What is the difference between a Head of Risk, Director of Risk and General Counsel?
The short answer
A Head of Risk usually leads the risk function. A Director of Risk usually carries broader strategic authority. A General Counsel usually advises the firm on its own legal and regulatory issues.
The titles overlap in practice, but they are not interchangeable.
Why the distinction matters
Firms often use titles loosely. That creates market confusion.
A candidate may expect a Director of Risk role to have board-level influence. A General Counsel candidate may expect legal advisory and governance responsibility. A Head of Risk candidate may expect functional leadership.
Mislabelled roles reduce candidate trust.
How to decide which role you need
Start with the problem. If the issue is legal risk and governance, a GC may be right. If the issue is building risk processes and managing the function, a Head of Risk may be right. If the firm needs senior strategic risk leadership across multiple areas, Director of Risk may be appropriate.
Can roles overlap?
Yes. In some firms, one person may cover elements of all three. But if the scope is broad, the authority and salary must match.
Bottom line
Choose the title that reflects the mandate.
The market cares less about what the firm wants to call the role and more about what the person will actually own.
Want to know more?
How to hire a Director of Risk for a law firm
Why senior regulatory candidates ask about risk culture
