Should Singapore’s senior counsel title include corporate general counsel?

SINGAPORE’S legal profession has changed quietly but significantly. It is now possible to be called to the Bar without pursuing a traditional career in private practice.

Increasingly, some of the most capable lawyers choose to build their careers as in-house counsel – advising corporations, shaping governance and navigating complex regulatory landscapes from within an organisation.

This shift raises a natural question: If the profession itself has broadened, should its highest forms of recognition evolve as well?

The senior counsel (SC) designation, conferred under the Legal Profession Act, remains the apex marker of legal distinction. However, it is still largely associated with advocacy and the courtroom.

For those who choose an in-house path from the outset, there is no equivalent pinnacle.

The case for recognition

The argument for recognising leading general counsel (GCs) is not difficult to make. At the highest levels, their work is strategically complex, cross-border in scope, and often consequential for markets and institutions.

Top GCs advise boards on existential risks, shape regulatory engagement and influence industry standards. In sectors such as finance, technology and infrastructure, their legal judgment can have system-wide effects.

If Singapore seeks to attract and retain top legal talent, there is a policy argument for ensuring that those who pursue an in-house career path are not seen as stepping off the track of professional recognition.

In a system where the SC is the most visible marker of distinction, its absence for in-house lawyers may, at the margins, influence career choices.

SEE ALSO

Why the best general counsels shape risk, not avoid it

Law is a calling and a public institution, not just a technical craft

In-house lawyers are evolving from legal brain to corporate conscience

The analogy – and its limits

It is sometimes pointed out that the SC is not confined strictly to practising advocates. Distinguished academics and senior legal service officers have been appointed, suggesting that the framework already recognises contributions beyond the courtroom.

But these categories share a defining feature: their work is directed towards the law as a public system.

Academics shape doctrine and are cited in judgments. Legal service officers design legislation and act in the public interest. Their contributions are visible, contestable and embedded in the legal order.

The work of GCs, by contrast, is primarily private and often confidential. However significant, it is often undertaken in service of a corporate client. Its impact on the development of law is typically indirect and harder to assess consistently.

This distinction matters because the SC is not simply an award – it is a designation closely associated with the courts and with advocacy.

The SC’s credibility rests on clarity of purpose, transparency of achievement, and a relatively consistent benchmark of excellence.

Expanding it to include GCs would not be a marginal adjustment. It would require a redefinition of what the title signals – to the courts, the profession and the public.

Policymakers are likely to be cautious. The current framework works well for its intended purpose. There is no obvious market failure that compels reform, and the risks, particularly of diluting the meaning of SC, are not trivial.

Signalling what the profession values

Yet, the underlying concern remains legitimate. As more lawyers choose to build their careers in-house from the outset, should there not be a form of recognition that reflects that path at its highest level?

That is a question worth confronting in a jurisdiction that prides itself on building a modern and inclusive legal ecosystem.

If the only widely recognised pinnacle remains tied to private practice, it may subtly reinforce the perception that other pathways are secondary.

A better path forward

Rather than stretch the SC beyond its natural limits, the more coherent response would be to build a parallel system of recognition that reflects the realities of in-house practice.

Institutions, such as the Singapore Corporate Counsel Association and the Singapore Academy of Law, are well-placed to develop such a framework – one that recognises:

• strategic legal leadership;
• governance and regulatory impact; and
• contributions to industry and market standards.

This would allow excellence to be recognised on its own terms, rather than through criteria designed for a different professional track.

Over time, if truly exceptional individuals emerge whose work demonstrably shapes the development of Singapore law in a public sense, there may be a case for limited inclusion within the SC framework. But such instances would be the exception, not the rule.

A perspective without stake

From the vantage point of a lawyer in retirement, the issue is presented without professional stake or personal interest. My view is that the ambition for gifted in-house legal talent should be validated and encouraged.

The SC accolade has served Singapore well precisely because it is clear in what it represents. That clarity should not be lightly compromised.

Yet, Singapore can choose both tradition and progress: preserving SC as the apex of advocacy and legal development, while building an equally credible form of recognition for those who pursue excellence in-house.

After all, the legal profession is increasingly defined by diverse career paths. Excellence, wherever it is found, should be seen, valued and recognised.

The writer has led Asia legal teams for multinational corporations such as Motorola and Siemens, retiring recently as group general counsel of Jardine Cycle & Carriage. He is a senior accredited director of the Singapore Institute of Directors, serving on boards including the Global Guiding Council of One Mind at Work and SGListCos.