{"id":108578,"date":"2025-02-18T16:02:57","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T00:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/18\/new-gc-report-details-all-the-in-house-concerns-that-ceased-to-matter-around-say-inauguration-day\/"},"modified":"2025-02-18T16:02:57","modified_gmt":"2025-02-19T00:02:57","slug":"new-gc-report-details-all-the-in-house-concerns-that-ceased-to-matter-around-say-inauguration-day","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/02\/18\/new-gc-report-details-all-the-in-house-concerns-that-ceased-to-matter-around-say-inauguration-day\/","title":{"rendered":"New GC Report Details All The In-House Concerns That Ceased To Matter Around, Say, Inauguration Day"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The first installment of The General Counsel Report 2025<\/a><\/em> reads like something Indiana Jones dusted off from an ancient tomb. A relic of a long, lost civilization known as the In-House Lawyers, circa the summer of 2024.<\/p>\n

The report, put together by FTI Consulting<\/a> and Relativity<\/a> based on interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors and surveys by Censuswide, gathered insights from corporate legal leaders from July to September 2024. It\u2019s a slice of life detailing the hopes and fears of legal officers concerned about heightened regulation, the growing importance of ESG initiatives, and navigating investigations.<\/p>\n

Seems as though they might have different concerns in February 2025.<\/p>\n

A mere month into Trump II: Muskrat Love<\/em>, the administration has moved swiftly to gut<\/em> regulatory oversight, reverse<\/em> diversity initiatives, and publicly retreat<\/em> from white-collar criminal probes (except to prosecute companies for diversity, that is). While the report includes a few nods toward the risk of a changing environment, the respondents by and large describe a sliding doors world of continued cautious regulation in a steadily growing economy.<\/p>\n

Regulation: From \u201cOverload\u201d to Open Season<\/strong><\/h3>\n

When surveyed last summer, 41 percent of GCs ranked regulatory compliance as their number one risk. While it\u2019s the second year in a row that regulation topped their concerns, the figure still reflected a sharp increase from 30 percent the year before\u200b\u200b. Trump rolled back \u2014 or at least attempted to roll back, depending on your sense of the judiciary\u2019s willingness to enforce the Administrative Procedure Act \u2014 100 or so regulations on his first day<\/a>. Since then, he hasn\u2019t stopped with everything from environmental<\/a> to labor<\/a> to basic occupational safety<\/a> getting the (attempted) ax. <\/p>\n

\n

Additionally, when asked about what areas of work have increased in volume, new regulations and laws requiring policy refreshes and headcount topped the list, with 74% listing this as an area of increased work. Comparatively, the quantitative survey asked respondents to rank the top five areas that require the most time from legal departments; 26% included compliance monitoring and 25% said regulatory investigations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But all this regulatory chaos presents its own risk. Policy refreshes don\u2019t just mean new rules \u2014 they also mean deleting the old ones at breakneck speed. Any legal team that prepped for an onslaught of new regulations faces the new compliance nightmare of dealing with evaporating rules.<\/p>\n

Blunting these concerns is the continued existence of the overseas markets committed to running 21st-century economies even while Trump wants to party like it\u2019s 1899<\/a> when child labor was booming and tariffs fueled America\u2019s routine financial panics.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

ESG: From Compliance Risk to Political Target<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Environmental, Social, and Governance compliance rated as a top-five legal risk\u200b for respondents, with more than 35 percent placing it in the top tier. According to the report many expected the area to remain a complex, moving target with investors maintaining pressure upon companies to live up to their pledges while noting some nascent pushback.<\/p>\n

\n

As a result, there is no way to fully ensure readiness. Another general counsel explained, \u201cWe are getting better and continue to hire outside specialists in recognition of the need to improve. Most organizations are prepared\u2026However, we are starting to see a backlash against ESG\u2026if you recognize something other than a commercial or economic value, you are not necessarily acting in the best interests of your shareholders.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That pushback since transformed into a tidal wave, with Trump and his allies not only railing against domestic ESG<\/a> \u2014 particularly when it comes to diversity \u2014 but hinting at cracking down on European-driven initiatives<\/a>. Back in the summer of 2024, in-house counsel worried about getting grilled over greenwashing<\/em> or inadequate disclosures<\/em> and now they\u2019re falling all over themselves to publicly declare their rejection of the most modest of diversity commitments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an inversion of corporate risk. Companies that previously feared liability for not doing enough<\/em> on ESG now risk scrutiny for doing too much<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It was already a moving target, now it\u2019s more Whac-a-Mole as law departments face corporate governance strategies that were best practice six months ago becoming potential legal liabilities.<\/p>\n

Investigations: The Unexpected Pivot<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The report identifies internal investigations as one of the most time-consuming and high-risk areas for legal teams\u200b. Nearly one-third of GCs reported a rise in disputes and civil litigation, while 35 percent flagged internal investigations as the top trigger for legal action\u200b.<\/p>\n

But the anticipated drivers of these investigations \u2014 whistleblower complaints, regulatory scrutiny, fraud \u2014 are being reconfigured under the new administration. White-collar criminal enforcement barely made it past the loading screen<\/a> of Pam Bondi\u2019s tenure as Attorney General. Corporate fraud and foreign bribery no longer warrant DOJ bandwidth, though companies may have to buckle up for federal probes to defend how every Black employee on the payroll got their jobs<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The General Counsel Report 2025<\/em> isn\u2019t much of a roadmap at this point as much as a faded treasure map leading straight into a booby-trapped regulatory hellscape. But it does highlight that the biggest challenge for in-house counsel right now is agility. Between the radical shift in priorities and the administration committing to a speedrun<\/a> to reverse decades of regulatory framework (courts and statutes be damned<\/a>), corporate legal has to move fast. While slashing regulation might sound like it takes a load off corporate legal, the sudden absence of guardrails is just as much a legal migraine \u2014 especially when the rest of the world isn\u2019t racing to see how fast they can torpedo corporate governance.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post New GC Report Details All The In-House Concerns That Ceased To Matter Around, Say, Inauguration Day<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The first installment of The General Counsel Report 2025<\/a><\/em> reads like something Indiana Jones dusted off from an ancient tomb. A relic of a long, lost civilization known as the In-House Lawyers, circa the summer of 2024.<\/p>\n

The report, put together by FTI Consulting<\/a> and Relativity<\/a> based on interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors and surveys by Censuswide, gathered insights from corporate legal leaders from July to September 2024. It\u2019s a slice of life detailing the hopes and fears of legal officers concerned about heightened regulation, the growing importance of ESG initiatives, and navigating investigations.<\/p>\n

Seems as though they might have different concerns in February 2025.<\/p>\n

A mere month into Trump II: Muskrat Love<\/em>, the administration has moved swiftly to gut<\/em> regulatory oversight, reverse<\/em> diversity initiatives, and publicly retreat<\/em> from white-collar criminal probes (except to prosecute companies for diversity, that is). While the report includes a few nods toward the risk of a changing environment, the respondents by and large describe a sliding doors world of continued cautious regulation in a steadily growing economy.<\/p>\n

When surveyed last summer, 41 percent of GCs ranked regulatory compliance as their number one risk. While it\u2019s the second year in a row that regulation topped their concerns, the figure still reflected a sharp increase from 30 percent the year before\u200b\u200b. Trump rolled back \u2014 or at least attempted to roll back, depending on your sense of the judiciary\u2019s willingness to enforce the Administrative Procedure Act \u2014 100 or so regulations on his first day<\/a>. Since then, he hasn\u2019t stopped with everything from environmental<\/a> to labor<\/a> to basic occupational safety<\/a> getting the (attempted) ax. <\/p>\n

