A wider brief can give legal leaders more influence across the business. But when responsibility grows faster than resource, the opportunity can quickly become a pressure point. Taylor Root’s latest global in-house legal survey shows where that tension is emerging, and what employers can do about it.
The General Counsel role has never stood still. What is changing now is the number of business-critical issues landing close to legal: governance, privacy, compliance, risk, technology and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI). Each area is connected to legal judgement, but each also brings its own workload, specialist knowledge and accountability.
That helps explain one of the clearest findings in Taylor Root’s global in-house legal survey: 77% of respondents said their remit had expanded over the previous 24 months. For 46%, that expansion was significant. A further 31% reported a slight increase, while only 6% said their remit had reduced.
General Counsel are not simply “doing more”. The role is becoming a point of convergence for questions about regulation, reputation, resilience and responsible growth, with legal leaders being asked to connect decisions that once sat in separate parts of the organisation.
More issues are moving closer to legal
Some of the additional responsibilities will feel familiar. Compliance and data protection work were the most common, each selected by 42%. Corporate governance and company secretarial responsibilities followed at 41%, with AI governance at 35%.
Taken together, these figures describe a role moving closer to the organisation’s most consequential decisions. A data breach, an AI deployment or a business continuity event rarely arrives as a neat legal question. It cuts across operations, technology, people, communications and the board. The General Counsel may not own every part of the response, but they are increasingly expected to help the organisation see the whole picture.
That can be a positive shift. A broader brief can make the legal function more influential and more closely connected to commercial strategy. It can also create ambiguity. If ownership is not clearly defined, “sitting alongside legal” can quietly become “absorbed by legal”, without the structure or specialist support the work requires.
The real pressure point is resource
Only 24% said resourcing had kept pace with their changing remit. Another 31% said it had done so partially, while 45% said it had not.
That gap matters because a broader mandate does not create more hours in the day. When new responsibility is added without a clear decision on priorities, ownership or support, the risk is not just overwork. Important issues may receive less attention than they need.
The response is already changing how legal work gets done. In the previous 12 months, 53% had increased their use of technology or automation and 37% had relied more heavily on external counsel. Flexible resourcing was also part of the mix with 41% using interim legal support.
This is a useful reminder that the answer is not always another permanent hire. The right response depends on the problem. Repetitive work may be better suited to technology. A specialist regulatory issue may call for external counsel. A transformation programme or a period of leave may be best supported by an interim professional.
Retention is about the shape of the role, not pay alone
The mobility findings give employers another reason to look closely at role design, with 27% saying they were or would be actively seeking a new role in the next 12 months. A further 56% said they would consider moving if the right opportunity came along. Only 17% did not anticipate moving.
These figures show that many senior legal leaders are open to a conversation, and are also more likely to see a sustainable future in a role when they understand what they own, what support is available, how success will be judged and how growing responsibility will be recognised.
For employers, this shifts the retention conversation away from a last-minute counter-offer. It starts much earlier, with honest role design and regular reviews of scope, resource, progression and reward.
Turn a growing remit into a stronger legal function
The expansion of the in-house legal remit is not automatically a problem. Handled well, it can strengthen the legal function’s voice and bring better judgement to the decisions that matter most. But breadth without clarity is hard to sustain. The organisations that respond well will be those that match increased expectations with thoughtful role design, realistic priorities and the right blend of permanent, flexible and external support.
Taylor Root’s global in-house legal market report and salary guide brings together salary and bonus benchmarks by market, seniority and specialism, alongside findings on changing remits, resourcing, career priorities and legal technology. It provides a practical starting point for employers reviewing team structure and reward, and for legal professionals assessing how their role compares with the wider market.
