROFESSIONALISM

The discourse on professionalism most often focuses on attorneys in firms – how they deal with one another, their clients and the court. It is often assumed that the “law firm” experience is common to all members of the legal profession – whether in government, corporate legal departments, the non-profit bar or otherwise. In this age of corporate scandals, downsizing and outsourcing, however, it is worth contemplating whether there are unique aspects of in-house practice for which special rules are warranted.

Angela Birch Cox Group Counsel, Technical and Supply Chain The Coca-Cola Company

There are indeed inherent differences between practicing in-house and in a firm. (And by the way, these differences do not include better work-life balance. In fact, I have come to believe that work-life balance improvement is a myth propagated by the compensation gods to justify lower salaries. Better to remember that in-house lawyers do not depend on billable hours and rainmaking, as do lawyers in firms.) Rather, the differences include dealing with the necessary tension between doing good and doing well, handling the allocation of resources, often scarce because of the corporate law department’s status as a cost rather than a profit center, and striking the appropriate balance between roles as business partner, facilitator (“don’t tell me no, tell me how”), risk evaluator and guardian of the company’s institutional memory.

Moreover, the relationship between an in-house attorney and his/her clients can never be “purely” attorney-client. It is also a relationship between fellow employees, with each having a serious stake in the outcome. Indeed, employee morale, compensation, and even continued employment itself are often implicated. Nor can we fail to consider the dynamic created by the role of the in-house attorney (often a shareholder) as protector of the interests of the shareholders.
So given these differences, we must consider whether traditional notions of professionalism are relevant or sufficient for in-house counsel. Do these differences call for unique discourse or different standards? My answer – an emphatic NO! The discourse is not unique; the standards remain the same.

Even though the in-house practice is unique, the values underpinning the notion of professionalism are the same for all. These values are universal and have been often articulated, although arguably, not consistently demonstrated. For me, it all boils down to a few guiding principles:

• Play by rules (the letter AND the spirit);
• Model integrity and reinforce it in others;
• Have the courage to tell the truth; but temper it with kindness;
• Remember that how you play the game is just as important as winning the game;
• Value and respect everyone – period, full stop;
• Greet life’s interruptions as opportunities; and
• LAUGH about most everything!

Indeed, no matter the nature and scope of the practice, the ultimate test of professionalism for any lawyer, in-house or otherwise, is whether his/her efforts have benefited the profession and affirmed the humanity of those touched by his/her practice.

< BACK TO TOP >