\n

Additionally, when asked about what areas of work have increased in volume, new regulations and laws requiring policy refreshes and headcount topped the list, with 74% listing this as an area of increased work. Comparatively, the quantitative survey asked respondents to rank the top five areas that require the most time from legal departments; 26% included compliance monitoring and 25% said regulatory investigations.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But all this regulatory chaos presents its own risk. Policy refreshes don\u2019t just mean new rules \u2014 they also mean deleting the old ones at breakneck speed. Any legal team that prepped for an onslaught of new regulations faces the new compliance nightmare of dealing with evaporating rules.<\/p>\n

Blunting these concerns is the continued existence of the overseas markets committed to running 21st-century economies even while Trump wants to party like it\u2019s 1899<\/a> when child labor was booming and tariffs fueled America\u2019s routine financial panics.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Environmental, Social, and Governance compliance rated as a top-five legal risk\u200b for respondents, with more than 35 percent placing it in the top tier. According to the report many expected the area to remain a complex, moving target with investors maintaining pressure upon companies to live up to their pledges while noting some nascent pushback.<\/p>\n

\n

As a result, there is no way to fully ensure readiness. Another general counsel explained, \u201cWe are getting better and continue to hire outside specialists in recognition of the need to improve. Most organizations are prepared\u2026However, we are starting to see a backlash against ESG\u2026if you recognize something other than a commercial or economic value, you are not necessarily acting in the best interests of your shareholders.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That pushback since transformed into a tidal wave, with Trump and his allies not only railing against domestic ESG<\/a> \u2014 particularly when it comes to diversity \u2014 but hinting at cracking down on European-driven initiatives<\/a>. Back in the summer of 2024, in-house counsel worried about getting grilled over greenwashing<\/em> or inadequate disclosures<\/em> and now they\u2019re falling all over themselves to publicly declare their rejection of the most modest of diversity commitments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s an inversion of corporate risk. Companies that previously feared liability for not doing enough<\/em> on ESG now risk scrutiny for doing too much<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It was already a moving target, now it\u2019s more Whac-a-Mole as law departments face corporate governance strategies that were best practice six months ago becoming potential legal liabilities.<\/p>\n

The report identifies internal investigations as one of the most time-consuming and high-risk areas for legal teams\u200b. Nearly one-third of GCs reported a rise in disputes and civil litigation, while 35 percent flagged internal investigations as the top trigger for legal action\u200b.<\/p>\n

But the anticipated drivers of these investigations \u2014 whistleblower complaints, regulatory scrutiny, fraud \u2014 are being reconfigured under the new administration. White-collar criminal enforcement barely made it past the loading screen<\/a> of Pam Bondi\u2019s tenure as Attorney General. Corporate fraud and foreign bribery no longer warrant DOJ bandwidth, though companies may have to buckle up for federal probes to defend how every Black employee on the payroll got their jobs<\/a>. <\/p>\n

The General Counsel Report 2025<\/em> isn\u2019t much of a roadmap at this point as much as a faded treasure map leading straight into a booby-trapped regulatory hellscape. But it does highlight that the biggest challenge for in-house counsel right now is agility. Between the radical shift in priorities and the administration committing to a speedrun<\/a> to reverse decades of regulatory framework (courts and statutes be damned<\/a>), corporate legal has to move fast. While slashing regulation might sound like it takes a load off corporate legal, the sudden absence of guardrails is just as much a legal migraine \u2014 especially when the rest of the world isn\u2019t racing to see how fast they can torpedo corporate governance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The first installment of The General Counsel Report 2025 reads like something Indiana Jones dusted off from an ancient tomb. A relic of a long, lost civilization known as the In-House Lawyers, circa the summer of 2024. The report, put together by FTI Consulting and Relativity based on interviews conducted by Ari Kaplan Advisors and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":108504,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-108578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-at-11.51.45E280AFAM-QuV4Hh.png?fit=704%2C966&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108578","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=108578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108578\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/108504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}