ILNews

Survey says a majority of chief legal officers are happy with their jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A survey released Wednesday by the Association of Corporate Counsel found that 85 percent of chief legal officers are satisfied with their current role and level of responsibility within their companies, a four percent increase as compared to last year.

The Chief Legal Officer 2014 Survey revealed that ethics and compliance, regulatory or government changes and information privacy are considered the most pressing issues by the CLOs for the year ahead.

“We find that ethics and compliance issues are not only weighing heavily on the minds of chief legal officers, but also boards of directors and senior management around the world,” said Veta T. Richardson, ACC president and CEO. “Businesses globally are recognizing how vital it is to ensure their top priority is abiding by ever more complex regulations.”

The survey includes responses from more than 1,200 individuals in 41 countries.

Respondents also reported strategic staffing and managing expenses in a global economy will be among their priorities in 2014. A little more than half of CLOs altered their law departments’ total budgets and 38 percent plan to make changes to their department spending habits this year. Hiring patterns are expected to remain the same as in 2013.

The survey also found that the overall average base salary among CLOs dipped to $246,841 as compared to last year’s $251,431, but that this drop in pay did not trigger lower satisfaction levels.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT