In-House Counsel

This post is entitled ?titles?

By Rees Morrison

In law departments, titles are important for showing where someone stands in the hierarchy, for morale, and for status (See my posts of Jan. 27, 2006: titles should reflect and explain the work staff does; Jan. 24, 2006: try to match lawyer grade/titles to client grade/titles; Dec. 10, 2005: titles are positional goods; Oct. 29, 2005: morale in a law department affected by a hodgepodge of titles; and Feb. 28, 2006: value to an in-house lawyer of an officer title.).

Those who have a title and those around them read significance into the title (See my posts of Nov. 8, 2005: ?Associate? over ?Assistant? General Counsel; March 23, 2006: hierarchy below Associate and Assistant General Counsel; Aug. 21, 2005: titles for paralegals or legal assistants; Dec. 9, 2005: new title at Barclays of Chief Operating Officer; and March 16, 2006: A-positions may not match titles.).

Titles and changes in titles (promotions) are a key part of talent management (See my posts of Jan. 4, 2006: hallmarks of a progressive performance management system; March 23, 2005: title simplification is passé; Nov. 1, 2005: title simplification, but ?Corporate Secretary? still needed by law; March 6, 2006: dual-track career paths for generalist managers and specialist experts; and Nov. 8, 2005: human resources representative for the law department.).

Full post as published by Law Department Management on June 26, 2008 (boomark / email).