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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT