Is the general counsel truly at the strategy table?

A recent US survey conducted by executive search firm BarkerGilmore, entitled The GC–Board Alignment Gap, shines a light on an issue that is equally relevant for Europe: is the strategic value of the general counsel genuinely recognised by boards of directors?

The American data reveal an interesting – and in some respects structural – disconnect between what boards perceive and what general counsel believe they contribute.

Where boards see value (and where GC believe it should be seen)

According to the research, US boards identify the main areas of general counsel contribution as:

• board governance and committee support (76%);
• litigation and dispute strategy (65%);
• M&A transactions (47%).

General counsel, while acknowledging governance as a primary area of value (65%), identify as their top areas of contribution:

• corporate strategy formulation (63%);
• enterprise risk management integrated with business planning (56%).

The most telling figure is this: only around one in three boards recognises the GC as a meaningful contributor to strategy, and fewer than half associate the role with integrated enterprise risk. The issue may not be the absence of value, but the lack of clear attribution.

BarkerGilmore describes this as a “perception gap”. Strategic legal influence is often embedded upstream in executive deliberations rather than made explicit at the board table. Boards tend to assume that the strategy presented by the CEO already reflects input from the full leadership team, including the GC. As a result, legal influence can remain indirect and therefore under-recognised.

Time allocation and structural constraints

Another revealing finding concerns time allocation. While 47% of boards rank corporate strategy and transactions as an extremely important use of GC time, GCs report dedicating only 20% of their time to these areas, compared with an ideal target of 24%.

Conversely, they believe they spend too much time on legal operations (23% currently, which they would prefer to reduce to 19%).

This suggests less a misalignment of priorities than a structural capacity issue. Both boards and GCs appear to agree on the importance of strategic involvement. The difficulty lies in freeing up sufficient time from operational demands to make that ambition a reality.

When interaction is not designed for influence

The survey also highlights a relational dimension. Fifty-four per cent of GCs report that direct meetings with the board occur only occasionally outside formal sessions. In other words, interaction is often episodic rather than deliberately structured.

According to BarkerGilmore, strategic influence depends less on mere availability and more on intentional visibility, role clarity and disciplined interaction design. Presence alone is not enough; the role must be explicitly positioned as part of the strategic decision-making process.

And in Europe?

Although the survey focuses on the United States, the question for Europe is unavoidable: how is the general counsel truly perceived here?

In many European systems – particularly in heavily regulated sectors – the GC has traditionally embodied a safeguard function: compliance, regulatory oversight and legal risk management. Yet Europe’s increasing regulatory intensity (ESG, sustainability, data governance, supply chain due diligence, digital regulation) is turning law into a strategic lever, shaping investment decisions, market entry, business models and growth strategies.

The central question, then, is straightforward: is the European GC seen as an architect of strategy or merely as a guardian of compliance? If the role remains confined to risk prevention, its strategic contribution risks remaining invisible. If, however, the GC is involved in shaping decisions rather than simply validating them, legal insight becomes a source of competitive advantage.

For this to happen, certain conditions must be in place: genuine integration within the executive team, legal structures capable of delegating operational work to free time for strategic focus, and a board culture that recognises risk as an integral component of strategy rather than an obstacle to it.

A more uncomfortable question also arises: do GC themselves make their strategic impact sufficiently visible? Ultimately, being strategic does not mean merely participating in decisions; it also requires articulating and demonstrating the value created.