º¬Ðß²ÝÉçÇø

As the business environment grows increasingly complex and artificial intelligence reshapes the legal profession, what does it take to become an outstanding in-house counsel? Drawing on years of experience, Richard Tian, the legal director of Skechers China, outlines the foundational principles and practices essential to excelling in this demanding role

THE MODERN BUSINESS LANDSCAPE has made the role of in-house counsel more multidimensional than ever. Our responsibilities stretch far beyond legal analysis and issuing risk warnings. We are the custodians of compliance, collaborators with business teams and enablers of corporate performance. To excel, one must combine legal expertise, commercial acumen, interpersonal skills and ethical integrity, striking the optimal balance between maintaining compliance and advancing business objectives.

Upholding legal, compliance standards

As guardians of corporate compliance, in-house counsel bear the primary responsibility of ensuring that every department and employee strictly adheres to laws, regulations and professional ethics. Any lapse in compliance can trigger a chain reaction, from financial penalties and reputational damage to project cancellations and even weakened performance, all of which could threaten the company¡¯s survival and development.

In practice, in-house counsel often face pressure from business departments that prioritise performance growth over compliance requirements.

For example, to achieve performance targets and accelerate project progress, business teams may repeatedly contact in-house counsel, attempting to simplify necessary approval processes. Or, in commercial negotiations, they might accept contract terms that are clearly unfavourable to the company to secure business opportunities.

At such times, in-house counsel must stand firm on principles. By relying on professional legal grounds and rigorous risk analysis, they must communicate the potential risks and medium to long-term consequences of non-compliant actions to business teams. This prevents situations where ¡°short-term gains lead to long-term liabilities¡±, and requires a firm refusal to breach compliance boundaries. This is not only a matter of protecting the company¡¯s interests but also an essential requirement for safeguarding in-house counsel¡¯s professional reputation and fulfilling their legal responsibilities.

Avoiding two detrimental mindsets

(1) The people-pleaser. In-house counsel with a people-pleasing mindset will concede to the business department¡¯s unreasonable demands to avoid conflict or please others, subconsciously ignoring potential legal risks. They may win short-term approval yet expose the company to significant legal peril.

For example, during contract review, they may refrain from recommending amendments to clauses that could impose substantial breach liability, fearing damage to their relationship with the business department. Or, in a compliance review, they may overlook incomplete information from the business department and approve a project hastily. If a risk materialises, the company faces severe losses and in-house counsel, as the direct reviewer, cannot evade accountability.

(2) The detached negotiator. In contrast, in-house counsel with an indifferent mindset adopt the opposite extreme. They routinely respond with standard replies such as ¡°high risk¡± or ¡°not advisable¡±, lacking both a deep grasp of the business context and the initiative to propose pragmatic solutions. Although this approach superficially avoids responsibility, it actually damages internal collaboration and hampers business efficiency.

In the case of project approvals, for instance, in-house counsel simply flag the risks without analysing their causes or offering mitigation and improvement suggestions tailored to project requirements. This transfers decision making and risk entirely to the business department, stalling progress. Over time, in-house counsel and business departments grow estranged, operational efficiency declines, and in-house counsel lose their role as business partners, ultimately becoming marginalised from the company¡¯s strategic core.

Escaping the technician trap

After working for a period, especially when specialising in a specific field, some in-house counsel can become adept technicians in particular roles, developing fixed ways of thinking and working.

Take contract review as an example. Many in-house counsel habitually revise agreements by comparing them directly with previous versions, their thinking constrained by established templates and review methods. This makes it difficult both to identify problems in older drafts, and to detect hidden risks in new clauses, leaving them unable to adapt to evolving risk scenarios.

Such a rigid working model not only limits individual career development but also fails to meet a company¡¯s changing business needs. As artificial intelligence advances, repetitive tasks such as clause comparison and basic legal research are increasingly likely to be automated.

To remain competitive, in-house counsel must break free from fixed mindsets, proactively acquire new knowledge, and explore novel methods applying innovative thinking to address complex and shifting legal issues.