Should the General Counsel also be COLP?

Combining the roles of General Counsel (GC) and Compliance Officer for Legal Practice (COLP) is a common strategic move in law firms, but it fundamentally shifts the nature of the position from an advisory one to one of personal regulatory accountability.

The short answer

A General Counsel can also be COLP, but firms should not combine the roles automatically.

The combination can create clear accountability and senior authority. It can also increase responsibility, narrow the candidate pool and make the role less attractive if the firm’s support structure is weak.

Why firms combine the roles

The GC often sits close to professional conduct, regulatory advice, governance and internal risk. That makes COLP responsibility seem logical.

In some firms, it works well because the GC has authority, access to leadership and sufficient support.

What are the risks?

COLP responsibility changes the nature of the role. Candidates will want to know the firm’s risk culture, reporting structure, historic issues, escalation process and whether they will be backed when difficult decisions arise.

If the firm expects accountability without influence, candidates may walk away.

Should it be immediate?

Not always. A staged approach can be sensible, especially where the candidate is new to the firm. They may need time to understand the partnership, systems, risk history and internal culture before taking formal responsibility.

Bottom line

Combining GC and COLP can work, but only where the authority, support and salary match the accountability.

Be clear from the outset whether COLP responsibility is required, optional or future-facing.