An outside general counsel proposal is difficult to compare on price until the work is defined. A monthly fee might purchase reserved lawyer time, recurring work within a stated scope, or access to counsel with matters billed separately. Those arrangements create different costs even when the monthly headline looks similar.
This article explains how to compare proposals. It does not quote a monthly price for Org Law’s TrueGC engagement; that requires an agreed scope.
What is the firm taking responsibility for?
Consider an organization with recurring customer contracts, quarterly board meetings, and occasional employment questions. One proposal includes contract review when requested. Another also includes maintaining the contract standards, identifying recurring exceptions, preparing the legal portion of board materials, and following up on unresolved matters.
The second proposal contains work the first does not. Whether the additional work is worth paying for depends on who would otherwise do it and whether the organization needs that continuity. Counting the number of documents reviewed misses that difference.
Separate a spending commitment from a capacity commitment
A fixed monthly payment does not, by itself, promise a particular response time or unlimited work. A bank of hours does not establish which lawyer will be available for an urgent board issue. A discount on hourly rates does not place responsibility for recurring work with the firm.
The useful comparison identifies the recurring deliverables, who performs them, the expected turnaround, and what happens when demand exceeds the agreed capacity. If unused hours expire, that affects the cost of a quiet month. If work above the allowance is billed separately, that affects the cost of a busy one.
Compare an ordinary month and an unusual one
For the organization above, an ordinary month might involve two customer contracts, an employment question, and a management meeting. An unusual month might add an executive departure and a threatened contract dispute. These are hypothetical workloads, not assumed service inclusions.
A proposal can be economical for recurring work yet leave the unusual matters entirely outside its scope. That can be a sensible arrangement. The organization needs to know whether separate approval, another firm, or an additional budget will be required before treating the monthly figure as its legal budget.
Specialist work, litigation, major transactions, government charges, and third-party expenses deserve explicit treatment. If outside specialists are involved, the proposal should distinguish their fees from the general counsel’s work coordinating the matter.
Transition costs belong in the comparison
Learning the entity structure, reviewing existing contracts, and resolving inherited issues can consume substantial effort at the beginning. A proposal that includes this work is different from one that prices only future requests. The same is true at the end: handing over open matters and records takes work even after routine service stops.
The decision is whether the proposed arrangement covers the legal function the organization actually needs at a cost it can plan for. A lower monthly fee is useful only if leadership also understands the work, capacity, and additional charges behind it.
For the broader engagement decision, see The Executive’s Guide to Outside General Counsel. TrueGC describes Org Law’s approach to ongoing counsel.
