Legal education for Executives? Forum

[hyperiate]

Question for those practicing an in-house legal -- particularly for large global corporations: Would you find it beneficial if the executives you worked with had deeper legal knowledge, even if they did not have a JD?

I'm currently in a non-legal mid-to-senior executive role in a global financial services company focusing on commercial strategy and operations and trying to determine whether a Masters of Legal Studies degree (paid for by the company) is a useful supplement to my Top 20 MBA or a waste of time and money.

I was pre-law in undergrad with a degree in Political Science but went into consulting and stayed in business instead of pursuing law. That familiarity has helped me engage with our in-house team, which I do regularly given the area I work in and global scope.

I want to continue taking classes and take advantage of our generous tuition reimbursement program, and I'm looking at online Master of Legal Studies degrees -- specifically the program at Cornell. I have no desire or ability to leave work and practice law as a profession, just to broaden my skillset, engage with internal and external counsel more effectively, and better understand the legal ramifications of business decisions I make.

I know the typical answer for MLS degrees is "why not just go to law school? you can't take the bar with that" but I feel like my situation is a good fit for what an MLS degree does and does not do. I'm interested in perspective on whether you, as inside counsel, would view that education as a benefit in the non-attorneys you work with.

[Anonymous User]

Question for those practicing an in-house legal -- particularly for large global corporations: Would you find it beneficial if the executives you worked with had deeper legal knowledge, even if they did not have a JD?

I'm currently in a non-legal mid-to-senior executive role in a global financial services company focusing on commercial strategy and operations and trying to determine whether a Masters of Legal Studies degree (paid for by the company) is a useful supplement to my Top 20 MBA or a waste of time and money.

I was pre-law in undergrad with a degree in Political Science but went into consulting and stayed in business instead of pursuing law. That familiarity has helped me engage with our in-house team, which I do regularly given the area I work in and global scope.

I want to continue taking classes and take advantage of our generous tuition reimbursement program, and I'm looking at online Master of Legal Studies degrees -- specifically the program at Cornell. I have no desire or ability to leave work and practice law as a profession, just to broaden my skillset, engage with internal and external counsel more effectively, and better understand the legal ramifications of business decisions I make.

I know the typical answer for MLS degrees is "why not just go to law school? you can't take the bar with that" but I feel like my situation is a good fit for what an MLS degree does and does not do. I'm interested in perspective on whether you, as inside counsel, would view that education as a benefit in the non-attorneys you work with.

Well, I have two different answers, although in fairness I think you also are asking different questions. Would I as a lawyer find it beneficial if executives I worked with had deeper legal knowledge? Probably not, and the very opposite might be true. Executives who are very good at working with lawyers are the ones who recognize the limits of their own expertise, and how to properly reconcile legal advice with their business judgment. The worst executives are the ones who fail to recognize those boundaries, often resulting in a refusal to respect legal expertise. I am unconvinced that merely giving an executive a legal education would change that equation. And I fear that it actually makes the equation much worse. The only thing worse than no knowledge is a little knowledge.

Reinforcing that point is the fact that some of the worst clients I have are actually lawyers or executives with J.D. law degrees. Some of the dumbest ideas I've heard on legal questions or topics have come from lawyers who do not practice in my area but still want to be pushy about their viewpoints, without deferring to actual experts in the field.

Is it a waste of time and money? Well that totally different question goes more to your personal ambitions and career satisfaction. If you have the ability to get an MLS for free, I am not seeing a huge downside from your perspective.

[nealric]

Question for those practicing an in-house legal -- particularly for large global corporations: Would you find it beneficial if the executives you worked with had deeper legal knowledge, even if they did not have a JD?

I'm currently in a non-legal mid-to-senior executive role in a global financial services company focusing on commercial strategy and operations and trying to determine whether a Masters of Legal Studies degree (paid for by the company) is a useful supplement to my Top 20 MBA or a waste of time and money.

I was pre-law in undergrad with a degree in Political Science but went into consulting and stayed in business instead of pursuing law. That familiarity has helped me engage with our in-house team, which I do regularly given the area I work in and global scope.

I want to continue taking classes and take advantage of our generous tuition reimbursement program, and I'm looking at online Master of Legal Studies degrees -- specifically the program at Cornell. I have no desire or ability to leave work and practice law as a profession, just to broaden my skillset, engage with internal and external counsel more effectively, and better understand the legal ramifications of business decisions I make.

I know the typical answer for MLS degrees is "why not just go to law school? you can't take the bar with that" but I feel like my situation is a good fit for what an MLS degree does and does not do. I'm interested in perspective on whether you, as inside counsel, would view that education as a benefit in the non-attorneys you work with.

Well, I have two different answers, although in fairness I think you also are asking different questions. Would I as a lawyer find it beneficial if executives I worked with had deeper legal knowledge? Probably not, and the very opposite might be true. Executives who are very good at working with lawyers are the ones who recognize the limits of their own expertise, and how to properly reconcile legal advice with their business judgment. The worst executives are the ones who fail to recognize those boundaries, often resulting in a refusal to respect legal expertise. I am unconvinced that merely giving an executive a legal education would change that equation. And I fear that it actually makes the equation much worse. The only thing worse than no knowledge is a little knowledge.

Reinforcing that point is the fact that some of the worst clients I have are actually lawyers or executives with J.D. law degrees. Some of the dumbest ideas I've heard on legal questions or topics have come from lawyers who do not practice in my area but still want to be pushy about their viewpoints, without deferring to actual experts in the field.

Is it a waste of time and money? Well that totally different question goes more to your personal ambitions and career satisfaction. If you have the ability to get an MLS for free, I am not seeing a huge downside from your perspective.

I tend to agree with this perspective as an in-house person. A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.