Why the best general counsels shape risk, not avoid it

AFTER almost four decades in the law, I have come to a simple conclusion: the law, for all its importance, is rarely the hardest part of the job.

The harder part is judgment.

The law can often tell us what is permissible. It is less adept at telling us what is wise, proportionate or sustainable.

Yet, those are precisely the questions that matter most in corporate life, where commercial pressure, reputational sensitivity, human complexity and geopolitical uncertainty rarely arrive one at a time.

Over the years – in private practice, in-house roles at multinational corporations such as Motorola and Siemens, and most recently over the past decade as general counsel of a major Asian conglomerate – I have come to appreciate that the most consequential decisions are seldom purely legal.

Frequently, they are exercises in judgment, trust and responsibility.

As I step away from legal practice, those are the lessons that remain with me.

Not the chief “no” officer

One of the more enduring misconceptions about in-house legal work is that the lawyer’s principal virtue lies in caution.

Caution has its place. But businesses do not exist to avoid risk altogether. They exist to take risk thoughtfully, in pursuit of growth, opportunity and long-term value.

SEE ALSO

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

The challenges of an AI-powered legal industry

The art of transforming lawyers into directors on receptive boards

The role of the general counsel is therefore not to extinguish risk, but to help shape and calibrate it.

“No” is often the easiest answer, and sometimes the right one. The more difficult – and useful – task is to determine whether a path can be found that is lawful, responsible and commercially sound.

That requires more than legal skill. It calls for judgment, creativity and a genuine understanding of the enterprise one serves.

Effective counsels are not obstacles to progress. They are trusted stewards of principled decision-making.

Context matters as much as doctrine

In private practice, excellence is rightly measured by technical command: mastery of detail, precision in drafting and the ability to anticipate legal argument.

Inside an organisation, those qualities remain indispensable. But they are no longer sufficient on their own.

Advice that is technically impeccable but commercially detached has limited value.

To advise well, one must understand how the business creates value, where its strategic priorities lie, what operational constraints it faces and what risks it is prepared to bear.

Increasingly, that context extends beyond the business itself. It includes regulatory direction, shifting public expectations and a more unsettled world in which politics, policy and law are often deeply intertwined.

That is why the distinction between a good lawyer and a truly valuable one is so often a matter of judgment rather than intellect.

Trust is the real currency

The general counsel occupies a singular position within an organisation – between board and management, strategy and restraint, ambition and accountability.

Such a role cannot be performed effectively without trust.

Boards must trust that difficult matters will be surfaced early and candidly, not sanitised or delayed.

Management must trust that legal advice is intended to enable sound decisions, not frustrate them.

Without that confidence, the legal function risks becoming peripheral – consulted too late or bypassed altogether.

Early in my in-house career, after a lengthy discussion on whether a proposed initiative could proceed, a senior executive remarked with a smile: “If legal can only tell us why something cannot be done, eventually we will stop asking.”

The comment was made lightly, but the point was serious. Legal advice is most valuable when it enables progress, not when it merely prevents mistakes.

Trust is not conferred by title. It is earned over time through consistency, discretion and clarity of thought. It is strengthened when counsel is prepared to speak plainly – especially when the message is unwelcome.

In the end, the most effective legal leaders are not merely technically strong. They are trusted in judgment.

A broader brief in a more uncertain world

The remit of the general counsel has widened considerably.

Where once, the role centred mainly on disputes, transactions and regulatory developments, today’s boardroom demands a much broader field of vision.

Legal leaders are increasingly expected to engage with cybersecurity, sanctions, data governance, supply-chain resilience, environmental obligations, reputational exposure and geopolitical fragmentation.

These are not merely legal issues. They are strategic risks with legal consequences.

In many organisations, the general counsel is one of the few executives positioned to connect those threads – to see how a regulatory shift in one market may affect operations in another, or how a reputational issue may quickly harden into a governance problem.

Put simply, the role has not become narrower, but broader; not less legal, but more consequential.

I would be remiss not to mention the arrival of artificial intelligence – which will undoubtedly reshape the legal profession.

Routine work will be automated. Information will become more accessible. Certain forms of legal output will become faster and less differentiated.

But the enduring value of the lawyer will not disappear. If anything, it will become clearer.

As technology handles more of the process, the premium will increasingly rest on what cannot easily be automated: judgment, synthesis, perspective and the ability to apply principle to ambiguity.

Integrity remains the ultimate test

A legal career is not defined only by transactions completed, disputes resolved or documents negotiated. It is defined by the quality of one’s judgment, the trust one has earned and the integrity one has preserved when it counted.

In essence, the law provides structure. Integrity provides direction and the necessary compass.

Looking back, I remain deeply grateful for the privilege of serving in a profession that places one at the heart of consequential decisions, often in moments when clarity matters most.

In the end, the best general counsels are not remembered for how often they said “no”, but for how wisely they helped others decide when to proceed, when to pause and when not to proceed at all.

The writer is a lawyer and senior accredited director of the Singapore Institute of Directors. He serves on several boards including the Global Guiding Council of One Mind At Work and the SGListCos Council