Would You Advise Your Clients to Operate This Way?

Run a multi-hundred-million dollar a year enterprise without appointing a general counsel?  Sounds like the kind of thing you'd advise your clients against in, say, a heartbeat?  News flash:  26 of the AmLaw 50 firms are doing just that.

Well, but, ahem, you protest, law firms are different—I mean, everybody is, like, their own general counsel.  OK, so now we have hundreds of different opinions on such things as what constitutes a client conflict, whether outside income from publishing articles, speaking engagements, writing books, being approached to be an expert witness, joint-venturing in a business with a client, etc., is acceptable, and how the book of business of a potential lateral recruit should be analyzed from a risk management perspective.  

Face it:  Law firms are faced with a "business risk portfolio" just as any other enterprise of comparable scale, and it's scarcely more than common sense to designate an individual primarily responsible for analyzing and mitigating that risk, and developing and applying consistent policies across the board to ensure theory meets up with practice.

To be sure, you are pursuing a profession; but you are also in business on a large scale.  Appoint a GC; give him/her real authority (reporting to the managing partner or executive committee, for starters); have them do formalized training sessions with partners, associates, and staff, and oh, by the way, introduce them to your malpractice carrier as your head of risk management.  They may just pay for themselves.