Years ago, I got a call. "I have a role I think you'd be perfect for."

"Rug Doctor? The carpet cleaning company?"

It was not what I expected.

But the more I learned about the company and the role, the more genuinely intrigued I became. It was local, yet international. It had a new, ridiculously talented management team. It was a consumer products company, an industry I'd never worked in before. The role itself was highly strategic and extended well beyond traditional legal work. The legal leader sat on the top executive team and reported directly to the CEO.

So I asked a question: if this role reports directly to the CEO, sits on the executive team, and leads the entire legal function, why isn't it called Chief Legal Officer instead of General Counsel? The answer I got back was, "What's the difference?"

I explained that, to lawyers, Chief Legal Officer unmistakably identifies the company's senior legal executive. It's the legal equivalent of Chief Financial Officer. The title tells us that legal is part of the C-suite, that the role reports directly to the CEO and works with the Board, and that there's no other legal executive sitting above it. General Counsel might describe that exact same opportunity, or it might describe something very different. That ambiguity is precisely why experienced legal executives start asking follow-up questions the moment they hear the title General Counsel.

When the question made its way to the CEO, he didn't hesitate. "Then we're offering you the Chief Legal Officer position," he said. (Thank you, boss, Travis Lewis.) That sealed the deal for me. They had listened. They'd shown me they genuinely wanted legal to be an integral part of the executive team, and they cared enough to make sure the title reflected that reality, which mattered far more to me than negotiating another few thousand dollars in compensation.

It turned out to be one of the best career decisions I ever made.

For the next six years, I had the privilege of working alongside some of the smartest, funniest, and most talented people I've ever met. I became part of an exceptional executive team, developed a deep appreciation for the consumer products industry, and learned far more about carpet cleaning, vacuum technology, and suction power than I ever imagined I would.

At the time, I thought we were talking about a job title. Years later, I realized I was still having that same conversation, only now it was playing out between founders and experienced legal executives, again and again.

Founders and Experienced Legal Executives Are Often Speaking Different Languages

One of the things I enjoy most about what I do is helping founders think through how legal fits into the next stage of their company's growth.

Those conversations almost never begin with titles. They begin with practical questions.

"We're getting close to needing someone in-house."

"How do we know when we've outgrown outside counsel?"

"At what point do companies usually hire their first General Counsel?"

They're all great questions.

Somewhere along the way, though, the words General Counsel almost always enter the conversation. That's perfectly understandable. For decades, the business world has used General Counsel to mean the company's senior lawyer, and most founders have never had a reason to think about it any differently.

That's usually the moment I realize we're speaking two different languages.

Not because anyone is wrong.

The business world has continued using the language it has always used, while the legal profession has continued refining the way it describes legal leadership as legal departments have grown larger, more sophisticated, and more integrated into executive leadership.

Interestingly, that doesn't mean General Counsel is somehow the wrong title. In fact, many of the senior legal leaders in our own Fractional Chief Legal Office proudly use the title General Counsel, and I think that's exactly right. They're serving as a company's fractional General Counsel today while helping founders build the legal function they'll need tomorrow.

The conversation changes, however, when founders stop thinking about the next legal hire and start thinking about the executive who will eventually lead the legal function.

That's where I often find myself translating. Founders are using the language the business world has used for decades. Experienced legal executives are hearing the language the legal profession uses today.

Neither side is wrong.

They're simply speaking different languages.

So What's the Difference?

Rug Doctor asked exactly the right question.

"What's the difference?"

And today, more and more founders are asking the same question as legal becomes a more strategic part of growing companies.

The difference isn't necessarily in the work. I've known exceptional General Counsel who reported directly to the CEO, advised the board, and were every bit the strategic business leader you'd expect from a Chief Legal Officer. I've also seen General Counsel roles that reported to the CFO, focused primarily on commercial contracts, or were one of several senior legal leaders within a larger legal department.

That's exactly the point.

General Counsel is a title that naturally invites questions. Chief Legal Officer communicates many of those answers before the conversation even begins.

That's why founders and experienced legal executives can walk away from the same conversation believing they completely understand each other, when in reality they're picturing two very different organizational structures.

What Happens When a Founder Says, "We're Hiring a General Counsel"

Experienced legal executives don't hear a title. They hear a series of unanswered.

What Happens When a Founder Says, "We're Hiring a Chief Legal Officer"

Notice how little changed. The conversation sounds remarkably similar, but the title has already answered many of those same questions.

The General Counsel conversation naturally creates questions. The Chief Legal Officer conversation answers many of those same questions before they're ever asked. That's why experienced legal executives ask follow-up questions when they hear the title General Counsel, not because they're looking for a fancier title that doesn't mean anything. Quite the opposite. They're trying to understand the reporting structure, the authority of the role, and whether the opportunity matches the title.

Before someone jumps into the comments to tell me that titles don't matter, let me say this. I agree that a title, by itself, doesn't make someone a leader. But it absolutely can communicate how an organization views that role.

In the legal profession, reporting relationships matter because independence matters. Governance matters. Access to the company's ultimate decision-makers matters. Whether that's the CEO, a founder, or, in some organizations, direct interaction with the board, the message is the same. The company's senior legal executive is trusted to provide independent advice, participate in executive decision-making, and lead the legal function without being filtered through another executive. That level of trust, autonomy, and executive alignment isn't a perk. It's what allows the role to function as intended.

That's what experienced legal executives are trying to understand. They aren't reading a business card. They're reading the organization's view of legal. Does legal have a genuine seat at the executive table? Is legal viewed as a strategic business function? Will the legal leader have the independence and authority necessary to fulfill the role? Those aren't questions of ego. They're questions of governance.

The Better Question

After everything I've written, you may be expecting me to tell you whether your company should hire a General Counsel or a Chief Legal Officer.

I don't think that's the right question.

The better question is this: When you picture your company three, five, or even ten years from now, what role do you want legal to play?

That's a very different conversation than deciding what title belongs on a job posting.

When you're raising capital, acquiring another company, responding to a government investigation, navigating a cybersecurity incident, or making one of the hardest decisions your company has ever faced, where do you see your legal leader? Do you picture legal reviewing contracts after everyone else has already decided what to do? Or do you picture legal sitting beside the CEO or founder, helping shape those decisions before they're made?

If you picture the latter, you're thinking about more than hiring a lawyer. You're thinking about the kind of company you're building.

You're also thinking about ownership.

A company's senior legal executive doesn't simply provide legal advice. They own the legal function. They report directly to the CEO or founder, serve as a trusted advisor to leadership and the board, and are accountable for building, leading, and protecting that function. They're not simply practicing law. They're helping lead the business.

Because legal doesn't become strategic the day someone changes a title from General Counsel to Chief Legal Officer. It becomes strategic the day leadership decides legal belongs in the room before the important decisions are made. Most companies don't start there. They grow into it.

That's why I believe founders should think about legal as something they build over time, not something they simply hire.

Titles don't create authority. They communicate it.

The destination isn't Chief Legal Officer. The destination is building the legal function your company will need as it grows.

About Unified CLO

Most founders don't wake up one morning needing a full-time Chief Legal Officer.

They grow into it.

That's where Unified CLO comes in.

We're a Fractional Chief Legal Office that serves as a company's senior legal leadership during the critical stage between relying primarily on outside counsel and hiring a full-time legal executive. We help founders intentionally build the legal function their company needs today while preparing for the one they'll need tomorrow.

Unlike a recruiting or executive search firm, we don't place General Counsel or Chief Legal Officers. We serve as your company's fractional senior legal executive, working alongside your leadership team until the time is right to hire a permanent legal leader.

If you're asking questions like:

• When is it time to bring legal in-house?

• Do we need a General Counsel yet?

• How should we build our legal function over the next three to five years?

...those are exactly the conversations we have every day.