SiteMeter brought to my attention an oddity about this blog. Far and away, the most read post by numbers of visits was one that I published on March 22, 2006. This blockbuster has attracted 134 visits, dwarfing the next most frequently visited post that had only 79 visits. I believe this means it is the post that searches on Google, Bing or other engines turned up and people clicked through to read the most.
The alluring subject of the post is “What’s the difference between General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer?”
GCs plumping for a plumper title must hope to find arguments for becoming the CLO. I don’t perceive any legitimate distinctions, although Chief Legal Officer has slightly broader and grander connotations to me. In any event, in a first for this blog, worthy of the eminence of the post nearly six years ago, here is a stripped down version of the classic:
“The title “General Counsel” has a longer lineage than the modern “Chief Legal Officer.” … Where a company has groups of lawyers reporting to a business unit, such as Nokia and its eight legal departments each headed by a “Vice President, Legal,” then the company often distinguishes the top lawyer with the sobriquet “Chief Legal Officer.” CLO also elevates the legal leader to the so-called C-Suite, the titular peer of the Chief Financial Officer …, Chief Marketing Officer, and Chief Technology Officer …. Finally, GC implies the common array of legal functions – litigation, corporate secretary, and law-school course counseling. Chief Legal Officer connotes to me a broader portfolio, such as compliance, risk management, ethics, lobbying and the like.”